4 ms·

This "dangerous surveillance bill" simply protects people who are using tracking pixels (commonly used for serving targeted ads) from frivolous lawsuits. Of co

This "dangerous surveillance bill" simply protects people who are using tracking pixels (commonly used for serving targeted ads) from frivolous lawsuits. Of course, the EFF doesn't actually tell you what the bill SAYS here, it instead breathlessly, dramatically, announces "SB 690 gives the green-light to dystopian big tech surveillance practices which will endanger the privacy and safety of all Californians". The fact that EFF has to obfuscate the content of the bill this much says a lot.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
The digest seems to say that two-party consent would no longer be required for business communications. Do I misunderstand it or is it way more expansive than shielding ad tech?
- zdp7 1y ago
  I think it is worse than you are thinking. I agree with kyborens comment saying this allows tapping all calls. I could see an app, a game for example, that would transfer all call audio to the app owner. As long as it is used for a commercial business purpose, it would be ok
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    But what is a "legitimate business purpose"? And what other laws come into play that prevent the business from using it as they will, such as the CCPA? At this point I feel like everyone is just being willingly ignorant of the facts to spin a certain narrative, because it's more "fun".
    - zdp7 1y ago
      They should have narrowed the exemption. As it is the current exemptions are for pretty much the operation of a telephone company and jails. Your local police department is not exempt, they need a warrant. This law specifically is about intentional access to communications you aren't authorized to access. I'm not good with letting that being ok for commercial business purposes.
      - phendrenad2 1y ago
        > They should have narrowed the exemption Maybe "legitimate business purpose" is doing the heavy lifting here. Let's find out! Let's take another look at the bill: > The bill would define a commercial business purpose to mean the processing of personal information either performed to further a business purpose or subject to a consumer’s opt-out rights Let's keep reading, this is fun! > (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. Okay, let's look up subdivision (e) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code of California... (this is kind of like pointers in C... very cool) > (e) “Business purpose” means the use of personal information for the business’ operational purposes, or other notified purposes, or for the service provider or contractor’s operational purposes, as defined by regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1798.185, provided that the use of personal information shall be reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve the purpose for which the personal information was collected or processed or for another purpose that is compatible with the context in which the personal information was collected. Business purposes are: > (1) Auditing related to counting ad impressions to unique visitors, verifying positioning and quality of ad impressions, and auditing compliance with this specification and other standards. > (2) Helping to ensure security and integrity to the extent the use of the consumer’s personal information is reasonably necessary and proportionate for these purposes. > (3) Debugging to identify and repair errors that impair existing intended functionality. > (4) Short-term, transient use, including, but not limited to, nonpersonalized advertising shown as part of a consumer’s current interaction with the business, provided that the consumer’s personal information is not disclosed to another third party and is not used to build a profile about the consumer or otherwise alter the consumer’s experience outside the current interaction with the business. > (5) Performing services on behalf of the business, including maintaining or servicing accounts, providing customer service, processing or fulfilling orders and transactions, verifying customer information, processing payments, providing financing, providing analytic services, providing storage, or providing similar services on behalf of the business. > (6) Providing advertising and marketing services, except for cross-context behavioral advertising, to the consumer provided that, for the purpose of advertising and marketing, a service provider or contractor shall not combine the personal information of opted-out consumers that the service provider or contractor receives from, or on behalf of, the business with personal information that the service provider or contractor receives from, or on behalf of, another person or persons or collects from its own interaction with consumers. > (7) Undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration. > (8) Undertaking activities to verify or maintain the quality or safety of a service or device that is owned, manufactured, manufactured for, or controlled by the business, and to improve, upgrade, or enhance the service or device that is owned, manufactured, manufactured for, or controlled by the business. Far from a freewheeling "they can wiretap anything!!!1111" screech I keep seeing here, it seems to me that the definitions are all nicely pinned-down and there isn't a lot of leeway. Oh and an important note: I'm not a lawyer. It's possible that I've completely bungled this analysis, so don't take it as legal advice. This is just my opinion.
kyboren 1y ago
Whatever the intent, this bill effectively legalizes wiretapping and pen register'ing (i.e. recording phone numbers and IP:port logs you've communicated with) as long as it's for a "commercial purpose". Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits, this bill legalizes wiretapping all your calls and browsing sessions and selling the recordings to the cops. It even had a retroactive immunity clause, which at least seems to have been stripped out. Yes, it really is that crazy. Read it yourself here: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB690/2025 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB690/2025 PS: Your strident defense of the surveillance industry and caustic dismissal of warnings from a well-known and credible civil rights organization makes me wonder where your interests lie. What is your involvement in the industry and what role, if any, did you play in the passage of this bill in the CA Senate?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Okay let's get one thing out of the way: You can't use a narrow legalese-defined definition of "wiretapping" and act like it's the same as the popular definition of wiretapping. You do this when you talk about the "wiretapping" in the bill and say that it "really is that crazy". You might not realize that you're doing this, because it might be so ingrained in your training as, whatever profession you are, but it doesn't fly with me. You MUST choose between one definition or the other, and either way, your argument falls apart. Secondly, if "someone disagrees with me an organization I like in a strident and caustic way" is enough to make you reach for an ad hominem, then that just shows an unfortunate delusionality on your part. Not really helpful to your cause me-thinks. > Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits <blah blah blah> It appears that we agree on the substance of my argument. Which is enough for me. EDIT: After reading a comment below, it seems that you might actually be using the "popular" definition of wiretapping, in which case, please provide an example of a scenario where this law allows something nefarious, taking into account other laws such as the CCPA. I doubt one exists.
  - hex4def6 1y ago
    If exempting "commercial purposes" from a law results in no harm being done to anyone, then you are arguing the law is shouldn't exist in the first place. CCPA appears to limitations based on the size of the enterprise, so that doesn't guarantee protection. So, which state laws prevent someone from wiretapping my communications and then selling it?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
zdp7 1y ago
"SECTION 1. Section 631 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 631. (a) A person who, by means of a machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes an unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with a telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of an internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in an unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of a message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over a wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (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. (c) For purposes of this section, “telephone company” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 638. (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained in violation of this section is not admissible in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding." Did you read this? It exempts commercial business purposes from the consequences of tapping communications without authorization.
GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
> This "dangerous surveillance bill" simply protects people who are using tracking pixels (commonly used for serving targeted ads) from frivolous lawsuits. Why should a company's "right" to seek profit through advertising infringe upon my right to privacy on the web?

