Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmakers Pass Bill To Give Consumers Broad Privacy Rights (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A major privacy bill on the table in California on Thursday could reshape how Silicon Valley does business. If the bill becomes law, people living in the Golden State can tell companies to stop collecting or selling their personal data. In two votes Thursday, the state's Senate and Assembly both passed the bill in an effort to get it on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk by the end of the day. The tight deadline comes courtesy of an even stricter voter initiative that will appear on California ballots this November if lawmakers can't get the bill through by 5 p.m. PT Thursday. The bill -- AB 375, or the California Consumer Privacy Act -- turns the tech world's business model on its head by letting regular internet users ask for the data a company has collected on them and who it's sold that data to. That alone could be eye-opening for consumers. Most people understand their online activity is being tracked for targeted advertising, but we don't have a broad understanding of what data's being used. If Gov. Jerry Brown signs this bill on Thursday, Californians will have increased control over their personal data -- and one less thing to vote on in November.
Fuck the half assed bill they want to pass.
Let's see what they do with our data!
I know the CARB is basically the kick-start to nation-wide regulations. Here's hoping CA can pave the way for privacy for the rest of us.
Attempts to control, what other people remember about you, are tyrannical and (until very recently) unprecedented.
Once you tell other people something, the information is theirs. There is no basis to allow control of other people's heads, notebooks, or computers...
The only remotely sensible thing — for the authoritarianism-minded — is to ban discrimination based on the customer's unwillingness to share data not essential to the service provision. For example, an auto-repair facility does not need your home address — and so can't refuse to repair your car because you wouldn't fill out the form in full.
Similarly, sites like Quora may be banned from enforcing the "real name" policy.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why not opt-in instead? As in, companies cannot sell your personal information without your express permission.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I live in California. It'll never split.
They've talked about that for decades.
If we did split, I'd want to start charging those mooches in LA for taking our water (from northern california).
We're always in a perpetual drought because those idiots decided to live in a desert.
As for where you'd want to live, my guess is you'd want to go where Sacramento is. That'll be Northern California. I assume the laws would follow the capitol.
If this is already on it's way to being a ballot initiative then passing a light weight version to discourage voters seems like weaksauce.
So, basically, you like CA politics and policies, but you don't want to live there because "reasons"? You should try it some time. It's neither as crazy, nor as left wing as many people living in red states (or red states of mind) would like you to believe.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I am disappoint.
So why does a house you can build just about anywhere for $250,000 cost $1 Million in California.
This is a common misperception. The cost is in the land, not the house itself.
In places where land is cheap, the cost of the structure that sits on the land is significant. In California (and the Bay Area specifically) the cost of the structure is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Because it's worth it to live in California.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So why does a house you can build just about anywhere for $250,000 cost $1 Million in California.
That statement is not true in all of California, mainly only for the bay area. As long as there is a housing shortage in the bay area (which there is) and as long as companies pay high salaries (which they do) you will have people with the means and willingness to spend a million on a house.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
Data mining isn'r really 'tech'.
It's salescrittership that makes use of tech.
German here.
You guys are so extreme on the right side, that right wing extremism (like the "democatic" arm of your corporate oligarchy) seems "left" in comparison to the completely batshit insane (like the even more neocon "republican" arm).
And I can prove it:
Look up Reagan's policy decisions.
Now look up the "democrats"' policy decisions.
Reagan is far left of the latter. QED.
I'm German and I see all the patterns of how it started here in your country. (We have years of mandatory history lessons on that in schools here.)
Economic depression, crumbling empire, people longing to feel pride again and lookinh for a scapegoat, leader that is good at sweet-talking them, while being extreme and radical at heart. (Like Bushobamatrump.)
Plus a war-based economy and concentration camps ready... err, I mean " black sites" and Cheney's massive prisons. Aaand ALL the hairs go up on me.
Please be safe, guys. We don't want you to dig in the rubble looking for food stamps, ten years from now, like we did.
If only we didn't have to adhere to things like building & fire codes, we could save a fortune!! Go check out a country where they have no building codes some time and then decide if that's how you want to live.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well yeah, nails and wood cost a lot more than old refrigerator boxes and duck tape.
So why does a house you can build just about anywhere for $250,000 cost $1 Million in California.
This is a common misperception. The cost is in the land, not the house itself.
In places where land is cheap, the cost of the structure that sits on the land is significant. In California (and the Bay Area specifically) the cost of the structure is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.
