5 ms·

California Legislature Sells Out Our Data to ISPs

119 points by kawera 9y ago

ScottBurson 9y ago
California residents: write your representatives! http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
- outoftacos 9y ago
  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.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    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.
  - labster 9y ago
    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.
    - traek 9y ago
      > Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist. That's essentially what nonprofits like the EFF are.
- schraitle 9y ago
  If your representatives have already voted the way you want, is there anything to be gained in writing to them anyway?
  - danso 9y ago
    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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x... [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261...
- MicroBerto 9y ago
  Spoiler Alert: They don't care about residents.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Cryptogocrazy 9y ago
As long as we allow campaign contributions from corporate interests, politicians will continue to vote against public interest.
shmerl 9y ago
Corruption prevails.
hedora 9y ago
Be sure to vote for next year's ballot initiative which imposes similar privacy protections on all businesses in CA, including ISP's.
- ac29 9y ago
  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_2018_ballot_propositions.
  - mlinksva 9y ago
    https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Information_Disclosure_and_Sale_Initiative_(2018) 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.
    - bsder 9y ago
      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.
danso 9y ago
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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375# https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.... [1] http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legislative%20Terms.pdf http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legis... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...
bsder 9y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  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.

119 points by kawera 9y ago

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

outoftacos 9y ago
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.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  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.
- labster 9y ago
  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.
  - traek 9y ago
    > Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist. That's essentially what nonprofits like the EFF are.
schraitle 9y ago
If your representatives have already voted the way you want, is there anything to be gained in writing to them anyway?
- danso 9y ago
  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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x... [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261...
MicroBerto 9y ago
Spoiler Alert: They don't care about residents.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Cryptogocrazy 9y ago

As long as we allow campaign contributions from corporate interests, politicians will continue to vote against public interest.

shmerl 9y ago

Corruption prevails.

hedora 9y ago

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

ac29 9y ago
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_2018_ballot_propositions.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Information_Disclosure_and_Sale_Initiative_(2018) 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.
  - bsder 9y ago
    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.

danso 9y ago

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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 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.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375# https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.... [1] http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legislative%20Terms.pdf http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legis... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...

bsder 9y ago

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.

dragonwriter 9y ago
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.