cosmicgadget 1y ago

The digest seems to say that two-party consent would no longer be required for business communications. Do I misunderstand it or is it way more expansive than shielding ad tech?

zdp7 1y ago
I think it is worse than you are thinking. I agree with kyborens comment saying this allows tapping all calls. I could see an app, a game for example, that would transfer all call audio to the app owner. As long as it is used for a commercial business purpose, it would be ok
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  But what is a "legitimate business purpose"? And what other laws come into play that prevent the business from using it as they will, such as the CCPA? At this point I feel like everyone is just being willingly ignorant of the facts to spin a certain narrative, because it's more "fun".
  - zdp7 1y ago
    They should have narrowed the exemption. As it is the current exemptions are for pretty much the operation of a telephone company and jails. Your local police department is not exempt, they need a warrant. This law specifically is about intentional access to communications you aren't authorized to access. I'm not good with letting that being ok for commercial business purposes.
    - phendrenad2 1y ago
      > They should have narrowed the exemption Maybe "legitimate business purpose" is doing the heavy lifting here. Let's find out! Let's take another look at the bill: > The bill would define a commercial business purpose to mean the processing of personal information either performed to further a business purpose or subject to a consumer’s opt-out rights Let's keep reading, this is fun! > (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. Okay, let's look up subdivision (e) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code of California... (this is kind of like pointers in C... very cool) > (e) “Business purpose” means the use of personal information for the business’ operational purposes, or other notified purposes, or for the service provider or contractor’s operational purposes, as defined by regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1798.185, provided that the use of personal information shall be reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve the purpose for which the personal information was collected or processed or for another purpose that is compatible with the context in which the personal information was collected. Business purposes are: > (1) Auditing related to counting ad impressions to unique visitors, verifying positioning and quality of ad impressions, and auditing compliance with this specification and other standards. > (2) Helping to ensure security and integrity to the extent the use of the consumer’s personal information is reasonably necessary and proportionate for these purposes. > (3) Debugging to identify and repair errors that impair existing intended functionality. > (4) Short-term, transient use, including, but not limited to, nonpersonalized advertising shown as part of a consumer’s current interaction with the business, provided that the consumer’s personal information is not disclosed to another third party and is not used to build a profile about the consumer or otherwise alter the consumer’s experience outside the current interaction with the business. > (5) Performing services on behalf of the business, including maintaining or servicing accounts, providing customer service, processing or fulfilling orders and transactions, verifying customer information, processing payments, providing financing, providing analytic services, providing storage, or providing similar services on behalf of the business. > (6) Providing advertising and marketing services, except for cross-context behavioral advertising, to the consumer provided that, for the purpose of advertising and marketing, a service provider or contractor shall not combine the personal information of opted-out consumers that the service provider or contractor receives from, or on behalf of, the business with personal information that the service provider or contractor receives from, or on behalf of, another person or persons or collects from its own interaction with consumers. > (7) Undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration. > (8) Undertaking activities to verify or maintain the quality or safety of a service or device that is owned, manufactured, manufactured for, or controlled by the business, and to improve, upgrade, or enhance the service or device that is owned, manufactured, manufactured for, or controlled by the business. Far from a freewheeling "they can wiretap anything!!!1111" screech I keep seeing here, it seems to me that the definitions are all nicely pinned-down and there isn't a lot of leeway. Oh and an important note: I'm not a lawyer. It's possible that I've completely bungled this analysis, so don't take it as legal advice. This is just my opinion.

