California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Opt-Out Signals For Sale of User Data (arstechnica.com) 51
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required makers of web browsers and mobile operating systems to let consumers send opt-out preference signals that could limit businesses' use of personal information. The bill approved by the State Legislature last month would have required an opt-out signal "that communicates the consumer's choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer's personal information or to limit the use of the consumer's sensitive personal information." It would have made it illegal for a business to offer a web browser or mobile operating system without a setting that lets consumers "send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts."
In a veto message (PDF) sent to the Legislature Friday, Newsom said he would not sign the bill. Newsom wrote that he shares the "desire to enhance consumer privacy," noting that he previously signed a bill "requir[ing] the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism allowing consumers to request that data brokers delete all of their personal information." But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill." Vetoes can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The bill was approved 59-12 in the Assembly and 31-7 in the Senate. But the State Legislature hasn't overridden a veto in decades. "It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office," said Justin Kloczko, tech and privacy advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in California. "What the governor didn't mention is that Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge don't offer a global opt-out and they make up for nearly 90 percent of the browser market share. That's what matters. And people don't want to install plug-ins. Safari, which is the default browsers on iPhones, doesn't even accept a plug-in."
In a veto message (PDF) sent to the Legislature Friday, Newsom said he would not sign the bill. Newsom wrote that he shares the "desire to enhance consumer privacy," noting that he previously signed a bill "requir[ing] the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism allowing consumers to request that data brokers delete all of their personal information." But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill." Vetoes can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The bill was approved 59-12 in the Assembly and 31-7 in the Senate. But the State Legislature hasn't overridden a veto in decades. "It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office," said Justin Kloczko, tech and privacy advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in California. "What the governor didn't mention is that Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge don't offer a global opt-out and they make up for nearly 90 percent of the browser market share. That's what matters. And people don't want to install plug-ins. Safari, which is the default browsers on iPhones, doesn't even accept a plug-in."
Re: Newsom wants to be the next Bill Clinton (Score:4, Insightful)
Default shall be opt out, and opt in shall be the option that the user selects.
But no feature crippling shall be in place for those that don't opt in.
Re:Newsom wants to be the next Bill Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect when the baby boomers are no longer a political force his political career will be over because the country is going to move to the left
I think you're discounting many in the country. If boomers were gone, there'd still be a ton of people in mostly red states that won't move to the left. Add to that the sensible portion of GenX and Millennial folks who haven't bought into everything the left is trying to sell them (a number that keeps growing) and I don't think the ratio of what you consider left and right will budge much. For the record, I've consistently, over the past 20 years, been in the middle of the lower left quadrant on the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] graph (left, libertarian), but according to today's democrats, I'm a conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
To understand his comment you first have to realize it is nothing more than a partisan smear. It doesn't need to make sense.
Also, I agree that the boomer comment made no sense. It's just bigotry, something you expect from anti-Democrat partisans.
And when "boomers are gone" old people won't be and old people have old people's concerns. Politics won't change, and many GenX'ers are just as conservative as the people they replace. All that happens when "boomers are gone" is a change of terminology. Not tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Millenials are not showing any signs of the same shift to the right as prior generations.
The reason being is they have nothing to be conservative about. People become conservative when they have something they want to protect. I.e. A pension, A home, A partner, etc. Guess what millennials as a generation have been denied repeatedly for their entire working life? Oh yeah, all of that stuff. Kinda hard to protect something you don't have, so it's no surprise that those that have so little are against the policies and laws that kept them in that state later in life than the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget what "boomer" means. There was a "baby boom", a large bump in baby production during a relatively short period after WW2. This hump in the age demographic chart has steadily aged (and created a smaller echo hump when they became breeding age). The age cohort right behind them, nor their echo (gen X?) is as large as them. Hence, as they die off, they will NOT be replaced by the same number of old people. That's why it's thought that there will be a quantitative difference when "boomers are g
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I've consistently, over the past 20 years, been in the middle of the lower left quadrant on the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] graph (left, libertarian), but according to today's democrats, I'm a conservative.
