Andrew Yang Takes Lead Role In California Data Privacy Campaign (politico.com) 26
Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang is throwing his weight behind California's November data privacy ballot measure -- not just endorsing the initiative but chairing its advisory board, the Proposition 24 campaign announced Monday. Politico reports: Yang's involvement could bring more visibility and cachet to the effort, given the tech entrepreneur's national profile and popularity among younger voters. It could also help counter the negative messaging from some consumer and civil rights groups that are opposing it. Yang lives in New York, thousands of miles from where voters will cast their ballots in November. But the initiative, like the law it would rewrite, could be the nation's de facto privacy law in the absence of federal action.
Prop. 24 would rewrite parts of the California Consumer Privacy Act, which gave Californians new rights over their personal data when it took effect in January. The new measure would create a regulatory agency to manage California's privacy regime, add protections for "sensitive data," and eliminate the 30-day window that companies now have to correct problems before the attorney general can take them to court. It also would make it harder for the Legislature to roll back its protections in the future; any changes would need to further the law's aims. Alastair Mactaggart, a Bay Area real estate developer whose 2018 initiative compelled the Legislature to pass the CCPA that year, is behind the effort to amend it. "The California Consumer Privacy Act was a major win for the state of California and the country, but we have to do more," says Yang. "Technology is changing more rapidly than ever before, and tech corporations are already lining up to undermine the CCPA. It's up to us to protect consumers and strengthen our privacy rights to global standards. Our data should be ours no matter what platforms and apps we use. That's why I hope California voters will join me in supporting Prop 24 by voting YES in November."
Prop. 24 would rewrite parts of the California Consumer Privacy Act, which gave Californians new rights over their personal data when it took effect in January. The new measure would create a regulatory agency to manage California's privacy regime, add protections for "sensitive data," and eliminate the 30-day window that companies now have to correct problems before the attorney general can take them to court. It also would make it harder for the Legislature to roll back its protections in the future; any changes would need to further the law's aims. Alastair Mactaggart, a Bay Area real estate developer whose 2018 initiative compelled the Legislature to pass the CCPA that year, is behind the effort to amend it. "The California Consumer Privacy Act was a major win for the state of California and the country, but we have to do more," says Yang. "Technology is changing more rapidly than ever before, and tech corporations are already lining up to undermine the CCPA. It's up to us to protect consumers and strengthen our privacy rights to global standards. Our data should be ours no matter what platforms and apps we use. That's why I hope California voters will join me in supporting Prop 24 by voting YES in November."
A thoughtful leader (Score:5, Insightful)
THERE IS STILL A CHANCE!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Show your support by modding this post up. A mod down is a vote for Donald Jay Trump.
I8, 2020 . 8 2020 .
`8b 2020
Re: (Score:2)
That's how democracy works buddy, you don't just give up the moment you lose one time. Yang has decades ahead of him, both the current candidates are in their 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Yang has some great ideas. His approach on UBI is revolutionary. We need leaders like him to take us into the future.
Yang should consider forming a new party, one that embraces problems raised by Democrats and Republicans but proposes technological solutions to them, rather than the traditional mix of hysteria and cronyism.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pirate party would be happy to adopt him.
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can almost gaurantee that companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google and others that deal with your personal data will be running a strong "no on 24" campaign to try and kill this.
Re: (Score:3)
Their opposition won't have much effect. All three are based in California, but none of them can make a credible threat to leave and go where they are more welcome.
If they could actually make that threat it would have a big impact. California's taxes are far more dependant on progressive income taxes than most states. California leans heavily on high-income techies in SF and LA for revenue. If they packed up and left, everyone else would see their taxes go way up.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time a company leaves California because it no longer needs the kind of high-tech talent that California offers, another company rises up to replace it. At least this was true in the pre-COVID years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can almost gaurantee that companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google and others that deal with your personal data will be running a strong "no on 24" campaign to try and kill this.
s/almost//g
Regulatory agency (Score:1)
Oh boy, this "regulatory agency" sounds like a great vehicle for profits and power.
Most of us give away information about us and browsing habits voluntarily by agreeing to the Terms and Conditions. And we should be able to do that. We should have the right to sell or give out our own data for free or in exchange for personalized ads etc. I should have the right to give away my stuff and make my own decision. I have the right to give away any aspect of my privacy as I choose.
Re: (Score:2)
While I suspect you are trolling, if you believe that you could write your local legistlators about making sure there is a clear consent clause.
My concern is that like anything, there are balances to be had in this area, and unintended consequences - the whole country is going to get the California version of this. These laws will apply not just to Facebook and Google, but to every mom-and-pop shop, some drycleaner that has customer records. Sometimes you end up with every little one-person business being r
Re: (Score:2)
These laws will apply not just to Facebook and Google, but to every mom-and-pop shop, some drycleaner that has customer records. Sometimes you end up with every little one-person business being required to file quarterly reports on how they handle customer information or whatever...
Unless it specifically gets amended, currently CCPA does not apply to "every mom-and-pop shop..."
The CCPA applies generally to for-profit businesses and sets threshold requirements for its application. The CCPA will apply to businesses around the world if they exceed one of the following thresholds:
annual gross revenues of $25 million;
annually buy, sell, receive, or share for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or
derive 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.
-- American Bar Association [americanbar.org]
Good info, thanks (Score:2)
Thanks for that. That's good tue drafters of the law put in who it was intended / appropriate for. Hopefully that part doesn't get removed in the new version.
After posting, I realized I left a couple words out of my original post. Stupid regulatory and tax crap was a real problem I my companies. That's one of the reasons I shut them down. I needed to ger work done, not so all my time filling out reports telling various government agencies that the employees are still the same race as last quarter. Still
Re: (Score:3)
Because corporations do such a great job of regulating themselves, right?
Way to go California (Score:2)
Another regulation which will be totally meaningless in the other 49 states. It's like how eBay has a place to put the California cancer warning thing, which I've just been filling out as "If you're located in California, it is your responsibility as a buyer to determine if this item contains anything California considers a carcinogen and make your purchase decision accordingly."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
A better warning might be "The state of California may deem this product to cause cancer."
Re: (Score:2)
Another regulation which will be totally meaningless in the other 49 states.
It's not our fault if people in other states are too stupid to want rights, and demand them. Also, other states have adopted our automotive emissions mandates, they can go ahead and adopt our privacy mandates as well if they want.
Challenging big tech when nobody else will (Score:2)