Governator Kills Data Protection Law

eweekhickins writes "The Governator has killed a recent data protection law in California, and it won't be back. Using a tried-and-true argument, that the bill would have 'driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses,' California Governor Arnold Schwartzenneger vetoed what some are calling one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws."

Comments

"Governator"? Are we in 6th grade here?

[Tetsujin]

C'mon, I mean, seriously - whether or not you respect the man he has a name and a title, and you've used neither...

Levels of Compliance?

[nonsequitor]

Couldn't they redraft the law such that there are several levels of compliance. If you deal with the info of less than 100 individuals you would have the least amount of requirements to meet, 1000 individuals would put you in the next level, and so on. That way the biggest targets are required to be the most secure, and the more information they deal with, the higher their compliance level would be.

It can be, if you want any small business

[Sycraft-fu]

When you deal with small businesses you are dealing with few employees, few resources, and so on. As such what they can do is limited. Now if you don't like small business, fair enough, but then remember that the alternative is large conglomerates like Microsoft.

So if you do want small businesses around, you have to make sure that you don't pass laws that force them out. For example, suppose you decided that in the interests of accessibility and such all businesses should be required to be able to take phone calls in any language that a sizable minority of Americans speak. So it turns out that companies need to support like 20 languages. For a large company, no problem, they grumble about it, hire more operators, raise prices and are done. A small business just shuts down, since they just cannot hire that many staff, even if they wanted to.

Now that's not to say that small businesses need a free pass on everything, but having the attitude of "They need to do this, I don't care how hard it is," is what leads to them going out of business and you having to shop at Walmart and buy MS. Big companies can play the game and deal with the stupid laws. The small ones can be killed by it.

Re:Too much effort to comply IS an excuse

[bjourne]

With all the taxes that I pay, I could hire another employee. But these well-meaning legislators have effectively fired him before I could ever hire him. That argument is quite stupid. Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary. If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant. Or you don't have a use for a new employee, which means that $value_of_work less than $salary, which means no hire. Tax has nothing to do with that decision. It's a great way to raise sympathy for your cause though (more money). However, no business owner would rather hire someone than pocket the money if the latter is more profitable.

Re:Too much effort to comply IS an excuse

[Harmonious Botch]

Your calulations are overly simplistic.

You are assuming that every dollar is of equal value to me. This is not the case. This is an instance of diminishing returns.

As the business earns more money, I can make the decision to either do the work myself or to hire someone to do it. Initially to meet my living expenses, I'll do all the work myself ( yes, there were times when I did 80+ hour weeks ). But, after earning a comfortable living, I am now making the decision: do I want more time or more money. When I hire the new employee, I do less work.

If I had more disposable income, I would buy more time. ( ie: I would hire an additional person )


Furthermore, employees do not exist in a vaccuum. They require places to work. And real estate cannot be allocated piecemeal like ram. One cannot assign a profit-per-person value to an employee and expect to implement it repeatedly. If one could, then every business would be crammed with employees like sardines in a can.

Re:Too much effort to comply IS an excuse

[khallow]

Either you have a use for a new employee, which means that you earn more money from his or her work than it costs you in salary. If you do, then the taxes on your business is irrelevant.

I don't see why it's so difficult for you to understand, if you raise the taxes or regulation cost per employee on a business, then it's easy to cross over the threshhold where you no longer earn more from that employee than it costs you in salary and increase in mandated expenses. In addition to direct expenses per employee, you have to train the employee to deal with the new regulations and bureaucracy grows as the employee base grows and as the regulation burden grows. Second, there's the matter of cash flow. The weaker a business's cash flow the harder it is for them to expand their business. Regulations like this consume cash flow. The business has to spend to stay in compliance.

Data protection in EU prove Schwartzneger false

[aepervius]

They don't seem to close or kill small business in EU, isn't it ? Last time I looked the big conglomerate were not the main employer in many country, the small enterprise cover more than 50% of the jobs (66% for France for example), with an increasing tendency in the last few years (~60% 1985 for France up to 66+% today, I took the example of France because this is the first which came up in google). So REALLY if data protection law killed small enterprise, we would know by now.
PS: Although I must admit that there are dissenting voice saying that now big enterprise make the bulk of the economy near the 51% if you count small filial as belonging to the main big enterprise. See TUC report for UK for example.