3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWell, 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.