Calif. Governor vetoes bill requiring opt-out signals for sale of user data
Gavin Newsom said he opposes mandate on mobile operating system developers.
Gavin Newsom said he opposes mandate on mobile operating system developers.
Such a corporate stooge.
The guy is so strange. I'll see great decisions from him for months, and then it's like he goes into a dungeon and randomly approves the opposite type of laws for awhile.
Chaotic.
But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill."
Oh fuck off Newsom.
He’s trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about in nuanced detail. But his comment makes it very obvious that he has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about.
That sounds a lot like the legislature passed a bill because the people can’t trust companies to do the right thing, and Newsom said “we should trust the companies to do the right thing!”
Here's the extent of the design constraints by the bill:
(b) (1) A business shall not develop or maintain a mobile operating system that does not include a setting that enables a consumer to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the mobile operating system.
(2) This subdivision shall become operative six months after the adoption of regulations by the California Privacy Protection Agency that outline the requirements and technical specifications for an opt-out preference signal to be used by a mobile operating system.
c The California Privacy Protection Agency may adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer this section, including, but not limited to, ensuring that the setting described by subdivision (a) is easy for a reasonable person to locate and configure and updating the definitions of “browser” and “mobile operating system” to address changes in technology, data collection, obstacles to implementation, or privacy concerns.
It has to:
idk guys, seems pretty difficult to me /s
It'd be great if the decision was made by developers, they'd probably implement it since they can benefit from it as well. It's not the developers making these decisions though, it's the companies who have a vested interest in selling your data that are.
vetoing this is disappointing to say the least and
it should be the other way around;
users should be asked first if they'd like to opt-in first
Only in the EU, where people matter more than money.
my first thought is "hell yeah! it should be opt in" then I opened comments and... shit.
I’m surprised this asshole has time to veto good bills between his sessions of destroying destitute people’s possessions.
I voted for this guy before and thought I'd continue to do so, but the crap he's been pulling recently-ish has just confirmed for me he won't ever get my vote again. What a jagoff.
Hopefully a better person wins the primary.
It's not even opt-in wtf Gavin...
deleted by creator
The states GDP would probably plummet if phone OS developers couldn't sell user data lol
Interesting to consider. I'm betting it's at least as much because he somehow personally profits from data sales, if even just "campaign" funding.
Wait, I thought cali was best when it came to consumer rights. This is a strange divergence. I had to re-read the title because I thought surely the state would be on the side of opt'ing in to the sale of user's data.
They are only pro-consumer when it doesn't evolve Big Tech. They are owned by Big Tech...
What are the chances the state legislature overrides the veto?