Consumer Groups Seek To Defend California Data Privacy Law (axios.com) 16
A collection of consumer groups has written a letter to California lawmakers urging them to keep the strong protections in a state law due to take effect next year. From a report: The California law, if left largely as is, could usher in a range of new consumer protections. However, direct marketers and tech companies, working through various entities, have been seeking to water down the law. A coalition of 10 consumer groups -- including ACLU -- has written to California State Senate leader Toni Atkins encouraging legislators to explore the background of the Nonprofit Alliance, a group that has been pushing to have the law weakened. "We are asking that the Nonprofit Alliance release their financial information; explain their ties to corporate donors; and clarify their leadership, mission, and membership," the group said in the letter.
Follow the money -- ALL the money (Score:1)
Let's investigate all groups, pushing to water down the law or strengthen it. No lawyer groups who want something to sue over, I'm sure, are pushing it.
Re: (Score:2)
But why just corporate donations?
Slop in Language ! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Slop in Language ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does a photographer need a model's release then?
Re:Slop in Language ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Case precedent. The courts long ago determined that an image was valuable and that the person subject to the image be remunerated for allowing the image to be captured. Hence, the release the model signs is merely an indication that they, the model, is a ware of the image being captured and their associated rates with respect to said image.
I fail to see you argument that personal data is any different.
The data the we all so freely through about the internet has no such legal history.
Yet.
But the main point is that users aren't given a real choice. And no, I'm not talking simply about using 'free' services like FB or Gmail - I'm talking equally about phone companies [slashdot.org] that sell people's data without explicit consent, permission, or explanation of why they're even collecting that data, even though customers are paying for that 'privilege'.
And I'm sure if you look at the case precedent you mentioned that a similar pattern of either lack of choice, or abuse/misuse of a person's image is what led to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I lie through my back teeth when I answer surveys. The last one I completed, I told them that I came from South Georgia. As no one lives there good luck with my dataset.
Re:Slop in Thinking ! (Score:3)
JimSadler3473 babbled:
Data is collected. The one that collects it owns it. When someone studies you they own the study. You do not own the data or the study. The idea of my data can not be allowed to control the data collected by others as it is a taking of the true owner's property.
So, if I'm correctly unpacking your garbled syntax, what you're saying is, "If a retailer collects, say, my credit card number, expiration date, and security code, it has the absolute right to sell that information - along with my name - to any interested buyer, and neither I nor the state of California, nor anyone else has the authority to stop the sale."
That's 100% pure, Grade A, USDA-inspected bullshit. There are existing laws that forbid doing that, and those laws have big, sharp t
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it, it may not be legal to spy on people e.g. in their own homes, but anything they do in public is fair game. As an example, if I overhear two people at a cafe (public space) talking about something they did last night, and someone else comes over to ask me what I heard, I am free to tell that person (and to charge for the information as well).
There are restrictions on install
Ad hominemish (Score:2)
A coalition of 10 consumer groups -- including ACLU -- has written to California State Senate leader Toni Atkins encouraging legislators to explore the background of the Nonprofit Alliance, a group that has been pushing to have the law weakened.
Instead of defending the law they attack anyone opposed to it.
It Is MY Data And Its Ownership has not been given (Score:1)