Musk tweeted something similar once, too. [reddit.com]
Thing is, progressive politics is like popular music. If you don't keep up with what's current, you'll wake up and discover one day that it's no longer actually "pop" that you enjoy, but "oldies". Changing and evolving with the times is precisely what makes progressive policies, progressive.
Re: (Score:3)
"He's basically a Democrat equivalent to Ron DeSantis at this point."
That makes absolutely no sense, not at any level. There is no "democrat equivalent" to Ron DeSantis nor would anyone think there is one or that Newsome would be that. Also, what's a "neoliberal"? And is this comment suggesting that Newsom is to the right of Harris? It's all absurd bullshit.
Also, the misuse of the word "democrat" is a give-away. A progressive doesn't mispronounce the name of the Democratic Party. Sorry, bud, your party
Re: Newsom wants to be the next Bill Clinton (Score:2)
Both Newsom and DeSantis are clearly pursuing the presidency. Also both have exposed themselves as hypocrites (eg. Newsom telling everyone to stay home during Covid, then going out to schmooze with donors at the fanciest restaurant in the state, and DeSantis ... too many times to count).
Seems like they have enough in common to be comparable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Newsom wants to be the next Bill Clinton (Score:4, Interesting)
"He's basically a Democrat equivalent to Ron DeSantis at this point."
That makes absolutely no sense, not at any level.
I live in Florida and it makes perfect sense. Both of them are mad with power and try to one-up each other by doing the opposite thing. Cali has a law requiring LGBTQ+ history be taught in schools (really, they do), Florida passed a "Don't Say Gay" law. Cali cracks down on guns, Florida passed constitutional carry. Then there was the ordeal with the gas stoves...
I'm still waiting for DeSantis's response to the plastic bag ban. More free plastic bags here in Florida? I'm sure he's thinking right now of a way we can plastic bag even harder.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with rsilvergun pretty frequently but one thing I would not accuse him of is being a fake progressive. "Democrat" is very common shorthand, I've heard it used for 30 years from sources such as CNN, NPR, etc., including from many who are themselves Democrats. If you're just being sarcastic, I didn't pick up on it, but if you're being seriou
Re:Newsom wants to be the next Bill Clinton (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty certain that Governor Hair Gel is Left-of-Center ... not right of center.
Whose center? The U.S.'s or the world's? Left of the center in U.S. politics, I could believe. Left of center globally, probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, other democratic societies exist outside of the USA. They just aren't so far to the right as the USA is.
And yes other people do fucking care. That the USA doesn't is a flaw it should be ashamed of, but as you said: who the fuck cares about the USA's glaring flaws? Certainly not Americans.
Because ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Mickey Mouse is running both State Houses in Sakramento
That's his excluse? (Score:3)
No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal.
Duh! Isn't that the purpose of the law, to require mobile O/Ses to do just that with a deadline? I would have bought his argument had he said "I don't think we, as Californians, can dictate what features an O/S should have in it, given that we don't really have control over any O/S."
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that is implied.
weak and worthless like newsom (Score:3, Funny)
If it's not an opt in law, then fuck you.
Newsom is a DINO. We knew that already of course because of his plans for concentration camps and forced medication for the homeless and mentally ill.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a much better argument for vetoing that bill would be to require an opt-in to sell your user data.
What AI and PINs have to do with this subject went over my head.
"send an opt-out preference signal" (Score:3)
I see no sign that there is any penalty for ignoring the 'signal', which very likely is what would happen seeing as how there is significant revenue associated with selling the data.
Re:"send an opt-out preference signal" (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Who cares... It's not like Do Not Track was ever respected by Big Data.
In fact, as people realized Do Not Track was just a placebo button, it coincided with the dramatic uptick in ad blocker usage. Because when people ask nicely and they're being blown off, they stop asking nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, DNT became another signal that would, ironically, help track you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, especially when that choice works against their interest.
