Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Lawmakers Advance Last-Minute Data Privacy Bill (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the better-late-than-never dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: California state senators advanced a last-minute internet privacy bill Tuesday ahead of a deadline while acknowledging it would need changes if it becomes law. The bill would let consumers ask companies what personal data they collect and opt out of having their data sold, among other privacy provisions. Lawmakers voted to pass the measure, AB375, out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill is aimed at keeping a related initiative off the November ballot. Lawmakers negotiated it with San Francisco housing developer Alastair Mactaggart, who spent millions of dollars to place the initiative on the ballot. He said he would pull the measure from the ballot if the bill is signed into law by the Thursday deadline to withdraw initiatives. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee, a spokeswoman for co-author Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, said. The full Assembly and Senate each plan to vote on the bill Thursday. Gov. Jerry Brown's office has not said whether he will sign it.

12 of 32 comments (clear)

  1. I love this part by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    > The bill would let consumers ask companies what personal data they collect and opt out of having their data sold, among other privacy provisions.

    This badly needs to happen. ...I cant imagine companies like Facebook actually playing along with it for a single moment though, even if they claim they are.

    1. Re:I love this part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably wont play along. But I can see them instituting a "Check this box to pay with credit card" or "Check this box to allow us to collect personal information", then they can say they are waiving the $whatever monthly charge to use the service if you give them your info to sell.

    2. Re:I love this part by drew_kime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you dont like facebook using your data, then dont use it.

      If I don't use Facebook, they still collect my data from friends who do use it, and from sites I visit.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    3. Re:I love this part by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Browsers have Add Ons to stop that kind of social media tracking.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:I love this part by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Browsers have Add Ons to stop that kind of social media tracking.

      Presuming you mean about "...from the sites I visit" what about the first part of GP's comment?
      If I make a post on Facebook that says "I ran into AHuxley while at the $location", and Facebook uses that data as part of all the data it has on your (shadow?) account, what Browser Add On prevents that from happening?

    5. Re:I love this part by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The hope is to stop 2nd and 3rd and 4th party sites with social media links from tracking random people outside any social media interaction.
      Should a person have a social media account and use that account then tracking could be expected.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:I love this part by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Browsers have Add Ons to stop that kind of social media tracking.

      Which browser add on do I install to prevent people I know from sharing their address book with Facebook?

      --
      Nope, no sig
  2. I'd rather have the initiative by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Otherwise who knows what kind of skullduggery the Sacto slimeballs will bury into their version.

    1. Re:I'd rather have the initiative by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      No, I've been watching these bozos for 40+ years now. See also Net Neutrality, from just last week.

    2. Re:I'd rather have the initiative by dszd0g · · Score: 2

      I agree with you. I think the fine is a little heavy handed in the initiative; my perfect version would have the fines from the legislative version. Personally, I don't think either version goes far enough as I would much rather an opt-in system like GDPR than an opt-out system. Ideally a statement in the bill that said a company that is GDPR compliant is complaint with this bill would be nice (making it easier for companies to have fewer compliance requirements).

      The legislative version has a few major loopholes:
      * If a company ties your information to a device ID instead of to your name, they avoid the regulation and don't have to tell you about the information they have on you.
      * The initiative includes both selling and sharing while the legislative one is selling only so companies that enter agreements to share information with each other have a loophole.
      * The initiative prevents companies from charging more to those who opt out while the legislative version has a loophole that allows it.
      * The initiative requires them to tell you which company they sold your information to while the legislative version just requires that they tell you the category (like insurance company). This is not sufficiently informative in my opinion.

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  3. Is This Good? by mentil · · Score: 1

    Is this the version that had its teeth removed by adding some huge loopholes?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Is This Good? by shplopt · · Score: 1

      That's actually a different bill that would uphold net neutrality in California. This one is a bill related to collecting and selling personal information. There's a ballot initiative that would enforce informed consent and prevent telcos from charging higher fees for those that opt-out of data collection. This bill is a watered down, but still significant version of that. This is the most detailed article I could find about it: https://gizmodo.com/california...