3 ms·

It's my opinion you don't understand the business purposes listed. As I read it this would allow collection of communications for training an AI Agent. I see

by zdp7 1y ago

It's my opinion you don't understand the business purposes listed. As I read it this would allow collection of communications for training an AI Agent. I see item 8 as giving permission. The AI Agent is the service controlled by business. The collected data would be provided as training to improve, upgrade or enhance the service. Item six allows advertising, mainly limiting aggregating personal information taken from other entities that aren't the business. I can see Amazon designing an advertising platform compliant with item 6 and using existing Alexa devices to eavesdrop on all communications. Reading the argument for section SB690 [https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb690 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb...] list the main argument as CCPA governs online business. The opposition points out that the CCPA specifically specifies that conflicting laws providing greater protections should apply. The rest of the arguments cite CIPA as enabling frivolous lawsuits. There are already remedies for frivolous lawsuits. Attorneys can be disbarred and vexatious litigant laws would apply. In multiple places you state there are 'probably' other laws that apply. That law is 'probably' the federal wiretap law. I'm not sure if you are aware, but California is an all party consent state. The federal wiretap law is single party consent. SB690 would effectively turn California into a single party consent state for anyone with an appropriate business purpose. The majority of the business purposes listed as acceptable are not what I would call nicely pinned down. I would only be ok with item 2. I can almost guarantee allowing business to collect this data will lead to use that doesn't fall under the legitimate business purposes. Uncollected data can't be mishandled. Lastly to me the greatest reason to oppose is that the laws pretty much all cover intentional unauthorized access. CIPA as it is exempts pretty much the only businesses I would want granted the access to intentionally access unauthorized communications. Everyone else can ask me for permission, if I refuse they don't have to do business with me.

phendrenad2 1y ago
> not what I would call nicely pinned down Yes, they are, but I think your real point is that: > I would only be ok with item 2 Yep, this is what it all comes down to. But it seems like everyone else is arguing without even knowing that the scope of this is. It's of course your right to your own opinion about if these business purposes are acceptable. I was even aware that training LLMs and showing ads are legitimate business purposes. You act like that's a revelation, but it's important to realize that is purely your reaction, not the reaction of the average person. Is the average person okay with their emails being used to train LLMs, or show them ads? I mean, what percentage of the population uses Gmail for mail? I think the question is nicely answered there. > I can almost guarantee allowing business to collect this data will lead to use that doesn't fall under the legitimate business purposes. Uncollected data can't be mishandled Sure, but we can't just lock ourselves in iron boxes and survive on privacy alone. People have to engage with the world. Maybe credit card numbers should be 100,000 digits long, so someone can't look over my shoulder and steal mine?
- zdp7 1y ago
  No that isn't the real point. This... >Lastly to me the greatest reason to oppose is that the laws pretty much all cover intentional unauthorized access. CIPA as it is exempts pretty much the only businesses I would want granted the access to intentionally access unauthorized communications. Everyone else can ask me for permission, if I refuse they don't have to do business with me. That's what I have been saying pretty much the whole time. I'm not sure, but do you know that the section they are modifying is Chapter 1.5 Invasion of Privacy. It literally talks about placing a wiretap on a communication device. This change removes criminal charges for businesses when they have a business purpose which includes a lot of things I don't want businesses to be able to do to me. Your argument is that the might be other laws that make it illegal. You are right there is another law that 'probably' applies. The federal wiretap laws would apply. I see some problems with that. First someone for some reason thinks it's a good idea to change this law in California. You say 'Doesn't matter, it's probably still illegal' That makes it sound pretty dumb to bother changing the law. Still illegal, so why bother. I don't know if it were me, I would only bother to change it if I planned on getting the other laws changed also. And if they managed to get the other laws changed, it's 'probably' legal. Next, even if the federal law doesn't change, now only the feds can prosecute it. I see lots of problems there. Maybe the feds don't want to prosecute it. Maybe the feds do want to prosecute, but someone grants a pardon for the federal crime. Do you know that the President's pardon powers can't pardon state crimes? I just don't see any reason to make it so California can't prosecute businesses for invading my privacy. I find it profoundly unwise to give businesses rights that I don't want them to have based on probably and maybe. The only logical reason to try to make the exemption in California is if you plan on making the exemption on every law. TLDR: It would be insane to allow this exemption. It currently as is works just how I want it to. Business never ever needs intentional unauthorized access to my communications.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    Well, you're just wrong. They aren't simply removing the law against wiretapping, they are replacing it with a specific list of exceptions that no longer qualify as wiretapping (nor should they have ever). > No that isn't the real point Regardless of if you think it is, it is.

by zdp7 1y ago

phendrenad2 1y ago

> not what I would call nicely pinned down Yes, they are, but I think your real point is that: > I would only be ok with item 2 Yep, this is what it all comes down to. But it seems like everyone else is arguing without even knowing that the scope of this is. It's of course your right to your own opinion about if these business purposes are acceptable. I was even aware that training LLMs and showing ads are legitimate business purposes. You act like that's a revelation, but it's important to realize that is purely your reaction, not the reaction of the average person. Is the average person okay with their emails being used to train LLMs, or show them ads? I mean, what percentage of the population uses Gmail for mail? I think the question is nicely answered there. > I can almost guarantee allowing business to collect this data will lead to use that doesn't fall under the legitimate business purposes. Uncollected data can't be mishandled Sure, but we can't just lock ourselves in iron boxes and survive on privacy alone. People have to engage with the world. Maybe credit card numbers should be 100,000 digits long, so someone can't look over my shoulder and steal mine?

zdp7 1y ago
No that isn't the real point. This... >Lastly to me the greatest reason to oppose is that the laws pretty much all cover intentional unauthorized access. CIPA as it is exempts pretty much the only businesses I would want granted the access to intentionally access unauthorized communications. Everyone else can ask me for permission, if I refuse they don't have to do business with me. That's what I have been saying pretty much the whole time. I'm not sure, but do you know that the section they are modifying is Chapter 1.5 Invasion of Privacy. It literally talks about placing a wiretap on a communication device. This change removes criminal charges for businesses when they have a business purpose which includes a lot of things I don't want businesses to be able to do to me. Your argument is that the might be other laws that make it illegal. You are right there is another law that 'probably' applies. The federal wiretap laws would apply. I see some problems with that. First someone for some reason thinks it's a good idea to change this law in California. You say 'Doesn't matter, it's probably still illegal' That makes it sound pretty dumb to bother changing the law. Still illegal, so why bother. I don't know if it were me, I would only bother to change it if I planned on getting the other laws changed also. And if they managed to get the other laws changed, it's 'probably' legal. Next, even if the federal law doesn't change, now only the feds can prosecute it. I see lots of problems there. Maybe the feds don't want to prosecute it. Maybe the feds do want to prosecute, but someone grants a pardon for the federal crime. Do you know that the President's pardon powers can't pardon state crimes? I just don't see any reason to make it so California can't prosecute businesses for invading my privacy. I find it profoundly unwise to give businesses rights that I don't want them to have based on probably and maybe. The only logical reason to try to make the exemption in California is if you plan on making the exemption on every law. TLDR: It would be insane to allow this exemption. It currently as is works just how I want it to. Business never ever needs intentional unauthorized access to my communications.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Well, you're just wrong. They aren't simply removing the law against wiretapping, they are replacing it with a specific list of exceptions that no longer qualify as wiretapping (nor should they have ever). > No that isn't the real point Regardless of if you think it is, it is.