And yes, Do Not Track is meaningless and ignored. These companies leave microphones on.
But the whole thing makes no sense. The law is purely symbolic and the veto of it makes no sense. Vendors would only have to pretend to comply like they do now, so they really should not care about it. So what special interest is Newsom bowing to? The whole premise makes no sense. The law is meaningless, the veto meaningless, and the companies don't care.
It's a moot point anyway (Score:3)
If you're talking about a general purpose computer then he's more-or-less correct, there are ways you can protect yourself there.
So far as such functionality being baked into an OS, that's really not practical anyway -- although if you're talking about the current incarnation of Windows, then it's looking like anything and everything you do with it is wide open to Microsoft, and there's basically nothing you can do about that, either.
Really though if you use the Internet at all there's at least some level of data collection going on, even if it's just logging what websites you use.
Whatever (Score:4, Informative)
>"The bill approved by the State Legislature last month would have required an opt-out signal "that communicates the consumer's choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer's personal information or to limit the use of the consumer's sensitive personal information."
1) Meaningless. Unless it is somehow enforced. Which is can't be and won't be.
2) Over-reach in many regards.
3) Firefox already has this. Which is not surprising for a browser that does actually care about user control and privacy. And, yet, probably no site actually honors set settings. https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org]
>"It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office,"
And web browsers, since most non-Firefox ones are just wrappers around Chrom*.
And by extension, web "standards".
And search.
And advertising.
And Email.
And mobile.
And and and...
Everyone remember (Score:3)
What? IT people really think telling Meta and Amazon, "don't make a profit from my eyeballs" will stop bad behaviour? Then, I have an Eiffel Tower to sell you. As long as there's no punishment for selling your history, the law is pointless and worthless. It's a politician saying "I did something", regardless of its worthlessness or "unintended" consequences.
Everyone remember, politicians complain about Tiktok 'giving' their data to the 'wrong' government. Do-nothing responses like this, prove they don't care about protecting data or consumers.
Re: (Score:1)
"I used to care but I'm off to buy a new yacht so my focus has shifted"
CA depends on data mining (Score:2)
Gavin knows where his tax revenue comes from. Data mining and manipulation via advertising is the source of Californiaâ(TM)s tax revenue through the tech industry. Data is the most valuable commodity tech has right now.
Good, I'm tired of clicking cookie buttons (Score:1)
As an OS developer how would I do this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe, you do not need this (Score:2)
The GDPR states that any use of your personal data needs informed (!) consent and that is that.
I do agree on the veto here though. The required implementation is stupid. This seems to be another tech-law where no actual engineers were consulted.
And the Tech Giants Profiting from This... (Score:2)
Are all in California, and are all big Democrat donors. What a surprise that Greasy Gavin is protecting their rice bowl.
Because the fuckers can steal more easily! (Score:1)
Do we really need a fake answer?
The bill was completely wrong, anyway (Score:1)
Throwing the baby out... (Score:2)
Some of this makes less sense.
Consider hitting a site you got a link to. In another language, aimed at another country's citizens, sort of. If opt-out is the norm, the site cannot detect even your approximate location and can't offer navigation to a more appropriate version of the site. Or even tell you "sorry, we do not ship to your location". Time waster.
But verifying compliance was left out. How about these users of our data be compelled to show the metadata they have on me when I ask? Penalties for not
Re: (Score:2)
Truly, there's no good fix. They just lie.
No [good] fix but.... if we leverage LLMs we can flood the data pool with so much garbage it becomes unusable... a million fake identities a day producing a trillion random signals all pretending to be me.....
The downside being we would be adding even more noise to a system already sweating under an enormous flood of spam and bot traffic.
Re: Throwing the baby out... (Score:2)
Or food them with so much garbage they inflict harm where none was intended.
What do you expect (Score:2)
everything (Score:2)
Everything not forbidden must be compulsory.