New California Privacy Law Will Require Chrome/Edge/Safari to Offer Easy Opt-Outs for Data Sharing (9to5mac.com) 45
"California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the 'California Opt Me Out Act', which will require web browsers to include an easy, universal way for users to opt out of data collection and sales," reports the blog 9to5Mac:
[The law] requires browsers to provide a clear, one-click mechanism for Californians to opt out of data sharing across websites. The bill reads: "A business shall not develop or maintain a browser that does not include functionality configurable by a consumer that enables the browser to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the browser...."
Californians will need patience, though, as the law doesn't take effect until January 1, 2027.
Americans in some states — including California, Texas, Colorado, New Jersey and Maryland — "have the option to make those opt-out demands automatic whenever they surf the web," reports the Washington Post. "But they can only do so if they use small browsers that voluntarily offer that option, such as DuckDuckGo, Firefox and Brave. What's new in California's law is that all browsers must give people the same option." That means soon in California, just using Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari and Microsoft's Edge can command companies not to sell your data or pass it along for ad targeting... It's an imperfect but potent and simple way to flex privacy rights — and becomes even more powerful with another simple privacy measure in California. Starting on January 1, California residents can fill out an online form once to completely and repeatedly wipe their data from hundreds of data brokers that package your personal information for sale.
But their article also suggests other ways readers can "try a one-click privacy option now."
Americans in some states — including California, Texas, Colorado, New Jersey and Maryland — "have the option to make those opt-out demands automatic whenever they surf the web," reports the Washington Post. "But they can only do so if they use small browsers that voluntarily offer that option, such as DuckDuckGo, Firefox and Brave. What's new in California's law is that all browsers must give people the same option." That means soon in California, just using Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari and Microsoft's Edge can command companies not to sell your data or pass it along for ad targeting... It's an imperfect but potent and simple way to flex privacy rights — and becomes even more powerful with another simple privacy measure in California. Starting on January 1, California residents can fill out an online form once to completely and repeatedly wipe their data from hundreds of data brokers that package your personal information for sale.
But their article also suggests other ways readers can "try a one-click privacy option now."
- "[S]ome national companies respect one-click privacy opt-out requests from everyone... This happens automatically if you use DuckDuckGo and Brave. You need to change a setting with Firefox."
- "Download Privacy Badger: The software from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer privacy advocacy group, works in the background to order websites not to sell information they're collecting about you."
- "Use Permission Slip from Consumer Reports. Give the app basic information, and it will help you do much of the legwork to tell companies not to sell your information or to delete it, if you have the right to do so."
Opt Out as Default! (Score:2)
Largest horse race by a political party in decades (Score:2)
Given the huge anger at the Democrat party leadership, the many octogenarians, or older geriatrics in party leadership positions, and the long-long-long standing Democrat (effective) policy of agitating one group against another without passing any laws helping blue collar workers, there is going to be a large field of Democrat party members trying to run for president in 2028.
It may be just a generational demographic thing, where the nostalgia as party policy, don't make any large changes, keep propping up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real goal is to have all of the settings available without having to resort to chrome:// to modify settings, or unchangable settings.
Guy wants to be President so bad... (Score:1, Troll)
I'll give bozo less than 2 years till he strokes out, but 3 more years of headlining from this guy, and that's just until elections.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn. That Newsom guy is awesome. He writes bills, passes them thru the house and senate, and then signs them -All by himself! Does he also preside over the court when they are challenged? I bet he can do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anything. I'm sure when Federal troops take over the State Capitol and Newsom is put in prison for unspecified but certainly horrible crimes, the military governor that takes his place will make sure none of this kind anti-corporate nonsense continues.
Re: (Score:2)
He's incredible! It's especially amazing, given I remember this happening even back when he was just a child! (I'm older than he is)
The reason California rules typically affect the entire US is primarily due to its size. With 40 million people, businesses don't want to NOT be in California, and it's typically easier to just follow the more stringent California rules for a product line than to produce two different variations of a single product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Guy wants to be President so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like it not how do you think gun control polls in California? I mean I kinda agree with you about this bill but like it nor not a lot of people in a lot of states want something to be done about gun violence and with any Federal actions pretty much off the table states are going to do things their citizens are looking for.
Like it or not CA has the lowest gun death rate on the entire western half of the country (8 per 100k). [cdc.gov] Only New England/NY/NJ are lower in the country so maybe there's something to it.
