Proposed California Privacy Bill Raises First Amendment Issues
The bill (SB 242) would prohibit Facebook and other social networking sites from publicizing users' addresses or phone numbers without their explicit consent. The measure also would require social sites to ask users to select their privacy settings when they sign up. Not surprisingly, Facebook, Google and other Web sites oppose the bill, arguing that it would hurt tech companies and is unconstitutional.
Their stance might be self-serving, but the measure likely is unconstitutional for several reasons. First, states can't regulate interstate commerce. That prohibition has been interpreted as preventing states from passing laws that would require companies to operate differently in different states.
Second, and perhaps more significantly, prohibiting sites from publishing truthful information raises troubling First Amendment issues -- particularly when that information consists of addresses, phone numbers or other publicly available data.
At the same time, it's understandable why lawmakers are considering this bill. Facebook has frustrated many observers by a series of seemingly endless, retroactive changes to its privacy settings. The result is that Web users who signed up for the site with one set of expectations about what will be public are blindsided again and again when the company changes its default settings.
Whether California's law passes or not, Facebook and other social networking sites should rethink their approach to privacy. Garnering users with one set of privacy protections, and then changing the rules after people come to rely on the service, is exactly the type of activity that encourages calls for new regulations.
0 comments on "Proposed California Privacy Bill Raises First Amendment Issues ".
Leave a Comment
Recent Daily Online Examiner Articles
-
Appeals Court Turns Away Twitter's Challenge To Subpoena May 17, 4:55 p.m.
An appellate court in New York has dismissed Twitter's appeal of a ruling requiring it to ...
-
Apple: No 'Direct Evidence' Of Ebook Price-Fixing May 16, 5:10 p.m.
Did Apple conspire with book publishers to end Amazon's $9.99-per-ebook price? That's the question at the ...
-
AT&T Stirs Controversy With Data-Cap Plans May 15, 5 p.m.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson reportedly confirmed today that the carrier plans to let content companies pay ...
-
Pandora User Seeks To Revive Privacy Lawsuit May 14, 4:48 p.m.
In 2010, music service Pandora was one of the first companies to partner with Facebook for ...
-
New Bill Legalizes Cell-Phone Unlocking, DVD Ripping May 13, 5:05 p.m.
Consumers could once again have the right to unlock their cell phones, if a new law ...
-
Data-Cap Exemption For ESPN Raises Neutrality Concerns May 10, 6:40 p.m.
The sports network ESPN reportedly is talking with a major wireless carrier about a deal to ...
-
Righthaven Loses Bid To Revive Lawsuits May 9, 6:20 p.m.
Several years ago, attorney Steven Gibson and the publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal cooked up ...
-
Appellate Judge Says Google Books Offers 'Enormous' Benefits May 8, 4:59 p.m.
The Authors Guild's odds of winning its long-running lawsuit against Google appear to be dwindling, at ...
-
FTC Tells Data Brokers To Follow Consumer Protection Laws May 7, 6:30 p.m.
In its latest move against data brokers, the Federal Trade Commission has warned 10 companies that ...
-
FTC Rejects Request To Delay New Children's Privacy Rules May 6, 7:43 p.m.
The Federal Trade Commission has unanimously turned down a request by industry groups to push back ...


Just as states are trying to push through laws under other federal hats like immigration, this is pushing the same envelope. However, this situation is raising federal eyebrows and will hit the federal skids sooner rather than later because this cause has less political fallout from both sides of the aisle. Free speech is one thing. Speaking freely about other people's personal information limits free speech.