Hacker News Reader

Comment by strbean | Hacker News Reader

> (b) This section does not apply to any of the following:

> (1) A public utility, or telephone company, engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility or telephone company.

> (2) The use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility.

> (3) A telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.

> *(4) A commercial business purpose.*

Emphasis mine.

That seems wildly less limited than you imply.

View on HN

The limits are defined in what is considered to be a "commercial business purpose":

> (e) “Commercial business purpose” means the processing of personal information that satisfies either of the following criteria:

> (1) Is performed to further a business purpose as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code.

> (2) Is subject to a consumer’s opt-out rights under Sections 1798.120, 1798.121, and 1798.135 of the Civil Code.

Specifically what OP describes is §1798.140(e): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

So it is fairly limited.

If you read Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code: “Commercial purposes” means to advance a person's commercial or economic interests, such as by inducing another person to buy, rent, lease, join, subscribe to, provide, or exchange products, goods, property, information, or services, or enabling or effecting, directly or indirectly, a commercial transaction."

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-140/

Basically SB690 means that a business can spy on us including our most private data and use it for anything that makes them money like selling it to data brokers or to the government.

No offense to you in particular, but HN makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or on the Truman Show sometimes. If I had a dream where someone replied to my analysis of the law here with "if you read this section of the law it says X" and then provided a link, and I already KNEW that what they were saying was untrue, because I posted that link a month ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44202153), but I clicked it anyway, only to find that they had mixed-up separate parts of that law and paraphrased them badly, I'd wake up and think "wow I need to touch grass". But yet, here it is happening in front of my eyes.

In the interest of focus, I addressed part 4 only, as that seems to be the part the EFF is talking about. But I don't understand, you emphasized 4?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com