They need to make it eligible for Class Action lawsuits to be filed if these are ignored. I wrote a script to routinely test opt out on websites and was stunned to see almost 50% had it implemented incorrectly. This includes high-flying tech companies that went public recently.
Under California’s CCPA / CPRA, most enforcement power lies with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General, not private individuals. This limits the actual downside to a company vs. an unbounded downside of class-action lawsuit threat.
Widespread pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements with class-action waivers and bans on mass arbitration kind of put a damper on that, and the Supreme Court has upheld those nationwide in ways California can't easily override.
But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)
On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.
There’s actually a more powerful legislative tool available: citizens can be empowered to sue on behalf of the state for what is effectively class relief, and to partake in the recovery (with attorneys fees). This creates a market incentive to prosecute claims like this, and it also circumvents arbitration. PAGA is such a statute.
It’s weird that laws exist where private individuals can’t take action. We need a constitutional amendment to make it so that laws can be enforced more easily. I’m not sure how it would work but I’m sure someone more legally minded could come up with something.
I don't get this. Many years ago there was "Do not track", a header that was sent based on browser configuration. As a data subject, I loved it. As an engineer I also loved it - it was easy. If the header was present don't render any tracking code. If all services acted in good faith, it could have been epic. But there was pushback, and it went away. Sadface.
For what it's worth I think the browser is the right place for tools like this. If the same thing could have been applied to cookies, we'd not be experience cookie-preference-popupageddon.
The article suggests browser vendors are somehow on the hook for implementing "do not sell". Is the idea the same as do not track?
It's even worse than that now. In privacy circles, it is widely advised to not enable Do Not Track headers, as they are rarely respected and are actually unsurprisingly and commonly used as an additional identifier/data point during browser fingerprinting—in effect, making you less tracked if you deselect "Do Not Track" and more tracked if you enable "Do Not Track."
Excellent news, but also: Let's see the penalties, and let's see the vigorous enforcement. If this doesn't have teeth, it'll be pointless. Let's see a serious fine that puts a scumbag company out of business.
I really don’t like this kind of cynicism. You could use the same argument to say California will never pass a bill to enable universal opt out, which they did.
Assuming part time work (approximately one day every two weeks) at 10% of the yearly ~2000hr worked per year that equates to about $3300 per year, which seems sensible to me.
I don't see how this is enforceable across state lines. What is stopping a data harvesting company in Nevada from just harvesting everything from people in California and selling it?
The "universal opt-out" bill really has no teeth on its own. Combined with the existing CCPA though, it has potential (CCPA is limited to sharing for cross-context behavioral advertising). It just says that browsers and mobile operating systems need to have an easy-to-find setting to signal that the user wants to opt out. The whole bill can basically fit in a tweet. No requirements on what the signal actually looks like, and no requirements that it's respected. There are other laws passed this week with more teeth.
Oh, and we don't have to worry about the "Cookie banner" problem, because a separate law (CCPA) requires a 12 month cooldown before prompting the user for opt-in consent again.
From the law, defining the signal:
> “Opt-out preference signal” means a signal that complies with this title and that communicates the consumer’s choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer’s personal information.
Often wondered about this idea- its been kicked around in startup-land for like forever, but I have never seen a serious attempt at trying to make it work.
It seems to provide a universal and sensible offer to members of the public: "I am happy to be advertised to for a small fee".
> It seems to provide a universal and sensible offer to members of the public: "I am happy to be advertised to for a small fee".
Generally, you are provided a sensible offer: You can use many games, search engines, communication platforms, and other internet services for free. Those tools cost a lot of money to build and maintain, and you don't pay anything.
Also, I have seen products pretty similar to what you suggest. There have been apps and websites that promise you gift cards in exchange for watching ads. Basically trying to increase Adsense traffic in exchange for cash-equivalents. They're obviously ripe for abuse, and surely the ads have terrible clickthrough rates.