Re: (Score:1)
If someone is breaking or losing their gun every 10 days, the negligent klutz has much bigger problems than a law. OTOH I guess you could say the law is just more salt in their already-salty wound.
Imagine you go to the beach to shoot at sharks. Eventually you get tired, and you leave your loaded gun on top of your car then drive off, forgetting it's there. Somewhere along the way, it falls off and an 8 year old crackhead finds it and shoots people for crack. But that's not your problem; your problem is you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep going...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Re: (Score:2)
This is a matter of debate among actual historians and constitutional scholars and surely will not be resolved here, but the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you, in District of Columbia v. Heller [wikipedia.org]: "It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms -- unconnected with service in a militia -- for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home"; and in McDonald v. City of Chicago [wikipedia.org], the Court ruled that "the right of an i
Re: Guy wants to be President so bad... (Score:2)
He's going to win the DNC primaries, regardless of you think he would make a good president or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. You are convincing me not to bother listening to GOP.
First of all, almost everyone in politics is 'absolutely desperate to be President'. The current President would probably be in jail if he had lost the election, there were several felony cases that are on hold. But it is the AMERICAN PRESIDENCY. Its the superbowl/world series/world cup/Olympics of politics. Mothers dream of their kid becoming Presidency.
Secondly, Newsom is not Trump and the
You mean: resurect the failed DNT=1 (Score:1)
This already existed in browsers like firefox and was dropped, because browsers like chrome refused to implement it.
Maybe just remerge that PR and clone it to chrome?
(and jailtime for corpos not accepting this flag, starting at the ceo)
Re: (Score:2)
I think chrome had it. The problem was edge had it on by default and websites claimed that that means users didn't choose to opt-out but were just using the user-friendly default, so they could ignore it. If it weren't for edge, they would have found another excuse. Without a law enforcing it, they will not obey it.
Re: (Score:2)
Along with Do Not Track settings there are also Cookies and Fingerprinting that allows websites to track you. Cookies are known to most and many browsers have a way to turn off third-party cookies so sites can't track you using ads. Session cookies are necessary and only live for that session. First party cookies are needed for persistent shopping carts or multi-site suites like Google and MS Office on the web.
Fingerprinting is a way to identify you by unique features of your computer. Having a unique f
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Does the Opt Out flag work? (Score:1)
I use Firefox but I assumed that the Opt Out flag would be ignored by the great majority of sites.
Am I too cynical?
Re: (Score:1)
States Rights - Ya Buddy (Score:2)
Re:States Rights - Ya Buddy (Score:4, Informative)
We really went way wrong when we allow states to regulate interstate commerce with the internet.
I would be inclined to agree with you on the jurisdiction thing... but most tech companies are headquartered in California. The ones that aren't headquartered here have major presences here. The silicon valley effect* gives California extensive regulatory powers in tech.
*The silicon valley effect is that all the tech companies are in silicon valley because all of the tech people come to silicon valley because that is where the jobs at all the tech companies are...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why force the browsers? (Score:2)
It is more important to compel websites. Browser vendors (except for Google) would likely add the option if sites comply with it. However, we should block all methods that allow websites to evade following the opt-out.
And in the end one should think if tracking shouldn't be banned. Which use will really opt-in into tracking if websites are not allowed to force, persuade or bribe them to do so? Tracking is something no user wants, some might think they need to accept it when they are presented with a banner
Didn't we already try this at the browser level? (Score:3)
I'm sure I remember... about a decade ago, I think... that at least one of the major browsers already tried implementing a do-not-track request header. I think two of the three did it, actually. But the websites... and the advertising and tracking companies... pretty much all ignored the setting; so the browser developers all just gave up on it. And we all just kept on using plugins to block ads and trackers.
I see no problem with putting a DNT switch or option back in the browsers. But it was never *THEM* doing the tracking in the first place. So what good does this law do, without a requirement that the visited web sites respect the setting? And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
Re: (Score:2)
> And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
It is an amendment to the CCPA. Websites covered by the CCPA are required by law to honor the opt-out, and browsers are required to implement it.
Govt, as fucked up as usual (Score:2)
They're going about this completely wrong, and that quote from the bill is nearly unreadable.
The correct way to do is is to simply require opt-in and leave browsers out of the picture altogether.
Try this on for size:
No business shall sell any data about a customer unless that customer clearly and unambiguously consents to the sale of such data, in writing, via postal mail to the mailing address of the business's preference. The original copy of such consent must be retained for a period of no less than five
Data sharing should be like sex.. (Score:3)
Useless (Score:3)