09-27-2024, 02:57 AM
I won't belabor the political celebrity to whom this 'decision' is attributed, nor the fact that it concerns California state law.
But It kind of disappoints me (in an idealistic sense) that the justification offered for the veto isn't being truly challenged by our media... at all.
From ArsTechnica: Calif. Governor vetoes bill requiring opt-out signals for sale of user data
Subtitled: Gavin Newsom said he opposes mandate on mobile operating system developers.
This is a tale of the California legislature producing a new mandate for those designing websites and mobile operating systems. The mandate would not incur any direct "cost" to those affected... but it would make their "name-selling" revenue shrink - probably by a lot.
The bill approved by the State Legislature last month would have required an opt-out signal "that communicates the consumer's choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer's personal information or to limit the use of the consumer's sensitive personal information." It would have made it illegal for a business to offer a web browser or mobile operating system without a setting that lets consumers "send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts."
I'm hearing "No 'opting out' for us users... their names should be for sale..."
But why? Why can't users exercise their own agency over the disposition of data they provide? Why is any users identity a "commodity of trade" despite it being "their" identity?
But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill."
Vetoes can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The bill was approved 59–12 in the Assembly and 31–7 in the Senate. But the State Legislature hasn't overridden a veto in decades.
Since no major mobile OS has incorporated that option... it would be "wrong?"
It's such a non-answer that it begs the question... exactly which lobbyists got to him, or his party leadership? Shall we guess?
"It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office," said Justin Kloczko, tech and privacy advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in California. "What the governor didn't mention is that Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge don't offer a global opt-out and they make up for nearly 90 percent of the browser market share. That's what matters. And people don't want to install plug-ins. Safari, which is the default browsers on iPhones, doesn't even accept a plug-in."
Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Matt Schwartz said that "industry worked overtime to squash this bill, as it empowered Californians to better protect their privacy, undermining the commercial surveillance business model of these tech companies. We strongly disagree with the idea expressed in the governor's veto statement that it should be left to operating systems to provide privacy choices for consumers. They've shown time and again they won't meaningfully do so until forced."
Consumer Reports is one of the groups behind Global Privacy Control (GPC), an opt-out signal that creators hope will become legally binding under the CCPA or other privacy laws. Makers of Global Privacy Control say it is superior to the older Do Not Track (DNT) signal because the California attorney general "determined that the AG could not require businesses to comply with DNT requests because the requests do not clearly convey users' intent to opt out of the sale of their data."
Thanks for reading... Privacy was never dead... it was only buried under political grime.
But It kind of disappoints me (in an idealistic sense) that the justification offered for the veto isn't being truly challenged by our media... at all.
From ArsTechnica: Calif. Governor vetoes bill requiring opt-out signals for sale of user data
Subtitled: Gavin Newsom said he opposes mandate on mobile operating system developers.
This is a tale of the California legislature producing a new mandate for those designing websites and mobile operating systems. The mandate would not incur any direct "cost" to those affected... but it would make their "name-selling" revenue shrink - probably by a lot.
The bill approved by the State Legislature last month would have required an opt-out signal "that communicates the consumer's choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer's personal information or to limit the use of the consumer's sensitive personal information." It would have made it illegal for a business to offer a web browser or mobile operating system without a setting that lets consumers "send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts."
I'm hearing "No 'opting out' for us users... their names should be for sale..."
But why? Why can't users exercise their own agency over the disposition of data they provide? Why is any users identity a "commodity of trade" despite it being "their" identity?
But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill."
Vetoes can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The bill was approved 59–12 in the Assembly and 31–7 in the Senate. But the State Legislature hasn't overridden a veto in decades.
Since no major mobile OS has incorporated that option... it would be "wrong?"
It's such a non-answer that it begs the question... exactly which lobbyists got to him, or his party leadership? Shall we guess?
"It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office," said Justin Kloczko, tech and privacy advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in California. "What the governor didn't mention is that Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge don't offer a global opt-out and they make up for nearly 90 percent of the browser market share. That's what matters. And people don't want to install plug-ins. Safari, which is the default browsers on iPhones, doesn't even accept a plug-in."
Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Matt Schwartz said that "industry worked overtime to squash this bill, as it empowered Californians to better protect their privacy, undermining the commercial surveillance business model of these tech companies. We strongly disagree with the idea expressed in the governor's veto statement that it should be left to operating systems to provide privacy choices for consumers. They've shown time and again they won't meaningfully do so until forced."
Consumer Reports is one of the groups behind Global Privacy Control (GPC), an opt-out signal that creators hope will become legally binding under the CCPA or other privacy laws. Makers of Global Privacy Control say it is superior to the older Do Not Track (DNT) signal because the California attorney general "determined that the AG could not require businesses to comply with DNT requests because the requests do not clearly convey users' intent to opt out of the sale of their data."
Thanks for reading... Privacy was never dead... it was only buried under political grime.