I would love to drop some of the extensions that I currently have loaded for this purpose, but sadly I'm not confident the positive signal instructing opt-out will be honored, and I'll need to retain my defensive extensions.
but then the websites may offer a banner to ask the user to opt-in again
and this information can be saved in a cookie, so it would not be asked again
maybe they can call it the "cookie banner"
oh, and also, if it would be annoying to keep saying "no, I don't want to opt-in again" the websites owners may say that it is government fault, as now they are required by law to show this banner
Nice. But if you really gave a shit about privacy it’d be opt in.
Nobody in their right mind wants their information shared for marketing purposes. Turn it off.
The received wisdom is that the Trump administration does big business' bidding. Thus, the FTC rescinds federal click to cancel.
But now CA passed its own click to cancel. Surely other states will follow.
How is fighting dozens of different statutes better than working around one in federal courts that are backed up by the business friendly Supreme Court? Businesses are greedy but they aren't dumb. What am I missing?
Tip to others that may have this issue: If you need to cancel Planet Fitness (may work for other national gyms), move your home gym to a location in California and an option to cancel online appears.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges: a federal rule vs a state law. I don't know what kind of federal click-to-cancel legislation initiatives exist, but I know the last two federal digital privacy bills have failed because big tech wants a watered-down federal 'ceiling', while tech states (like CA) want a baseline federal 'floor' that doesn't preempt their more advanced state protections.
Well, but more than that, the executive is dumber. They can't wage some complex strategic battle through legislation when the guy in charge needs his talking points fed to him through Fox & Friends. Get a win for business, it keeps the checks rolling in to keep fighting the ideologue war. They'll lose the small battles but eventually win the war.
One easy free-market-friendly libertarian-approved solution would give citizens and residents of California a choice - your data can be kept private, or you can get a sizeable precentage of the value if you opt-in to data collection and sharing.
I'm not really sure how much this would be worth - and would it scale? How much value does the data from a worker at the lower end of the labor pool wage scale have in relation to that from the C-suite members of a mid-size corporation? Should we all have the right to climb up on the block and sell our data to the highest bidders, while collecting the majority of the profits from the transaction ourselves? It might make more sense to sell your data in five-year future contracts - opportunity to renegotiate rates now and then makes sense.
It's informational data, and in worlds like the commodity markets, information is invaluable. Traders have access to everything from satellite data of oil tankers to insider information from drilling rigs and they pay a lot to keep their data current and accurate, get access to proprietary databases and even nation-state classified sources.
Thus, if human data is so valuable, the humans generating the data should be the ones collecting the majority of its financial value if they opt to sell it. From this view, the real crime here is theft of worker value by data collectors and resellers in a monopolistic market system.
The are two projects that I know which attempted to solve that problem.
India's has DEPA (Data Empowerment And Protection Architecture) framework that addresses the data consent problem. (e.g bank will ask your consent before sharing the data). The advantage here is it providers legal framework as well.
The solid project from Tim Berners-Lee (who invented world wide web) is an attempt to solve that. https://solidproject.org/. This is pure consumer owned but there is no legal protection from the government.
> One easy free-market-friendly libertarian-approved solution would give citizens and residents of California a choice - your data can be kept private, or you can get a sizeable precentage of the value if you opt-in to data collection and sharing.
Some business models that depend on unscrutinized unlawful or antisocial behavior turn out to be unviable when they're forced to operate in a way that is lawful / not an attack on the public.
In CA websites are already required to respect the opt-out setting implemented in the Global Privacy Control [1] extension. It's basically the same thing as do-not-track but starting from a clean slate so that the meaning of the setting in law is clearly defined.
This bill basically allows the regulator to make sure everyone in CA gets this extension automatically.
Yeah, it's crazy that when you register to vote, the DMV turns around and sells that contact information on to any political campaign/operation that wants to pay for it.
California politicians are the worst. They have no accountability because it’s just one party and they are beholden to nobody but big donors and Gavin Newson’s narcissistic ambitions.
What’s wrong with this from your perspective? IMO it’s too little too late and should have been a federal law years ago.
Don’t get me wrong - Newsom is a slippery snake politician and is beholden to rich scumbag donors but I don’t see how this in particular is due to his and the dems big donors.
That said you seem to imply that only one side of this shitshow is beholden to big donors but corruption and general degeneracy is far more prevalent in the elephant party.