This is a common misconception. Paying the workers to build the house in high cost areas is more expensive because they are paid more than people in low cost areas. Materials also cost more in high cost of living areas. You can see the difference at grocery stores, gas stations, etc....high cost of living areas have higher overhead costs (wages, taxes, and other expenses) that are passed along to those consumers.
Just another day in Paradise
Right...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.bizjournals.com/sa...
Just another day in Paradise
False equivalence. GP spoke specifically about Seattle. Yet the study points to other areas of this country (and yes, they have building and fire codes) that don't have such exorbitant costs. The skyrocketing costs in Seattle didn't come about by the addition of building and fire codes.
"Economist Theo Eicher of the University of Washington has published research indicating that regulation has added $200,000 to house prices in Seattle between 1989 and 2006. "
Just another day in Paradise
Wrong again Captain Stainypants... It's the location.
The land isn't portable, so I would have thought location would be obvious. But please, by all means: go ahead and be snarky. Makes you look intelligent-like.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
It's not the land. It's the many layers of corrupt government. It is not possible to legally build a house.
I've seen actual houses being built, right here in my neighborhood, where none used to stand. I've also seen several large lots combined and then subdivided into Planned Unit Developments, basically single-family homes spaced fairly close together. I've seen apartment complexes (both large and small) built on former industrial or commercial space. I've seen the office park where I used to work torn down and turned into mixed-use residential / retail, a very popular option these days.
In fact, there are lots of housing projects going on here in the Bay Area.
So when you say that it's "not possible to legally build a house", I assume you mean that what you actually meant to say is that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
This is a common misconception. Paying the workers to build the house in high cost areas is more expensive because they are paid more than people in low cost areas. Materials also cost more in high cost of living areas.
These are true statements, but they are a very small fraction of the worth of a "house", which is actually really land + house. If you want proof of that, all you need do is peruse the county tax records -- Santa Clara County will do, but you could also choose San Mateo County or San Francisco County -- and look at the assessed value of almost any given property. Included in those assessments will be a line item called "Improvements" (the exact wording varies) which refers to the structure(s) on the land.
Now subtract the improvements from the assessed value. What remains is almost invariably (in the Bay Area) a fairly big number that dwarfs the "Improvements".
Go on, check it out. We'll wait.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
You're greatly overestimating the impact of labor cost on the overall cost of housing in high-demand areas. Existing housing is oftentimes more expensive than new housing - not because it cost more to build, but because older houses are in older neighborhoods closer to city centers, where property values are higher because the location is more desirable. Why else do you think so many people are able to choose to buy a larger new house in an exurb rather than the smaller, older house they could buy for the same money in the city?
And companies cannot require you give them a kidney as payment to use their service. There limitations to what can legally be demanded of customers - why should personal data not be protected in the same way?
There are too many people in California. It is helpful that some leave.
Also, we just went from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest economy in the world.
And, the number of people who have left is about 100,000. There are 39.54 MILLION people living in California. However, and for some reason, this is not discussed in any of those articles, based on the same op-ed, that you cited: THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA IS STILL GROWING. That means people are still coming here in far greater numbers than those who leave. So in the past year alone, 250,000 people decided it was worth it to move to California. And judging from the looks of things in my little corner, they are doing pretty darn well.
You are welcome on my lawn.
cite:
http://worldpopulationreview.c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think the census info in the articles I provided is likely more accurate than your random site.
Just another day in Paradise
From the first article: "more people moved out of California to other states than moved in from other states"
And yes, it's only a fraction of the population, but that population growth isn't coming from other states. It's immigrants, and new children. The size of your economy should be helping you with all of those folks living on your streets, but apparently that's not working out so well.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/1...
But don't worry, it's only about 134,000 people as of 2017 (up 13.7% from the year before)
Just another day in Paradise
My favorite thing is when people from flyover states like to imagine California as this giant homeless camp. I assure you, that is not the case. California is nearly 40 MILLION people, spread over 100 million acres. All beautiful.
And did you know that there are more homeless in Houston than San Francisco? And, they cause much bigger problems.
Did you know the number of homeless people in Dallas has jumped 23% in the same time period? The hard truth is, homelessness is increasing at a greater rate nationally than it is in California.
