Californians can now submit demands requiring 500 brokers to delete their data:
Californians are getting a new, supercharged way to stop data brokers from hoarding and selling their personal information, as a recently enacted law that's among the strictest in the nation took effect at the beginning of the year.
According to the California Privacy Protection Agency, more than 500 companies actively scour all sorts of sources for scraps of information about individuals, then package and store it to sell to marketers, private investigators, and others.
The nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said in 2024 that brokers trawl automakers, tech companies, junk-food restaurants, device makers, and others for financial info, purchases, family situations, eating, exercising, travel, entertainment habits, and just about any other imaginable information belonging to millions of people.
Two years ago, California's Delete Act took effect. It required data brokers to provide residents with a means to obtain a copy of all data pertaining to them and to demand that such information be deleted. Unfortunately, Consumer Watchdog found that only 1 percent of Californians exercised these rights in the first 12 months after the law went into effect. A chief reason: Residents were required to file a separate demand with each broker. With hundreds of companies selling data, the burden was too onerous for most residents to take on.
On January 1, a new law known as DROP (Delete Request and Opt-out Platform) took effect. DROP allows California residents to register a single demand for their data to be deleted and no longer collected in the future. CalPrivacy then forwards it to all brokers.
Starting in August, brokers will have 45 days after receiving the notice to report the status of each deletion request. If any of the brokers' records match the information in the demand, all associated data—including inferences—must be deleted unless legal exemptions such as information provided during one-to-one interactions between the individual and the broker apply. To use DROP, individuals must first prove they're a California resident.
I used the DROP website and found the flow flawless and the interface intuitive. After I provided proof of residency, the site prompted me to enter personal information such as any names and email addresses I use, and specific information such as VIN (vehicle identification numbers) and advertising IDs from phones, TVs, and other devices. It required about 15 minutes to complete the form, but most of that time was spent pulling that data from disparate locations, many buried in system settings.
It initially felt counterintuitive to provide such a wealth of personal information to ensure that data is no longer tracked. As I thought about it more, I realized that all that data is already compromised as it sits in online databases, which are often easily hacked and, of course, readily available for sale. What's more, CalPrivacy promises to use the data solely for data deletion. Under the circumstances, enrolling was a no-brainer.
It's unfortunate that the law is binding only in California. As the scourge of data-broker information hoarding and hacks on their databases continues, it would not be surprising to see other states follow California's lead.
Now if we could just make this a model for laws in the other US fiefdoms (i.e. states).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, @03:28AM (6 children)
I'll bet nobody knew that the president can veto state legislation also.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday January 10, @06:14AM (2 children)
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, @08:23PM (1 child)
He already did so with California's air pollution rules. The states have to ask for permission. And their rules on "AI" were also wiped off the books. The president is also forcing some states to keep their coal plants operating. The effort to stop him couldn't be more feeble.
My original comment is true. I believe the negative moderation is just politics
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday January 11, @01:17AM
Point to the veto in all that. Just because state law doesn't trump federal law in a variety of areas doesn't mean that the president is vetoing anything.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday January 10, @06:55AM (2 children)
Well, that can't happen...but enforcement could get tricky.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, @09:18PM (1 child)
:-) Are you sure? [whitehouse.gov] It looks like he has already started. His standards are the nation's standards, and that's that
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, @12:19AM
Trump's AI is not what this bill is about. Read why don't you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gnuman on Saturday January 10, @01:41PM
We still have multiple "nations" in this world. Maybe let's try to at least specify this in the title.
instead of
(Score: 2) by bloodnok on Saturday January 10, @06:19PM (1 child)
A better law would make it illegal to collect and sell data about me without my explicit consent.
The original UK Data Protection Act effectively did that. That was 30 years ago. The later EU legislation got way more complicated and I lost interest in trying to understand it. But that original UK legislation was very cool.
For a while one of my hobbies was sending back unsolicited mail with a request, in accordance with the act, for all of the information that the sender had collected on me. Not one of them ever responded (they were permitted to ask for a small fee for the service) and most of them I did not hear from again.
__
The major
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Sunday January 11, @12:09PM
A better law would make it illegal to collect and sell data about anyone, ever.
In a free society, any so-called consent to violations of basic human rights (privacy is a human right) must never be regarded as valid.
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Saturday January 10, @07:12PM
If CA provides infinite taxpayer funded service to illegals, can I claim to be an illegal to get this service even though I live in a better state?
I assure you I definitely am not a legal citizen of California.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, @01:15AM
It's sad you have to deal with the worst shitlibs to get your privacy back. Do they think "only the government should be able to spy"?
BRB, figuring out a way to identify as a Californian to take advantage. They should be cool with that type of thing since they issue CDLs for No Given Name.
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday January 11, @04:26AM (2 children)
What are the names of these "500 companies" that "actively scour all sorts of sources for scraps of information about individuals"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cereal_burpist on Saturday January 17, @05:07AM (1 child)
You can even download a .csv file with 67 columns. And hey, look who's on line 25:
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Saturday January 17, @12:41PM
Thanks for the link. LOL @ Slashdot.