California Legislature Sells Out Our Data to ISPs | Hacker News Reader

California Legislature Sells Out Our Data to ISPs

eff.org

119 pointskawera16 comments

California residents: write your representatives! http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

How many decades of writing representatives and wasting votes will it take before people wise up? Clearly this isn't working, time for a new strategy.

Actually, writing California state representatives is often successful. And if that doesn't work, like for prison reform and pot legalization, there's the initiative system.

Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist.

Alternatively, get involved in the city Democratic clubs and county central committees here in California. Politicians do pay attention to people who organize fundraisers for them, and the local groups are where the next generation of politicians are picked. Politics is a lot like science in that regard: policies last until their supporters die, or are term-limited.

> Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist.

That's essentially what nonprofits like the EFF are.

If your representatives have already voted the way you want, is there anything to be gained in writing to them anyway?

Yes, it let's them know that this issue is a priority, and that they can gain popular support by either reemphasizing their position, or by sponsoring a new bill.

In this situation, the representatives didn't vote. They shelved the bill, A.B. 375 [0]. Many bills don't get put up to a vote because they aren't seen as priorities or viable. This includes SOPA/PIPA which was one of the most bipartisan co-sponsored bills [1] and yet never made it to a vote because of the popular outcry such as the Internet blackout day.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261...

Spoiler Alert: They don't care about residents.

Be sure to vote for next year's ballot initiative which imposes similar privacy protections on all businesses in CA, including ISP's.

Which one is that? There are only 3 certified so far and none of them are about privacy: https://ballotpedia.org/California_2018_ballot_propositions.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Informa...

Added: I haven't looked closely at either, but it seems at a glance that the initiative is far broader than the bill (which only applies to ISPs), so would guess the initiative will attract a truly massive negative campaign if it makes it to the ballot.

Good. And I hope that the response to every negative ad, opinion piece, etc. is "So, about Equifax and their punishment..."

Being able to hang the Equifax albatross around Google, Facebook, etc. is going to be glorious.

This is the actual headline, and I hate the EFF for creating it.

There is a VAST gulf between not passing a bill that would have created a positive situation, and actually passing a bill that creates a negative situation.

In addition, this need for this bill was created by the FCC ripping up the privacy protections, so it got introduced very late in the session. As the article points out, the fact that it got this far so quickly is a huge deal.

Yeah, the EFF also tries to have it both ways, starting off with the inflammatory sell-out headline and opening of the press release, and then claiming that the bill is just stalled until next year, has wide support in the legislature that is what enabled it to get so far despite the late introduction, and has momentum for next year. It's a real failure at coherent messaging.

FWIW, you can find info about AB 375 on the CA legislature's website, including history and bill analysis:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient....

The Bill Analysis section contains a document, Senate Floor Analyses [0], that explains the context of the bill, and lists the entities that have taken a position for or against the bill, e.g. supported by the ACLU and SF Mayor Edwin Lee, opposed by AT&T, Google, and various chambers of commerce.

The latest event for the bill is "9/16/2017 Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator McGuire". According to this glossary [1], the "Inactive File" means:

> The portion of the Daily File containing legislation that is ready for floor consideration, but, for a variety of reasons, is dormant or dead. An author may move a bill to the inactive file if they wish not to take it up until a later date. Once a bill is on the inactive file, it requires one day’s public notice to place the bill back on the daily agenda

From what I can tell, Senator McGuire (a Democrat), voted to pass it out of the energy committee in July [2].

Sorry, I don't have any specific knowledge about the CA legislative process other than what I can find ono Google, so I don't know what the reasoning or bureaucratic implications are for shelving it, but it's not a done deal apparently.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient....

[1] http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legis...

[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...

Corruption prevails.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com