California enacts law enabling people to universally opt out of data sharing
therecord.media
therecord.media
Under California’s CCPA / CPRA, most enforcement power lies with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General, not private individuals. This limits the actual downside to a company vs. an unbounded downside of class-action lawsuit threat.
But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)
On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.
The problem with PAGA in this context is that the citizen is also a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore can be bound by the arbitration agreement, making the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Federal Arbitration Act applicable. My proposal avoids this problem since the FAA doesn't prevent citizens from notifying government agencies and doesn't prevent government agencies from suing (except in the rare context of any arbitration agreement to which the government agency is itself a party).
But if you want citizens to have a financial incentive with my proposal, then sure, legislatively give the first person to notify CPPA / CA AG a cut of the eventual proceeds (to be split with anyone else who is the first person to successfully sue for or enforce a corresponding writ of mandamus), and create a way to track who that first notifier is.
I think this is dangerous and not worth the benefits in this case
If you think they're not skimming off the top, then you don't know what they are.
Assuming part time work (approximately one day every two weeks) at 10% of the yearly ~2000hr worked per year that equates to about $3300 per year, which seems sensible to me.
And in that case it would certainly require a full time job. And it ought to be well paid.
But, no, I still do not subscribe to your related conspiracy theory. Can you provide any tangible examples?
I predict another popup to close on every damn website.
> Businesses must wait at least 12 months before asking you to opt back in to the sale or sharing of your personal information.
YES or YES ?
For what it's worth I think the browser is the right place for tools like this. If the same thing could have been applied to cookies, we'd not be experience cookie-preference-popupageddon.
The article suggests browser vendors are somehow on the hook for implementing "do not sell". Is the idea the same as do not track?
In case we agree on selling our data we should be able to set our price and get paid for sell, use and resale of data. It's crazy that those parasite companies get that for free.
Right now a Danish radio station is running a number of news stories about being able to track people who work for military intelligence or as police officers and prison guards. They do this using a free sample a data broker provided. Everyone act surprised when the journalists are able to show up at the home address of military personal or prison guards who have their home address protected/secret.
I don't think there's a safe way to opt-in to selling your data, because most people cannot comprehend how much data, what type or the ramifications.
100% this. Nobody wants to be tracked, it is dystopian, it is dangerous.
> I don't think there's a safe way to opt-in to selling your data
Exactly.
The answer is there:
>> In case we agree on selling our data we should be able to set our price and get paid for sell, use and resale of data.
I'm not really sure how much this would be worth - and would it scale? How much value does the data from a worker at the lower end of the labor pool wage scale have in relation to that from the C-suite members of a mid-size corporation? Should we all have the right to climb up on the block and sell our data to the highest bidders, while collecting the majority of the profits from the transaction ourselves? It might make more sense to sell your data in five-year future contracts - opportunity to renegotiate rates now and then makes sense.
It's informational data, and in worlds like the commodity markets, information is invaluable. Traders have access to everything from satellite data of oil tankers to insider information from drilling rigs and they pay a lot to keep their data current and accurate, get access to proprietary databases and even nation-state classified sources.
Thus, if human data is so valuable, the humans generating the data should be the ones collecting the majority of its financial value if they opt to sell it. From this view, the real crime here is theft of worker value by data collectors and resellers in a monopolistic market system.
Good luck operationalizing that
India's has DEPA (Data Empowerment And Protection Architecture) framework that addresses the data consent problem. (e.g bank will ask your consent before sharing the data). The advantage here is it providers legal framework as well.
The solid project from Tim Berners-Lee (who invented world wide web) is an attempt to solve that. https://solidproject.org/. This is pure consumer owned but there is no legal protection from the government.
they are one of the most ideologically inconsistent groups i can think of besides the hardcore maga crowd.
Oh, and we don't have to worry about the "Cookie banner" problem, because a separate law (CCPA) requires a 12 month cooldown before prompting the user for opt-in consent again.
From the law, defining the signal:
> “Opt-out preference signal” means a signal that complies with this title and that communicates the consumer’s choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer’s personal information.
In spirit this is great.
No? Eg. giant telecom send me contract to sign with TWO A4 PAGES TO OPT-OUT :>> Guess half was about 3rd partys.
It seems to provide a universal and sensible offer to members of the public: "I am happy to be advertised to for a small fee".
Generally, you are provided a sensible offer: You can use many games, search engines, communication platforms, and other internet services for free. Those tools cost a lot of money to build and maintain, and you don't pay anything.
Also, I have seen products pretty similar to what you suggest. There have been apps and websites that promise you gift cards in exchange for watching ads. Basically trying to increase Adsense traffic in exchange for cash-equivalents. They're obviously ripe for abuse, and surely the ads have terrible clickthrough rates.
At the moment, they get all your data anyway and can do whatever they want and get 100% of the profit and there’s nothing you can do about it. Where’s the incentive for them to share any of it?
maybe they can call it the "cookie banner"
oh, and also, if it would be annoying to keep saying "no, I don't want to opt-in again" the websites owners may say that it is government fault, as now they are required by law to show this banner
But now CA passed its own click to cancel. Surely other states will follow.
How is fighting dozens of different statutes better than working around one in federal courts that are backed up by the business friendly Supreme Court? Businesses are greedy but they aren't dumb. What am I missing?
Now I might sign up for the local gym that opened up, knowing they cannot jerk me around when I want to leave.
it says Browsers must send an opt-out signal.
Browsers have already had a do-not-track setting, and websites universally* ignored it.
* 99%
This bill basically allows the regulator to make sure everyone in CA gets this extension automatically.
Don’t get me wrong - Newsom is a slippery snake politician and is beholden to rich scumbag donors but I don’t see how this in particular is due to his and the dems big donors.
That said you seem to imply that only one side of this shitshow is beholden to big donors but corruption and general degeneracy is far more prevalent in the elephant party.
Even good new laws (new laws are rarely good imo) are only secondary to the powers that be winning at any cost. After going on and on about fair elections(tm) for about a decade and burning a ton of money and political opportunity cost, the Party is now going to gerrymander-max the entire state to the cost of what billions of dollars to specifically disenfranchise any voters that they disagree with. “We’re doing it To-Save-Democracy!”
In other words, there are no principals behind anything, only the Party’s needs. So a law like the featured one only exists to the extent it benefits the Party or hurts its opponents, and when that stops being true the law gets changed or some new law created to carve out exceptions for big blue donors like LinkedIn or anybody that has deep pockets for Newsome’s federal ambitions. Consider the two-faced orientation with respect to oil companies. Gavin talks tough about climate change while, as churches are locked down, going to French Laundry dinners to get wined and dined by fossil fuel lobbyists, and the prols are too stupid to know better! The loyal and earnest supporters (dupes) keep giving their money and votes to the machine while poor old people die of heat stroke because they can’t afford to run AC anymore.