
California Legislature Sells Out Our Data to ISPs - kawera
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/california-legislature-sells-out-our-data-isps
======
ScottBurson
California residents: write your representatives!
[http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/](http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/)

~~~
outoftacos
How many decades of writing representatives and wasting votes will it take
before people wise up? Clearly this isn't working, time for a new strategy.

~~~
labster
Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist.

Alternatively, get involved in the city Democratic clubs and county central
committees here in California. Politicians do pay attention to people who
organize fundraisers for them, and the local groups are where the next
generation of politicians are picked. Politics is a lot like science in that
regard: policies last until their supporters die, or are term-limited.

~~~
traek
> Fair enough. Let's crowdfund a lobbyist.

That's essentially what nonprofits like the EFF are.

------
hedora
Be sure to vote for next year's ballot initiative which imposes similar
privacy protections on all businesses in CA, including ISP's.

~~~
ac29
Which one is that? There are only 3 certified so far and none of them are
about privacy:
[https://ballotpedia.org/California_2018_ballot_propositions](https://ballotpedia.org/California_2018_ballot_propositions).

~~~
mlinksva
[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Informa...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Information_Disclosure_and_Sale_Initiative_\(2018\))

Added: I haven't looked closely at either, but it seems at a glance that the
initiative is far broader than the bill (which only applies to ISPs), so would
guess the initiative will attract a truly massive negative campaign if it
makes it to the ballot.

~~~
bsder
Good. And I hope that the response to every negative ad, opinion piece, etc.
is "So, about Equifax and their punishment..."

Being able to hang the Equifax albatross around Google, Facebook, etc. is
going to be glorious.

------
bsder
This is the actual headline, and I hate the EFF for creating it.

There is a _VAST_ gulf between not passing a bill that would have created a
positive situation, and actually passing a bill that creates a negative
situation.

In addition, this need for this bill was created by the _FCC_ ripping up the
privacy protections, so it got introduced very late in the session. As the
article points out, the fact that it got this far so quickly is a huge deal.

~~~
dragonwriter
Yeah, the EFF also tries to have it both ways, starting off with the
inflammatory sell-out headline and opening of the press release, and then
claiming that the bill is just stalled until next year, has wide support in
the legislature that is what enabled it to get so far despite the late
introduction, and has momentum for next year. It's a real failure at coherent
messaging.

------
danso
FWIW, you can find info about AB 375 on the CA legislature's website,
including history and bill analysis:

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient....](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375)

The Bill Analysis section contains a document, Senate Floor Analyses [0], that
explains the context of the bill, and lists the entities that have taken a
position for or against the bill, e.g. supported by the ACLU and SF Mayor
Edwin Lee, opposed by AT&T, Google, and various chambers of commerce.

The latest event for the bill is "9/16/2017 Ordered to inactive file at the
request of Senator McGuire". According to this glossary [1], the "Inactive
File" means:

> _The portion of the Daily File containing legislation that is ready for
> floor consideration, but, for a variety of reasons, is dormant or dead. An
> author may move a bill to the inactive file if they wish not to take it up
> until a later date. Once a bill is on the inactive file, it requires one
> day’s public notice to place the bill back on the daily agenda_

From what I can tell, Senator McGuire (a Democrat), voted to pass it out of
the energy committee in July [2].

Sorry, I don't have any specific knowledge about the CA legislative process
other than what I can find ono Google, so I don't know what the reasoning or
bureaucratic implications are for shelving it, but it's not a done deal
apparently.

[0]
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient....](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375#)

[1]
[http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legis...](http://www.cacttc.org/assets/documents/Glossary%20of%20Legislative%20Terms.pdf)

[2]
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375)

------
shmerl
Corruption prevails.

