Internet behemoths Facebook, Google, Skype, and Twitter have joined forces to oppose an online privacy bill in California that would prevent the companies from displaying users’ personal information without explicit permission.
The bill, SB 242, introduced by Sen. Ellen Corbett (D-California) last February, initially served to create strict safeguards for minors who wanted to utilize the websites' social networking apparatus. But the legislation was amended to focus on all users after Facebook argued that the bill would encourage minors to lie about their age.
The most recent version of the bill would also require users to choose their privacy settings while creating an account with one of the social networking sites. If a user wants information removed, the site would be required to delete it within 48 hours of the request. Failing to do so, according to the bill, would result in fines of up to $10,000 for each charge.
“You shouldn't have to sign in and give up your personal information before you get to the part where you say, 'Please don't share my personal information,'” Corbett said of the bill, also known as the Social Networking Privacy Act.
In a letter to Corbett, the coalition of opponents said that the legislation was unnecessary and unconstitutional, and could potentially harm California’s technology industry.
The bill “would significantly undermine the ability of Californians to make informed and meaningful choices about use of their personal data, and unconstitutionally interfere with the right to free speech… while doing significant damage to California’s vibrant Internet commerce industry at a time when the state can least afford it,” the letter stated. “[It] gratuitously singles out social networking sites without demonstration of any harm.”
Facebook did not respond to a request for comment, but spokesman Andrew Noyes told the SF Chronicle that the bill “is a serious threat both to Facebook’s business in California and to meaningful California consumers’ choices about use of personal data.”
As of April 2010, Facebook’s privacy policy states that the term “general information,” which is available to third party applications that users choose to connect with, “includes you and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the 'Everyone' privacy setting.”
“The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to 'Everyone',” the policy states. If a user chooses not to change their privacy settings, their status updates, photos, biographical information, and relationships are available to anyone on the Internet – not just other Facebook users.
Likewise, Twitter’s most recent privacy policy from November 2010 states, “[our] default is almost always to make the information you provide public… [which] is broadly and instantly disseminated.” Twitter also notes that users “consent to the collection, transfer, manipulation, storage, disclosure and other uses” of their information, such as when Twitter engages third party applications, but that users are provided with tools to “access or modify the personal information you provided to us and are associated with your account.”
Steve DelBianco, executive director of online business coalition NetChoice, said SB 242 uses an overly-broad definition of “social network,” threatens free speech and discourages websites from being responsible corporate citizens. “There are ways for policymakers to impact online safety,” DelBianco said. Opposing the bill is “a vote for preserving free speech and providing incentives for websites to promote child safety.”
Other companies that joined Facebook, Google, Skype, and Twitter in opposing SB 242 include Yahoo!, Sprint, eHarmony, and other members of the Internet Alliance.
Internet Alliance executive director Tammy Cota wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week opposing the bill, saying the measure would “force users to make decisions about privacy and visibility of all information well before they even used the service for the first time, and in such a manner that they are less likely to pay attention and process the information.”
But despite widespread opposition, California’s Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure on May 16 by a vote of 3 to 2 and the bill will now head to the Senate for a vote.
“Computer systems and the Internet have brought consumers many conveniences,” the committee wrote in its analysis. “But these innovative methods of information sharing can pose a serious threat to our privacy and security.”
“[It] is unclear how requiring that default settings be set to private would unduly restrict the free expression of users who elect to disseminate their information.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.