> They don't list _arbitrary_ third parties. For example, Mastercard tells everyone...
Not sure if you mean Google or Mastercard doesn't list third parties?
You seem to be conflating Mastercards's PCI compliance requirements[1] with their data sales to companies like Equifax[2] and others, which is an extremely opaque trade and not disclosed.
> Enough information that informed consent can be considered. It isn't specified, because it were, then companies would work around it. Australia makes use of a Common Law system, that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated.
Exactly, and I don't believe that any court would find that they need to specify "that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc". I'd note that the ACCC isn't making that claim either.
> that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated
Well "reasonable" is decided the courts, so it is litigated.
Not sure if you mean Google or Mastercard doesn't list third parties?
You seem to be conflating Mastercards's PCI compliance requirements[1] with their data sales to companies like Equifax[2] and others, which is an extremely opaque trade and not disclosed.
> Enough information that informed consent can be considered. It isn't specified, because it were, then companies would work around it. Australia makes use of a Common Law system, that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated.
Exactly, and I don't believe that any court would find that they need to specify "that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc". I'd note that the ACCC isn't making that claim either.
> that which is "reasonable", rather than that which can be litigated
Well "reasonable" is decided the courts, so it is litigated.
[1] https://www.mastercard.com.au/en-au/merchants/safety-securit...
[2] https://www.equifax.com.au/about-us