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.
GDPR for the win! Just copy it.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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?