3 ms·

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) a

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?
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    Which law prevents someone from wiretapping your communications in New York? Or Florida?

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?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Which law prevents someone from wiretapping your communications in New York? Or Florida?