Under California’s CCPA / CPRA, most enforcement power lies with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General, not private individuals. This limits the actual downside to a company vs. an unbounded downside of class-action lawsuit threat.
But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)
On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.
For what it's worth I think the browser is the right place for tools like this. If the same thing could have been applied to cookies, we'd not be experience cookie-preference-popupageddon.
The article suggests browser vendors are somehow on the hook for implementing "do not sell". Is the idea the same as do not track?
If you think they're not skimming off the top, then you don't know what they are.
Assuming part time work (approximately one day every two weeks) at 10% of the yearly ~2000hr worked per year that equates to about $3300 per year, which seems sensible to me.
I predict another popup to close on every damn website.
> Businesses must wait at least 12 months before asking you to opt back in to the sale or sharing of your personal information.
https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectionb
YES or YES ?
Oh, and we don't have to worry about the "Cookie banner" problem, because a separate law (CCPA) requires a 12 month cooldown before prompting the user for opt-in consent again.
From the law, defining the signal:
> “Opt-out preference signal” means a signal that complies with this title and that communicates the consumer’s choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer’s personal information.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB566/id/3117187
https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
It seems to provide a universal and sensible offer to members of the public: "I am happy to be advertised to for a small fee".
Generally, you are provided a sensible offer: You can use many games, search engines, communication platforms, and other internet services for free. Those tools cost a lot of money to build and maintain, and you don't pay anything.
Also, I have seen products pretty similar to what you suggest. There have been apps and websites that promise you gift cards in exchange for watching ads. Basically trying to increase Adsense traffic in exchange for cash-equivalents. They're obviously ripe for abuse, and surely the ads have terrible clickthrough rates.
In spirit this is great.
maybe they can call it the "cookie banner"
oh, and also, if it would be annoying to keep saying "no, I don't want to opt-in again" the websites owners may say that it is government fault, as now they are required by law to show this banner
But now CA passed its own click to cancel. Surely other states will follow.
How is fighting dozens of different statutes better than working around one in federal courts that are backed up by the business friendly Supreme Court? Businesses are greedy but they aren't dumb. What am I missing?
Now I might sign up for the local gym that opened up, knowing they cannot jerk me around when I want to leave.
I'm not really sure how much this would be worth - and would it scale? How much value does the data from a worker at the lower end of the labor pool wage scale have in relation to that from the C-suite members of a mid-size corporation? Should we all have the right to climb up on the block and sell our data to the highest bidders, while collecting the majority of the profits from the transaction ourselves? It might make more sense to sell your data in five-year future contracts - opportunity to renegotiate rates now and then makes sense.
It's informational data, and in worlds like the commodity markets, information is invaluable. Traders have access to everything from satellite data of oil tankers to insider information from drilling rigs and they pay a lot to keep their data current and accurate, get access to proprietary databases and even nation-state classified sources.
Thus, if human data is so valuable, the humans generating the data should be the ones collecting the majority of its financial value if they opt to sell it. From this view, the real crime here is theft of worker value by data collectors and resellers in a monopolistic market system.
India's has DEPA (Data Empowerment And Protection Architecture) framework that addresses the data consent problem. (e.g bank will ask your consent before sharing the data). The advantage here is it providers legal framework as well.
The solid project from Tim Berners-Lee (who invented world wide web) is an attempt to solve that. https://solidproject.org/. This is pure consumer owned but there is no legal protection from the government.
they are one of the most ideologically inconsistent groups i can think of besides the hardcore maga crowd.
Good luck operationalizing that
it says Browsers must send an opt-out signal.
Browsers have already had a do-not-track setting, and websites universally* ignored it.
* 99%
This bill basically allows the regulator to make sure everyone in CA gets this extension automatically.
[1] https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa/gpc
Don’t get me wrong - Newsom is a slippery snake politician and is beholden to rich scumbag donors but I don’t see how this in particular is due to his and the dems big donors.
That said you seem to imply that only one side of this shitshow is beholden to big donors but corruption and general degeneracy is far more prevalent in the elephant party.