Quantcast

Critics say Prop 24 'pay-for-privacy schemes' is good for the wealthy, but discriminate against the poor

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Critics say Prop 24 'pay-for-privacy schemes' is good for the wealthy, but discriminate against the poor

Hot Topics
Richardh

Richard Holober, president of Consumer Federation of California, opposes Prop 24 | Consumer Federation of California website

A consumer advocacy group, which opposes Proposition (Prop) 24, says the ballot measure promotes 'pay-for-privacy' schemes, which is unfair to people who don't have the wealth to finance confidentiality.

“The idea that anyone has to choose between good internet connections and good online services, and privacy is outrageous for people who are struggling to survive,” said Richard Holober, president of the Consumer Federation of California.

The California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) would be replaced by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) if voters approve of Proposition 24, as previously reported.

“It would expand the current law to allow loyalty clubs, for example, to charge differential pricing based on how much personal information an individual provides and allows them to market it,” Holober told the Southern California Record. 

In addition to the Consumer Federation of California, Prop 24 opponents include Consumer Action, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

The consumer groups collaborated on an amicus brief filed in Gruber v. Yelp, a case in which the California Court of Appeal for the Third District upheld the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

On Oct. 7, Judge Teri L. Jackson, Judge Peter J. Siggins and Judge Carin Fujisaki stated in a footnote of their opinion, “We have accepted and considered amicus curiae briefs from two groups. The first amicus brief, filed by the Consumer Federation of California, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumer Action and The Utility Reform Network (hereinafter, consumer amici), argues against the trial court’s finding that VoIP does not qualify as one of the telecommunications devices delineated under section 632.7 [the strongest enforcement provision of the Invasion of Privacy Act] but takes no position on whether summary judgment in favor of Yelp is appropriate. For reasons discussed below, we agree with consumer amici that the trial court erred in finding Yelp’s VoIP system does not come within the scope of section 632.7.”

The fact that the consumer privacy groups were noted in the appellate court’s decision shows that they have a track record, according to Holober.

“We've got the chops,” he said. “We fight for people and their privacy. At the same time, we were going to court, the sponsor of Prop 24 was busy meeting secretly with Experian, one of the three largest credit reporting agencies, and he cut a deal with them. It's been reported in the news that he cut a deal to reduce the current protections against credit reporting privacy concerns and Prop 24 reflects the deal that was cut with Experian to reduce privacy rights that exist under current law and Prop 24.”

Ballotpedia reported that real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart, who is board chair of Californians for Consumer Privacy, is the sponsor of Prop 24, having filed the ballot initiative.

“MacTaggart has negotiated with Facebook and other big tech companies to give away our privacy rights,” Holober alleges. “Why he's doing it? I would say it’s because he wants to get a privacy measure through that he has personal pride of authorship but it is not good for California consumers. He is compromised because he's cut these deals with tech companies and the result is they don't oppose the initiative.”

Once enacted, the CPRA would amend consumer privacy laws in a way, which Holober alleges is discriminatory based on the ability to pay.

“It is putting in a ballot proposition, which is almost impossible to amend by the legislature, the idea that you can buy your privacy,” Holober said. “It means people who are not able to pay more can get downgraded services. That is spelled out in Proposition 24. What we're talking about is basically an electronic version of freeway express lanes for the wealthy and traffic jams for the rest of us.”

Holober added that the tech companies McTaggart allegedly lobbies for can benefit from the passage of Prop 24 because it would allow them to charge more money if a customer wants privacy.

“If you don't pay more for privacy, you can waive your privacy rights to get good service and that's unfair,” said Holober. “It monetizes privacy.”

Holober foresees broadband internet portals charging for privacy as well as cellphone providers and app providers if Prop 24 is passed.

“It will be harder for consumers to tell tech companies not to sell their information and tech companies can benefit from making it easier for them to upload the contents of your devices, which they can't do currently,” he said.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News