California Politicians Want To Force All Social Networks To Be Private By Default
from the and-to-delete-content dept
We keep seeing "privacy" laws being proposed by politicians who don't seem to recognize the unintended consequences of what they're proposing. The latest comes from my home state of California, where a bill is making its way through the legislature that would require the default settings on social networks be to keep everything private. On top of that, it would require that sites remove any personally identifying information -- including photos -- within 48 hours of a user's request.You can recognize why a politician (or even individuals) might like the sound of this without thinking through what it might actually mean. In the bill itself social networking websites are defined as:
an Internet Web-based service that allows an individual to construct a public or partly public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom the individual shares a connection, and view and traverse his or her list of connections and those made by others in the system.This is trimmed down from a longer, more vague, description, but it's still troublesome. For example, Techdirt allows people to create public profiles. While we don't have a system to let people share connections, we've certainly had people ask about it, and I know other blog sites have enabled similar capabilities. But, at the same time, our long-standing policy is that we don't remove comments from people. Yet, if this law passes, we'd run the risk of $10,000 for potential violations.
The thing is, while there may be serious privacy risks on certain websites, this bill doesn't really address any of them. Instead, it seems to pick a random, non-existent problem, and try to solve it. Take, for example, Twitter. It would clearly fall under this law, but the whole point of Twitter (for the most part) is to be able to communicate publicly. Why force all new users to default to a "private setting"?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, privacy, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bullshit like this is why I moved away. Haven't you broken off and slid into the ocean yet? Just go away. Grrrrrrrrr....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honestly...
Its easier to fix non-existent issues than real ones.
Look! I just made it so people who can't read don't need to read my posts by not requiring them to read what I have written! I am so great, I should run for public office!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's what I use those networks for, to have an easy way to communicate with those specific people.
I don't want to see the spam from whoever burying a post from say, my brother or a friend, where I have to then search through all the clutter and possibly miss something.
I understand I won't be overthrowing a countries government this way, but those were not my intentions when I signed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CA Legislator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Honestly...
In order not to infringe upon your patent, I hereby require all people to read this post, whether or not they are actually able to read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unsocial networks
Facevault.
You put all of your public information into it, and nobody is ever allowed to see it.
(Except advertisers.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymotity
What's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think they're fighting themselves here.
If they start removing personal information or locking it down tighter, that just means that the number of doors kicked down with no-knock warrants (and more frequently, no-knock, no-warrants) is going to increase. At least with the information freely available, they've got a better chance of storming the right house occasionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anonymotity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps if it was optional?
But I think requiring social media to be private by default would be onerous and unenforceable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Submit or Die
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perhaps if it was optional?
I mean, the idea behind this law isn't so bad, despite its implementation. I'm sure most people here agree that wireless routers should have encryption on by default, right? I like the idea of privacy being opt-out for a change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe one day it will slide off into the Pacific as we all sing "nah nah NAH nah, nah nah NAH nah, hey hey hey, goodbye!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ladies and Gentleman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Anonymotity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Perhaps if it was optional?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]