'Eraser' Law Will Let California Kids Scrub Online Past

gregor-e writes "The first-of-its-kind 'eraser button' law, signed Monday by Governor Jerry Brown, will force social media titans such as Facebook, Twitter and Google let minors scrub their personal online history in the hopes that it might help them avoid personal and work-related problems. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015."

Great idea! Let's keep it going:

[Anonymous Coward]

A new California law will require local bars to eliminate any alcohol consumed by minors from their bodies on demand. Supporters say this new law will reduce the amount of drunk-driving and poor decisions made by drunk minors. It might help them avoid personal and work-related problems.

Contest

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody here write a cgi script (soon to come in handy) to detect which IPs are from California and ask for confirmation that they are indeed at least 18 years old? Sorry, CA teenagers, you're not coming on MY site. You know, in the same way COPPA effectively made 13 the internet age...

Thin edge of the wedge!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they let minors do this, why not everyone?

Riiiiight. This will be effective, no doubt.

[LurkerXXX]

Will someone in California please let Jerry Brown know that the internet never forgets?

Re:How?

[superwiz]

By the virtue of having jurisdiction over the land on which the server farms are located and the land on which most of these companies have their HQ's.

Cyberbullies rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

Now bullies under 18 (or claiming to be) can scrub all of their dirty dealings before their victims can collect evidence.

Re:How?

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah, sure. Facebook and Google are going to leave California over the right to keep incriminating information on minors. Do you REALLY think that will happen?

Re:Thin edge of the wedge!

[houstonbofh]

If they let minors do this, why not everyone?

The better question is "How do you scrub something off the Internet?" Barbra Streisand wants to know...

Re:Not as stupid as it sounds

[houstonbofh]

If I'm Googling potential employees, I'm probably more interested in papers they published than a YouTube video of them drunkenly dancing on a table.

And later you can answer all those people who ask how you could hire a teacher like that. A lot of companies are deathly afraid of a scandal, and it is easier to cut it off in the hiring process than to fire people later. (Which means you get sneaker scoundrels, which is what they want, I guess.)

Re:Contest

[vux984]

The following is why this law is bogus. [...] Historically, and continuing to the present the courts -- on up to the Supreme Court -- have ruled that when any kind of "transaction" is taking place, it takes place in the state of the place of business of the vendor

Yes yes, all true.

So if you have a website in Poughkeepsie, Gov. Jerry Brown has no legal authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your website.

Yes, but what if you are in California?

Facebook Inc: 1601 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025
Google Inc, Mountain View, CA
Apple: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA, 95014
Twitter: 1355 Market St, San Francisco, CA, 94103
MySpace: 349 - 8391 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048

I'm sensing a trend here.

Microsoft: Ok... that one is based in Redmond, WA
But they have offices:
here: 100 - 300 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA, 95814
here: 700 - 835 Market Street, San Franciso, CA, 94103
and here: 1065 La Avenida, Mountain View, CA, 94043

Care to explain again why this law is bogus?

Re: Contest

[vux984]

These companies are mostly incorporated in Delaware, the same laws as tax would apply so California's laws still don't apply.

Not true. All that's required is a 'significant physical presence' in the state, which these all have.