But by all means, spread the word that California is a hell-hole. Nobody should come here. If I was the last person who moved to California (when I came here from Houston last year), that would suit me just fine. Now excuse me, I'm going to go surf at Pismo Beach.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You would think so, except for one thing. The CNBC reporter, who is a guy named Jeff Daniels (a former entertainment reporter and GOP "consultant") makes his living writing poorly-sourced and misleading articles about California. You can check this for yourself. Also, because there is a big problem with using net population numbers instead of percentages: California is the most populous state in the United States. One in every eight Americans lives in California.
And if you get inside those "census numbers", you will see something very interesting. Did you know what state is second in people moving out? Texas. That's right, during the same decade when 3.5 million Californians moved elsewhere, 2.5 million Texans also moved elsewhere (according to last census). And yet BOTH STATES GAINED POPULATION. Do you know why this is? Because people in the United States move around. That's what we do. People move in people move out. But one thing is definite: If you rank all the states by how likely people are to move away, California ranks dead last. That's correct. People are less likely to leave California than any other state in the US.
I'm going to repeat that again for you: California residents are less likely to move out of the state than residents of any other state in the US.
https://www.ocregister.com/201...
You are welcome on my lawn.
People are less likely to leave California than any other state in the US.
I'm going to repeat that again for you: California residents are less likely to move out of the state than residents of any other state in the US.
That depends on the demographic group. California is #1 in population, but #45 in percentage of retirees (World Atlas: Percentage Of Senior Citizens By State).
In other words, people are moving away in huge numbers when they retire, due to the high cost of living. Given the fantastic weather in California, this is particularly noteworthy - many people move to get better weather when they retire, but that's clearly not the key consideration here.
A middle class couple, with a house, moving from a town in California to a town in Florida would probably save 20k-25k a year, due to the differences in taxes and cost-of-living. The amount would be even higher for people leaving one of the big cities.
According to Schlomach (2017), econometric studies show that 64-73% of the cost of living differences of US states can be accounted for by government policy differences, so the high cost of houses (or land) in California is probably due primarily to government policy, not supply and demand. In other words, supply and demand still play a role, but it's swamped by the consequences of government policy decisions.
Lindsey and Teles (2017, The Captured Economy) suggest that government policies involving rent-seeking on the part of special interest groups are a big part of the high cost of housing.
In other words, the combination of corrupt or incompetent government, as well as unethical practice of law, seems to play a key role in the cost of living in California.
Lindset and Teles also state that historical migration patterns of the poor to the cities of California as places of opportunity have changed significantly in recent decades due to cost of housing issues.
California ranks #35 in percentage of poor among US states (Wikipedia). This could suggest they have very good programs for the poor, but given that the person with an average income in Mississippi has more useful spending power than in California (again Schlomach), this actually suggests instead that the poor are also moving elsewhere in large numbers, along with the retirees (there is of course some overlap between those groups).
Similarly, California has fewer military personnel, relative to it's population, than many other states (~12% of the population, 9% of the military). This is despite the importance of the West Coast ports - which would suggest a higher military presence - so here the military is clearly following a deliberate policy of moving people on relatively low incomes away from California (they probably would have even fewer there, if it weren't for the existence of government owned land with housing, the ownership of which goes back to WW2 or even earlier - land that is probably immensely valuable right now).
Collectively, this suggests California is a very bad place to be for those on a low income, and these people are probably moving away in large numbers to places where the cost of living is lower, but being replaced by people with higher incomes or other forms of support (such as an extended family where people take care of each other). Even with high incomes, a lot of technical folks that move to California are sharing a rental, not owning a home.
As the saying goes, California would be a fantastic place to live if it weren't for the government and most of the existing population.
Did you know that a smaller percentage of retirees leave California than other states. We are #1 across all demographics when it comes to retaining population.
Again, if you live in California, you less likely to move away than the residents of any other state in the US. That's the one statistic that makes the entire argument nothing more than wishful thinking from jealous flyover populations. Why is the rest of the country so focused - so obsessed - with California and how we do things? Nobody's asking you to come here.
You are correct. We are a state with a lot of successful people. If you can't make it here, there's always shithole states like Texas.
You make the mistake of confusing the Bay Area with all of California. It's a big place. There are places that are expensive and places that are not expensive. SF skews the numbers. Personally, I have found that living here is cheaper than living in Houston.
See, this is what I mean. There is a bitterness that the rest of the US feels toward California. Envy is a monster.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thank you. The locals say it's gotten a lot better since people like you left.
You are welcome on my lawn.