California state senator Ellen Corbett proposed an amended version of the Social Networking Privacy Act (SB 242).
The Bill would require social networking websites to design by default, privacy settings that prevent any information about a user (other than name and city) from being displayed to the public or other users without affirmative consent from the user.
Social networking websites would also be required to: (1) create a process for new users to set their privacy settings before they complete the process of registering for the site; and (2) remove personal information of a user within 48 hours of the user’s request or the request of the user’s parent if the user is under 18.
A willful and knowing violation would subject a social networking website to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for EACH violation.
Senator Corbett, stated: “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.”
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Skype, Match.com, eHarmony, and Yahoo signed an open letter to Senator Corbett voicing their opposition.
Here is how the Bill defines a Social Network:
“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.”
Seems like that definition could include other sites other than social networking sites including forums.
Here is a copy of the bill:
PART 2.7. SOCIAL NETWORKING PRIVACY ACT
60. (a) A social networking Internet Web site shall establish a default privacy setting for registered users of the site that prohibits the display, to the public or other registered users, of any information about a registered user, other than the user’s name and city of residence, without the agreement of the user. (b) A social networking Internet Web site shall establish a process for new users to set their privacy settings as part of the registration process that explains privacy options in plain language. The Internet Web site shall not complete the process of registering a new user until privacy settings are selected by the user. The Internet Web site shall make privacy settings available to all users of the Internet Web site in a conspicuous place and an easy-to-use format that allows the user to adjust his or her privacy setting.
(c) A social networking Internet Web site shall remove the personal identifying information of a registered user in a timely manner upon his or her request. In the case of a registered user who
identifies himself or herself as being under 18 years of age, the social networking Internet Web site shall also remove the information upon the request of a parent of the registered user.
(d) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall only apply to a text field specifically designated to display the registered user’s home address or telephone number.
For purposes of this part:
(a) “In a timely manner” means within 48 hours of delivery of the request.
(b) “Personal identifying information” means a person’s name, address, telephone number, driver’s license number, social security number, place of employment, employee identification number, mother’s
maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, or credit card number. “Personal identifying information” also means information about a person’s current location, including global
positioning system coordinates, in different types of media, including photographs and videos, transmitted to, or over, the Internet.
(c) “Plain language” means a clear explanation, written in easy to understand terms that achieves a minimum Flesch Reading Ease score of 70, as that calculation is described in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 2689.4 of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, in effect on March 24, 2003, regarding the people and entities that will be able to view the information, to allow those persons or entities to view his or her information.
(d) “Privacy setting” means the ability of the user to restrict information about himself or herself that is available from the Internet Web site.
(e) “Registered user” means any person who has created an account for purposes of accessing a social networking Internet Web site.
(f) “Social networking Internet Web site” means:
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.
A social networking Internet Web site that willfully and knowingly violates any provision of this part shall be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each
violation of this part.
Oh crap!
If its coming from California (liberals) and has anything to do with laws/Government, that pretty much guarantees that it will be an infringement of rights and if its ever imposed you will never be able to undo it. All under the guise of “HELPING” out what ever victims they decide to make this time.
Less legislation and more getting the hell out of the way would probably be best here.
Just my opinion.
Cheers
This privacy crap is so overblown.
Everyone knows everyone….
The more you try to ” hide”, the more they will find you.
Slippery slope. Seems like it might give government the option to control content (SPEECH)…in a backhanded way.The law could be written-or adjusted-fine enough that one might easily find oneself afoul of it.Let’s not even get into the beachhead this would establish for types of TAXATION.
Isn’t “name and city” quite a bit of information?
I am thinking “Money Grab”
Once they get their foot in the door (it will be like roaches…) you will never get rid of them.
Bad idea in my not so humble opinion
Cheers
Violating privacy regulations while performing a circumcision can also triple the penaltie$.
We will see ho far the bill gets
I think this is a great idea and finally somebody in the sate legislature has hear us! I think Its outrageous the amount of private information social networking sites give out for public display. I don’t like my default being public. As an average citizen I want to be in control of what information is private and what not. I just don’t get why in the comments bellow there is so much complain. If you guys want to have all that info being display well then just modify your settings to allow that but let us have privacy by default.
sincerely,
A real concerned citizen for privacy.
seems like it conflicts with the FED act to protect net publishers
LOL
so UNCONSTITUTIONAL
fed law protecting net publishers trumps anything the fruits and nuts do in cali
Interesting. This seems to come on the heels of one of Howard Neu’s posts about privacy and the “like” button, and a response I wrote to it. The letter sent by the companies you mentioned, herein, is a good one. I particularly have concerns about how this might affect, say, blogs and developed sites that encourage end-users to submit their own content. For instance, we’re (RS and I) slowly experimenting with various options to encourage users to post rumors on rumormill.com, and while the site is gaining only small traffic at the moment, we do have quite a few people signed up.
Do I now have to consider how California’s bill may impact this development project, or kill it, if it should be passed into law? These are impetuous reactions to a few noise-makers who, being relatively obscure in their own little worlds, honestly have large enough egos to believe they will be targeted by people who want to use their personal information for commercial or nefarious purposes. Anyone is a target, whether they are on a social network or not. Look what happened to gamers on Sony’s MMOG’s recently. It was a crack job … totally unrelated to privacy settings.
So, do we pass new laws at the federal, state, county and local level, every time some poor sot believes someone they did not like peered at their messages? These kind of laws, the reactions (not responses, but reactions) they represent, are further evidence, at least to me, so many people have abdicated personal responsibility in favor of letting government handle these matters.
We are not so helpless; but let enough of these kinds of laws get proposed, eventually one of them will pass, and we will be virtually helpless to repeal it. It sounds so nice to “protect us from them”. It’s well articulated, in the letter sent by FB and Yahoo and others, that nobody has really proved anyone genuinely needs to be protected. We need to get really vocal and start challenging these things, and not with bellicose cries that appeal to fear.
We must use logic first, then demonstrate how logic is failing those who propose these fear-based bills. We have a great deal of work to do, and I’m not sure where to start, other than the dialogue; that will not be enough tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Ideas are powerful when followed, at once, by purposeful action.
This bill, California’s SB 242, underscores the threats that lurk for online business everywhere. The disaster would be the precedent set, should it pass.
I think this is a great idea. Anything that will put a little space between us and Zuckerberg’s ambition is a good thing. If you’ve ever read any of his views, realize it’s us against him and we need all the help we can get.
You don’t realize the damage that can be done once your personal data is splattered everywhere and you can’t get anyone to take it down. More controls are definitely what is needed.
Forget about personal damage, for a minute. What happens to businesses who’s built up a fan base of 16,000+ and Facebook feels compelled to pull it down for no rhyme or reason and offers no recourse to get it back? http://bit.ly/jpc1Cd
Sorry, but Facebook is not a safe place to be, and we need all the protection we can get!