California Passes Bill Requiring Easier Data Sharing Opt Outs (therecord.media) 22
Most of the attention today has been focused on California's controversial "kill switch" AI safety bill, which passed the California State Assembly by a 45-11 vote. However, California legislators passed another tech bill this week which requires internet browsers and mobile operating systems to offer a simple tool for consumers to easily opt out of data sharing and selling for targeted advertising. Slashdot reader awwshit shares a report from The Record: The state's Senate passed the landmark legislation after the General Assembly approved it late Wednesday. The Senate then added amendments to the bill which now goes back to the Assembly for final sign off before it is sent to the governor's desk, a process Matt Schwartz, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports, called a "formality." California, long a bellwether for privacy regulation, now sets an example for other states which could offer the same protections and in doing so dramatically disrupt the online advertising ecosystem, according to Schwartz.
"If folks use it, [the new tool] could severely impact businesses that make their revenue from monetizing consumers' data," Schwartz said in an interview with Recorded Future News. "You could go from relatively small numbers of individuals taking advantage of this right now to potentially millions and that's going to have a big impact." As it stands, many Californians don't know they have the right to opt out because the option is invisible on their browsers, a fact which Schwartz said has "artificially suppressed" the existing regulation's intended effects. "It shouldn't be that hard to send the universal opt out signal," Schwartz added. "This will require [browsers and mobile operating systems] to make that setting easy to use and find."
"If folks use it, [the new tool] could severely impact businesses that make their revenue from monetizing consumers' data," Schwartz said in an interview with Recorded Future News. "You could go from relatively small numbers of individuals taking advantage of this right now to potentially millions and that's going to have a big impact." As it stands, many Californians don't know they have the right to opt out because the option is invisible on their browsers, a fact which Schwartz said has "artificially suppressed" the existing regulation's intended effects. "It shouldn't be that hard to send the universal opt out signal," Schwartz added. "This will require [browsers and mobile operating systems] to make that setting easy to use and find."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Every day (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are there so many rules there?
Because in California they sometimes try to rein in the runaway oligarchy happening all over the world to protect the little guy. I mean, they do a lot of stupid shit too, like declaring everything a carcinogen, but they do sometimes get something right. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with slowing down the data-suck we're all seeing happen. This is one instance where they did a good deed. I feel like patting them on the heads and saying, "Good government critters. You deserve a cookie!"
GDPR (Score:1)
Good lord don't make it another GDPR that fucked the web and gave it herpes. Why can't browsers have a presetting that lets me permanently opt out or opt-in to bullshit and make it part of the HTTP standard GET request header
GET /crap
Host: fucked.com
GetAssFucked: AlwaysDisagree
Add that to the HTTP standard. yes it means that gets sent to every website. So what? "that has security implications" .. so does eating dick, yet people do that all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually thinking about it, maybe make it a cookie with some funky name so it won't F up existing cookies. A known cookie that is always sent in every GET request unless changed by user setting for specific websites or site types. Then sites could deal with it accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is, some browser maker will decide to be "clever" and make the setting default opt-out, and torpedo the whole initiative, because then website owners will be able to make the argument that the user didn't really mean what the header said. The info was just how the program was initially set up and they did not actually make that choice. You know, like the last time this happened in regards to tracking.
Re: GDPR (Score:2)
Last time it was optional. This time there is theoretically repercussions.
Re: GDPR (Score:2)
Don't compare this to the GDPR; Th GDPR actually makes sense in its own twisted way, because it at least Identifies the privacy-violating parties and asks them to behave. The California law asks innocent parties to invest effort in creating something ineffective and technically infeasible to combat something they have no control over.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't compare this to the GDPR; Th GDPR actually makes sense in its own twisted way, because it at least Identifies the privacy-violating parties and asks them to behave. The California law asks innocent parties to invest effort in creating something ineffective and technically infeasible to combat something they have no control over.
Facebook runs off advertising, but you’re telling me they have no control over what advertising happens on their platform? What APIs they will allow scrape?
BULLSHIT.
(And no. Being “public” isn’t an excuse. I do t give a fuck what the shareholders have to say. Being a public company beholden to them is YOUR fucking problem, not mine.)
Re: GDPR (Score:2)
Please inform us, what internet browsers and/or mobile operating systems were created by Meta.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. At all. It was a bad move, doesn't matter what the intent was, these are the consequences.
Next, EULA requiring opt-in (Score:3)
The next EULA update will require you to give up your rights to opt-out, and by using the tool to opt-out, you revoke your license to use the software.
Re: Next, EULA requiring opt-in (Score:2)
Such an EULA clause will probably not have legal power in many places of the world, for example in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
The law does seem badly designed. GDPR requires consent to be opt-in, and freely given. Any coercion is not allowed, and the opt-in request must be explicit, i.e. it can't be buried in the EULA, it must be a separate and clear question with a separate answer given.
Re: (Score:3)
The law does seem badly designed. GDPR requires consent to be opt-in, and freely given. Any coercion is not allowed, and the opt-in request must be explicit, i.e. it can't be buried in the EULA, it must be a separate and clear question with a separate answer given.
While it's not extremely well thought out, for an American governmental body, it's a big check mark in the "we're trying, dammit" column. Which is more than I can say for most of our government in the states.
Re: (Score:2)
The next EULA update will require you to give up your rights to opt-out, and by using the tool to opt-out, you revoke your license to use the software.
Good luck with that if you’re actually charging money for your product. All it takes to destroy your overly greedy privacy-raping company and a bullshit EULA, is slightly less greed.
Re: (Score:2)
The next EULA update will require you to give up your rights to opt-out, and by using the tool to opt-out, you revoke your license to use the software.
Good luck with that if you’re actually charging money for your product. All it takes to destroy your overly greedy privacy-raping company and a bullshit EULA, is slightly less greed.
Since when have you paid for Chrome or Android, from the company whose business is selling targeted advertising?
"California legislators passed another tech bill this week which requires internet browsers and mobile operating systems to offer a simple tool for consumers to easily opt out of data sharing and selling for targeted advertising. "
The next CA law (Score:2)
will require nature parks to provide an app which allows the user to easily opt out of any bear encounters.