Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

California Lawmakers Pass Bill To Give Consumers Broad Privacy Rights (cnet.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Lawmakers Pass Bill To Give Consumers Broad Privacy Rights More

California Lawmakers Pass Bill To Give Consumers Broad Privacy Rights

Comments Filter:
  • Fuck the half assed bill they want to pass.

    Let's see what they do with our data!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Fuck the half assed bill they want to pass.

      Let's see what they do with our data!

      Telling you what they do with your data is meaningless if you don't have the ability to do anything about it.

      Unless you can tell them to stop tracking you and stop collecting data, then this is all just meaningless theatrics.

  • 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.

    • Re:Please let this start a tidal wave (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:25PM (#56861470)

      GDPR for the win! Just copy it.

    • Please go to hell. CARB is one of the shittiest things California has ever done. If cars pass tailpipe emissions they ought to be legal. That's not how CARB works. If there is anything non-factory on your car not licensed for your year/make/model by the state of California that's an automatic fail.

      • bullshit, 100%

        I had a dinan m3 once (not bragging, bought it used) with many aftermarket toys that would not even come close to OEM values for my car.

        every year it passed. I live in the bay area.

        I did worry since the previous owner installed almost every dinan toy made. but the car always passed.

        its one data point, but it was a heavily modified car.

        • So you had a factory blessed modified M3 that had all the correct paperwork filed with the state. Most aftermarket suppliers cannot afford to pay for that sort of thing, especially on niche cars. It doesn't mean their emissions are any worse than your Dinan or AMG or Hellkitty, just that they haven't crossed CARBs palms with silver.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        VW diesels all pass the tailpipe test but they are a lot dirtier in every other condition.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          VW diesels all pass the tailpipe test but they are a lot dirtier in every other condition.

          Only because their parents taught them how to cheat on the test.

        • So VW cheating now excuses a practice California has had for over a decade? I recently failed an emissions test for an "unapproved" catalytic converter . The thing is, it was approved when installed in this state 8 years ago, but the manufacturer was bought by a different company so the numbers don't match what's in the system. That's a load of crap.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            I'll grant that particular issue is a load of crap, but your "solution" is probably too far in the other direction.

            VW's cheating started 10 years ago.

            Perhaps you should sue the company that bought the manufacturer for screwing up the paperwork.

            • My solution is much more basic. If you (effectively) outlaw post 1975 cars that are more than 10 years old that is all I will drive. I have tried very hard to keep 1980s and 1990s cars alive but if you can't buy OEM parts and non-OEM parts are a an automatic fail...do the math.

              If you'd rather I drive 1960s era cars so be it. We can go from fuel injection systems, multiple catalytic converters, etc to Stromberg carburators and none of those things since those are automatically excluded from this nonsense.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                I believe someone else already pointed out to you that OEM parts is not a requirement.

                • They kind of are, as you well know. That's okay, I can replace my 1990s cars with 1960s cars. It's not my preference but since I'm not buying a new car anytime soon so be it. You have now replaced a mildly polluting thing with a far more polluting thing.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by sjames ( 1099 )

                    No, actually you have. And you did it because you WANT to be pissed off and spiteful about something. That is, if you actually even own a car.

                    Meanwhile, there are 49 other states, perhaps you should move.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 I can maybe haz privacy, but I haz to move to California to get it? Shiitttt.... if I had that much money, (and could tolerate living in that crazy place,) I'd already be there.

      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.

      • There is no "left wing" USA. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 s

  • 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 [internetma...ninjas.com].

    • Sorry, out of mod points, but I agree 100%. Since time immemorial (or at least the ARPANet days) anything linked to, posted on, or traversing the public network was just that, PUBLIC. Any appearance of a guarantee of privacy for anything you type on a network-connected device just contributes to your delusion. If it's been typed on a keyboard, scanned via QR-code, or entered on a keypad somewhere, it's available to anyone who wants to go to the effort of obtaining it. Since privacy is now non-existent, inst

      • Sorry, out of mod points, but I agree 100%. Since time immemorial (or at least the ARPANet days) anything linked to, posted on, or traversing the public network was just that, PUBLIC. Any appearance of a guarantee of privacy for anything you type on a network-connected device just contributes to your delusion.

        Wait, I assume you believe that includes your phone calls. Because they're probably traveling over the same public network, or through the public airwaves.

        • Yes. Unless you are locked inside your home with no connection to the outside world, 'THEY' are going to find out shit about you. Privacy is an illusion.

          • Privacy is an illusion.

            I notice you are using a pseudonym. Are you trying to maintain the illusion?

            • I guess.... at least it keeps /. trolls from calling my house at all hours of the night

              • I guess.... at least it keeps /. trolls from calling my house at all hours of the night

                So, privacy is not the illusion you make it out to be?

                • Privacy from rando internet trolls is possible.

                  Privacy from Uncle Sam / Emperor Xi / Tsar Vladimir / your local authoritarian government.... yeah, not so much.

                  • Privacy from rando internet trolls is possible.

                    Privacy from Uncle Sam / Emperor Xi / Tsar Vladimir / your local authoritarian government.... yeah, not so much.

                    OK, but what do you do when, as is the case in the US, the government is also the rando internet troll?

                    Do you insist on privacy being "an illusion" when the trolls are in charge? Or do you do what California is doing and demand privacy protections enacted into law? It is a conundrum, ain't it?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by kaur ( 1948056 )

      1) Information exchange is part of a contract. Eg, I pay you + I tell you something, you provide me a service.
      2) Both sides of the contract - the service provided and information given - have terms and limits attached.
      3) GDPR is about establishing standard rules for the limits. I want to know what you shall do with the data and who else shall access it via you.

      Also remember that GDPR applies to legal entities, not natural persons. (Art 2, "Material scope".)
      You as a person can know my name and share it with

      • But as part of a civil contract, I think you will find that the best you can do if a contract is breached is to be awarded the monetary value of the breached parts. Whats the monetary value of silence, again?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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...

      That's not what privacy is about anymore. What right does facebook, google, etc have to spy on my every move? To log every website I visit, every person I call, every place I go and store that information indefinitely. I didn't "tell" Verizon a damn thing when I called a suicide prevention line, yet they databased the fact that I did and offer it for sale, just like they have been selling my location, and yours, for years. I didn't "tell" facebook anything when I liked a pro abortion page, yet they feel ent

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, I recall there is a pretty long history of there being a pretty long history of intellectual property law that prevents sharing AND USAGE of certain information by default.

      This with protections against easily relinquishing such rights [no EULA / "accessing this means consent" BS that makes it easy to grab these rights - real solid individual consent only] is needed for private information, too.

    • 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...

      That is complete and utter nonsense. People have been attempting to control what others remember about them since the dawn of human history.

      It got a lot worse in the 20th century, especially in the various socialist / communist states.

      Further, privacy laws are not about controlling what people remember. They are about controlling what machines remember, and what organizations remember. Neither organizations nor machines are people.

      This is not thought control, and attempting to portray it as such is pure

  • It's still opt-out. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:30PM (#56861494) Journal

    Why not opt-in instead? As in, companies cannot sell your personal information without your express permission.

    • Re:It's still opt-out. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:35PM (#56861518)

      Idea: you can add to your ballot "The State of XXX shall be a party to GDPR". Very nice to multinational corporations, they won't even have to implement a yet another mechanism as they already have everything in place.

    • Because none of our bought and paid for politicians would ever endorse it? Conditional opt out is better than nothing, not that it's not easily avoidable. We can't even stop telemarketers from calling our cell phones even if you put yourself on the federal (not California) do not call list.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close