4 ms·

Are you implying that the bill is meaningless? If I place a device on your phone or wire tap your phone I would be subject to fine and jail under section 631 of

by zdp7 1y ago

Are you implying that the bill is meaningless? If I place a device on your phone or wire tap your phone I would be subject to fine and jail under section 631 of the penal code. Here's Google's summary: "California Penal Code Section 631 primarily addresses wiretapping and eavesdropping, making it illegal to intentionally tap into or connect to a telegraph or telephone line without authorization. It also prohibits reading or attempting to read messages while they are in transit, using information obtained through wiretapping, and aiding or conspiring with others to commit these offenses." With this change section 631 no longer applies to someone doing this for a commercial business purpose. Maybe the reasoning is benign, but I feel like this could be used to violate my privacy and it's not really clear what legitimate business issue this remedies. This is about gaining access to communications you aren't authorized to access. Can you provide any reason we need to let business put an inductive coupler on my phone without letting me know?

bigbadfeline 1y ago
> Maybe the reasoning is benign, They may act like silly old men but they aren't stupid, they know reason and they know the implications - all of them. That's the true intent.
phendrenad2 1y ago
I don't understand why my argument is so hard to understand. Let me try again. I'm not saying the law is meaningless, I'm saying that the specific application of the law that is walked back by this new law is useless except for the purposes of nuisance lawsuits to shake down businesses. Now, I asked you if specific examples would be legal if this change went into effect, which you completely declined to comment on, which tells me you aren't that sure of your position.
- zdp7 1y ago
  It's not hard to understand. It's wrong. Section 631 is about intentionally making an unauthorized connection to a telephone or message transmitted by wire. Unintentional access is not illegal. Any call where all parties consent, it is not illegal. Existing exemptions are only for those providing communication services, collecting tarrifs and jails. Law enforcement can't do this, without a warrant. Tracking pixels aren't covered by 631. Not sure if you are aware, but the jails are exempt because they monitor calls without authorization of all parties. 631 only applies to intentionally accessing communications without the consent of all parties. I see no reason to give any commercial business purpose authorization to monitor my communications in a manner law enforcement is not authorized to. There likely other laws that may apply, but I am good with this one applying. You mention CCPA, it doesn't apply to every business. From my reading your two examples are no longer covered by 631. If this were just for frivolous lawsuits a narrower exemption would have been more acceptable. As it is now, I am completely ok with this being illegal. Remember 631 is about intercepting communications you aren't authorized to access.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    See my comment on a sibling response. I dug into the law itself, and it looks (to me) like the scope is severely limited here. It's not a case of simply removing Section 631 protections at the discrimination of the business, there are actual rules about how it can be applied.
- zdp7 1y ago
  Almost forgot your two examples would no longer be subject to the penalties listed in 631. How am I supposed to seek recourse for something I don't even know is happening. The only time I would be able to do anything is if I catch them doing it and the police likely won't help, since it's not illegal.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    Well as I said in another comment, it would still be illegal, because the scope is limited. However, my point here was that you're ignoring the fact that there are probably other laws that cover this, redundantly. I guess the concept of redundant laws can be a departure from the usual world of programming, where we try to DRY everything up as much as possible.

by zdp7 1y ago

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> Maybe the reasoning is benign, They may act like silly old men but they aren't stupid, they know reason and they know the implications - all of them. That's the true intent.

phendrenad2 1y ago

I don't understand why my argument is so hard to understand. Let me try again. I'm not saying the law is meaningless, I'm saying that the specific application of the law that is walked back by this new law is useless except for the purposes of nuisance lawsuits to shake down businesses. Now, I asked you if specific examples would be legal if this change went into effect, which you completely declined to comment on, which tells me you aren't that sure of your position.

zdp7 1y ago
It's not hard to understand. It's wrong. Section 631 is about intentionally making an unauthorized connection to a telephone or message transmitted by wire. Unintentional access is not illegal. Any call where all parties consent, it is not illegal. Existing exemptions are only for those providing communication services, collecting tarrifs and jails. Law enforcement can't do this, without a warrant. Tracking pixels aren't covered by 631. Not sure if you are aware, but the jails are exempt because they monitor calls without authorization of all parties. 631 only applies to intentionally accessing communications without the consent of all parties. I see no reason to give any commercial business purpose authorization to monitor my communications in a manner law enforcement is not authorized to. There likely other laws that may apply, but I am good with this one applying. You mention CCPA, it doesn't apply to every business. From my reading your two examples are no longer covered by 631. If this were just for frivolous lawsuits a narrower exemption would have been more acceptable. As it is now, I am completely ok with this being illegal. Remember 631 is about intercepting communications you aren't authorized to access.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  See my comment on a sibling response. I dug into the law itself, and it looks (to me) like the scope is severely limited here. It's not a case of simply removing Section 631 protections at the discrimination of the business, there are actual rules about how it can be applied.
zdp7 1y ago
Almost forgot your two examples would no longer be subject to the penalties listed in 631. How am I supposed to seek recourse for something I don't even know is happening. The only time I would be able to do anything is if I catch them doing it and the police likely won't help, since it's not illegal.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Well as I said in another comment, it would still be illegal, because the scope is limited. However, my point here was that you're ignoring the fact that there are probably other laws that cover this, redundantly. I guess the concept of redundant laws can be a departure from the usual world of programming, where we try to DRY everything up as much as possible.