Someone needs to do a better executive summary of this bill. Or at least do a better job of highlighting and explaining where it might be broken. Without all of the breathless editorializing. Because when I scan his summary, everything actually seems fairly reasonable, from a consumer privacy standpoint.
My thoughts exactly. Very poorly constructed article. They definitely buried the lead, which is that the law is reasonable. IMO it's crazy that it's taken this long for real regulation of web 2.0.
I agree, it mostly seems great. I want this in my state. If you are in the world of your business working by getting info from website users, or from third parties who got it from who knows where and then figure out something about you, which is a lot of internet properties, then they wouldn't like this because they like copying our info around all the time.
Only mildly concerning thing seems to be the pay-for-privacy bullet at the end of the article. This can definitely be fixed.
Further, reference to Sorrell vs IMS seems very contrived to me (not a lawyer though), as it deals with B2B records (DR prescribing history) as opposed to purely consumer rights or privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.
Outcome was that the law was struck down as restricting data mining company’s first amendment rights.
Comments
Someone needs to do a better executive summary of this bill. Or at least do a better job of highlighting and explaining where it might be broken. Without all of the breathless editorializing. Because when I scan his summary, everything actually seems fairly reasonable, from a consumer privacy standpoint.
My thoughts exactly. Very poorly constructed article. They definitely buried the lead, which is that the law is reasonable. IMO it's crazy that it's taken this long for real regulation of web 2.0.
I agree, it mostly seems great. I want this in my state. If you are in the world of your business working by getting info from website users, or from third parties who got it from who knows where and then figure out something about you, which is a lot of internet properties, then they wouldn't like this because they like copying our info around all the time.
Only mildly concerning thing seems to be the pay-for-privacy bullet at the end of the article. This can definitely be fixed.
Further, reference to Sorrell vs IMS seems very contrived to me (not a lawyer though), as it deals with B2B records (DR prescribing history) as opposed to purely consumer rights or privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.
Outcome was that the law was struck down as restricting data mining company’s first amendment rights.
It’s not broken. That’s the thing.
But there sure is s coordinated push of badly written articles spreading FUD about it...