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"?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 6:20am

    FUCK. OFF. CALIFORNIA.

    Bullshit like this is why I moved away. Haven't you broken off and slid into the ocean yet? Just go away. Grrrrrrrrr....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:48am

    Honestly...

    "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. "

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 6:50am

    This will be fun to enforce, given that there is no way for Facebook or any other social network to really know where you live, and thus no way to know which accounts to enforce the rule on. If I live in TX but claim I live in CA when I open a Facebook account, which states laws apply, and is FB liable for not knowing I was lying if I live in CA but list WA aas my residence when I open the account?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    chuck, May 19th, 2011 @ 6:54am

    Well for me (and only speaking for me) I close down both FaceBook and Twitter and see (or allow to see) only my "friends" and family.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    NotMyRealName (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:12am

    all a webmaster would really have to do is change the "submit" button to read "make public" and the "cancel" button to "keep private"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:19am

    CA Legislator

    You dumb-asses don't know how to protect yourselves. So we will make rules so social media sites can't be social by default and prevent you idiots from letting the other idiots see your private information. But there is no problem with the site storing your information and selling it to third party corporations because they actually secure private data. Vote for me next year!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:24am

    Re: Honestly...

    Instead of running for public office, it would be more profitable to first patent your great idea, and then sue others who write posts without requiring people to read those posts.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:26am

    Unsocial networks

    How about a new type of website.

    Facevault.

    You put all of your public information into it, and nobody is ever allowed to see it.

    (Except advertisers.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Howard the Duck, May 19th, 2011 @ 7:31am

    Anonymotity

    "it would require that sites remove any personally identifying information -- including photos -- within 48 hours of a user's request."

    What's wrong with that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 7:46am

    I think they're fighting themselves here.

    Law enforcement seems to like social networks for the amount of information that can quickly be harvested, with or without a warrant.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    details, details, May 19th, 2011 @ 8:30am

    Re: Anonymotity

    Which pictures? The ones on my account, that I can already remove? The ones on my friends account, in which I'm one of twenty people at a party? The one on the Los Angeles Times blog, taken at a public political rally? All photos anywhere on the site whether tagged or not?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    David Good (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 8:44am

    Perhaps if it was optional?

    Maybe instead of requiring this, if there was some sort of privacy certification from a private organization or the state, like "Certified to be Privacy Safe". Then in order to receive the certification, said site would have to meet whatever the default criteria was - like having privacy on by default.

    But I think requiring social media to be private by default would be onerous and unenforceable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    David Muir (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Submit or Die

    This comment says so much, so succinctly. It is what I was thinking: don't even sign up for a social networking site like Facebook if what you really want is Geni or some other site featuring a subset of your overall connections.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    DCX2, May 19th, 2011 @ 9:28am

    Re: Perhaps if it was optional?

    I agree with this idea of a "Privacy Certification".

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 9:33am

    Re:

    Those earthquakes just aren't reaching California... yet...

    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!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    David (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Ladies and Gentleman

    WELCOME TO PRIVACY THEATER!!! Brought to you by the same folks who made Security theater, legalized groping, and Watergate!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Howard the Duck, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Anonymotity

    Just my pictures, you know, the ones I posted? All my posts, messages, likes etc. All my personal information that I put there to begin with. Now, what's wrong with that? Simple question really. Try not to blow it up this time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Howard the Duck, May 19th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Perhaps if it was optional?

    Agree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re:

    Where is lex luther when you really need him ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This