Californians are set to vote on a new privacy law that would make sweeping changes to the CCPA regime. GDR has interviewed members from the campaigns supporting and opposing the proposal.
The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which will appear as “Prop 24” on the state’s ballot on Tuesday, has made strange bedfellows, with both industry groups and some privacy advocates opposing the initiative. The former say more regulations will further burden the private sector, while the latter claim that the CPRA creates loopholes that will lead to further data exploitation.
But other privacy advocates, policy experts and lawyers support the measure. They are confident that Prop 24 will pass, and that it will make meaningful privacy enhancements – while also clarifying some existing ambiguities with the CCPA.
California residents will vote Tuesday on a divisive privacy initiative: Prop 24, also known as the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act.
Alastair Mactaggart, the San Francisco developer, wrote and financed Prop 24 to enhance or adjust provisions of his previous initiative, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).
Prop 24 would require businesses to provide customers with an opt-out regarding the collection of their private data and would limit how that information is used and stored.
12 consumer and privacy groups asked the FCC not to roll back protections for sensitive telephone information including metadata (CPNI).
CPNI stands for Customer Proprietary Network Information and refers to the data collected by telecommunication providersabout a consumer’s telephone calls. It includes the time, date, duration and destination number of each call and the type of network a consumer subscribes to.
The FCC is considering the “burden” of the CPNI certification process, which requires the agent of a telecom to certify that CPNI protections are in place and to explain to the agency how they work.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Two years ago, the California Legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, a tough and expansive piece of legislation meant to mimic Europe’s broad data protections.
The fanfare was short-lived for data-privacy advocates, as lobbyists for various business interests rushed in to water down its protections. Hostile amendments that sought to carve out exemptions to the law were largely defeated after a grueling legislative session in 2019.
When California voters receive their voter guide for the November election, they will see a 53-page measure claiming to improve their privacy rights listed as Proposition 24. What they won’t see, unless they are very diligent at reading lengthy texts, are all the loopholes and exemptions in Proposition 24.
That’s why privacy and consumer protection groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Media Alliance, Consumer Fed, Consumer Action, Public Citizen, Color of Change, Courage Campaign, California Small Business Alliance, Electronic Frontier Foundation and many others who have fought for you for years won’t endorse Proposition 24. It isn’t what it pretends to be.
Privacy and data expert Mary Stone Ross and Tracy Rosenberg, the Executive Director of The Media Alliance join us to discuss Proposition 24, a so-called “privacy” proposal that would in reality undo key parts of the California Consumer Privacy Act.
In 2018 , an initiative headed for the ballot led to a frantic and imperfect bargaining session in Sacramento. The outcome was the only comprehensive state consumer privacy law in the country, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
As we pointed out then, CCPA, the result of the watering down of a stronger legislative proposal that had gotten marooned in the Legislature, had significant flaws. It was the best consumer privacy law in the country because it was basically the *only* consumer privacy law in the country.
Originally published in Communications Daily on June 3
“No changes from the last draft is good and bad, emailed Media Alliance Executive Director Tracy Rosenberg. Privacy advocates are glad the AG rejected many business requests that would have weakened CCPA but “disappointed that a few changes we recommended were not incorporated, including to accept browser do-not-track requests as opt outs.”
