Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday June 30 2018, @07:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the thank-you dept.

ArsTechnica

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 was approved unanimously by the state Senate and Assembly today and was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

A legislative bill summary says the law will give Californians "the right to know what PI [personal information] is being collected about them and whether their PI is being sold and to whom; the right to access their PI; the right to delete PI collected from them; the right to opt-out or opt-in to the sale of their PI, depending on age of the consumer; and the right to equal service and price, even if they exercise such rights."

The Consumers Union

Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports, was an early supporter of the ballot initiative. While the organization said it was pleased that many of the initiative’s provisions were included in the new law, it urged changes to certain aspects of the law that are different from the ballot initiative, and pledged to work for more substantial reforms.

Justin Brookman, the Director of Consumer Privacy and Technology Policy for Consumers Union, said, “We appreciate that this law advances consumer protections in several ways. It gives people access to the information that companies have about them. It extends the right to control the sale of your data, and it provides new security protections in the wake of the Equifax breach.

“However, we have serious concerns about how this legislation introduces very troubling concepts into law. We oppose a provision in the law that allows companies to charge higher prices to consumers who decline to have their information sold to third parties. The California state constitution grants people an inviolable right to privacy. Consumers should not be charged for exercising that right.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @04:01AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @04:01AM (#700869)

    Better yet, maybe your small or medium site just shouldn't violate people's privacy. That seems like the real solution to me.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 01 2018, @01:30PM

    And given fifty different laws saying that with fifty different and probably contradictory sets of criteria that you have to meet, do you think you could manage to build something that would pass muster alone? Idiot.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01 2018, @07:26PM (#701031)

    it's not that simple. my sites don't *violate* shit. i use no analytics. the only data collected is the server traffic logs and what the user volunteers as part of their profile. the only data required to be in their profile is what is necessary for the most basic site functions like logging in, ffs. i don't share any of their data with anyone. i spend my time trying to find ways to protect the tiny data they do enter from tyrannical governments and other attackers. the user can close their account and change their data whenever they want, but i'm not going to promise to remove *just their* freaking username and email address from my daily backups of all the sites databases (immediately) every time someone changes their mind, as just one example of unreasonable requirements. i dislike facebook in a lot of ways, but if they weren't such suck asses they would have told congress just how stupid a lot of their questions/proposed requirements were when Darth Suckaturd was being questioned in the congressional hearings, as if you can ever kiss enough government ass for them to leave you alone.

    do you think the politicians making these laws develop/admin web applications and have fully thought out all the possible ramifications of their laws? they are just pandering to whining slaves who can't be bothered to choose wisely to protect their own supposedly precious data. these meewing sheople are the ones who willfully signed up for the sites whose whole purpose is to datamine, usually while using slaveware OSes whose whole purpose is the same. now they cry to ignorant, authoritarian politicians so those frauds can ruin the world a little more.