|
We are changing our position on Prop 24 to NO.
|
|
We have changed our position on Proposition 24. It's billed as a privacy reform measure, but as we've read more about it, we've learned that many of the “reforms” are loopholes that would further entrench a “pay-for-privacy” economy and otherwise weaken California's privacy protections. We are now a NO on 24.
At first blush, Prop 24 appears to be a logical expansion of existing consumer privacy law, and this is an important issue where existing law could do more. Misuse of personal information by online businesses is profoundly dangerous to people. Not only is it used for targeted advertising - the scandals of the past four years have shown how personal information can be sold to organizations that spread misinformation, conduct mass surveillance, and leave people vulnerable to identity theft and doxxing.
ISF supports efforts to curb the misuse and abuse of private consumer information for profit by corporations. But this isn’t the reform we need—as opponents such as ACLU, Color of Change, and labor activist Dolores Huerta have pointed out, this bill would introduce loopholes, weaken protections, and further entrench a “pay-for-privacy” economy. And although the Electronic Frontier Foundation ended up reaching a “No Recommendation” conclusion, the EFF’s blog post about Prop 24 lists off many serious concerns.
Our own members have noted that proponents of the measure talk in vague terms about privacy issues, whereas the opponents talk about specific problems with the proposed legislation. This is a good sign of bad legislation.
We need real protections for Californians from privacy abuses, not attempts by the corporations responsible for those abuses to subvert and weaken the protections we have now.
|
|
|
Keep Fighting,
The Indivisible SF Team
If you'd like to support our all-volunteer team:
|
|
|
|