kyboren 1y ago

Whatever the intent, this bill effectively legalizes wiretapping and pen register'ing (i.e. recording phone numbers and IP:port logs you've communicated with) as long as it's for a "commercial purpose". Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits, this bill legalizes wiretapping all your calls and browsing sessions and selling the recordings to the cops. It even had a retroactive immunity clause, which at least seems to have been stripped out. Yes, it really is that crazy. Read it yourself here: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB690/2025 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB690/2025 PS: Your strident defense of the surveillance industry and caustic dismissal of warnings from a well-known and credible civil rights organization makes me wonder where your interests lie. What is your involvement in the industry and what role, if any, did you play in the passage of this bill in the CA Senate?

phendrenad2 1y ago
Okay let's get one thing out of the way: You can't use a narrow legalese-defined definition of "wiretapping" and act like it's the same as the popular definition of wiretapping. You do this when you talk about the "wiretapping" in the bill and say that it "really is that crazy". You might not realize that you're doing this, because it might be so ingrained in your training as, whatever profession you are, but it doesn't fly with me. You MUST choose between one definition or the other, and either way, your argument falls apart. Secondly, if "someone disagrees with me an organization I like in a strident and caustic way" is enough to make you reach for an ad hominem, then that just shows an unfortunate delusionality on your part. Not really helpful to your cause me-thinks. > Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits <blah blah blah> It appears that we agree on the substance of my argument. Which is enough for me. EDIT: After reading a comment below, it seems that you might actually be using the "popular" definition of wiretapping, in which case, please provide an example of a scenario where this law allows something nefarious, taking into account other laws such as the CCPA. I doubt one exists.
- hex4def6 1y ago
  If exempting "commercial purposes" from a law results in no harm being done to anyone, then you are arguing the law is shouldn't exist in the first place. CCPA appears to limitations based on the size of the enterprise, so that doesn't guarantee protection. So, which state laws prevent someone from wiretapping my communications and then selling it?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

zdp7 1y ago

"SECTION 1. Section 631 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 631. (a) A person who, by means of a machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes an unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with a telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of an internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in an unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of a message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over a wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (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. (c) For purposes of this section, “telephone company” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 638. (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained in violation of this section is not admissible in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding." Did you read this? It exempts commercial business purposes from the consequences of tapping communications without authorization.

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago

> This "dangerous surveillance bill" simply protects people who are using tracking pixels (commonly used for serving targeted ads) from frivolous lawsuits. Why should a company's "right" to seek profit through advertising infringe upon my right to privacy on the web?