back to article The results are in… and California’s GDPR-ish digital privacy law has survived onslaught by Google and friends

California’s landmark digital privacy law will remain “largely intact” despite a year of determined lobbying by Google and other tech giants to undermine it. That’s the conclusion of privacy rights groups that have been carefully tracking the legislation since it was signed into law in June 2018 and us due to come into effect …

  1. raving angry loony

    admit defeat?

    I can guarantee that "big tech" has not admitted defeat at all. They're simply regrouping and will continue to subvert any such laws until they are successful in doing so. Eternal vigilance is necessary. Perhaps some revolutionary fervour while we're at it.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: admit defeat?

      Absolutely right. Big Tech has the money and the dedication. Like the rising sea, they will hammer the legislative bodies anywhere and anyhow they can until they win.

      Until corporations are deprived of the right to lobby, the fight will go on.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: admit defeat?

        "Until corporations are deprived of the right to lobby, the fight will go on."

        Good luck with that, no matter how undemocratic buying favourable legislation is, big business will continue buying out consumer's rights from under them.

        Lobbying will have to get a lot worse before there is an appreciable public backlash against it and part of the problem is that it is under reported, perhaps because those who could report on it are largely dependent on those same lobbyists.

      2. jmch Silver badge

        Re: admit defeat?

        "Until corporations are deprived of the right to lobby, the fight will go on."

        Will never happen, because, free speech. And rightly so. What REALLY needs to be done is to very tightly regulate the lobbying so it is clear and public exactly how much money companies are spending in lobbying and who they are spending it on.

        Everyone in public office has to have, on the public record, every meeting they have, and who paid for every travel junket, meal and party they attend. Lobbying has to be done through 'public' lobbying companies, 'public' in the sense that it has to be clear who the lobbyist is representing.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          "Will never happen, because, free speech. "

          Of course, let them speak at will. Just remove the money, the Fist Amendment nowhere tells about "free money"....

          1. cschneid

            Re: "Will never happen, because, free speech. "

            I believe the Citizens United decision established that it does.

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: "Will never happen, because, free speech. "

              "I believe the Citizens United decision established that it does."

              I completely disagree with that decision, however that is the state of play in the US. They have taken the saying "Put your money where your mouth is" a bit too literally

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: admit defeat?

          "Will never happen, because, free speech."

          A person is free to speak. But is it still free speech if the person can't be arsed to turn up in person and speak but instead sends a paid lackey to speak for them? A company may well be legally a person, but a company has no voice, only paid lackeys.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: admit defeat?

      "Eternal vigilance" is good. "Revolutionary fervour" is the last thing you need.

      The trouble with revolutions is, they happen, and then everyone pretends everything is different - whereas in fact all that's happened is a change of personnel in certain positions. But everyone has fought the good fight, they're feeling good and upbeat and optimistic, and if you try to tell them that nothing has really changed - they won't take it well.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: admit defeat?

        "if you try to tell them that nothing has really changed - they won't take it well."

        ESPECIALLY when it turns out to be TRUE...

  2. JohnFen Silver badge

    Thank goodness

    I needed to hear some good news for a change.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Thank goodness

      I expect it's "fake good news". This will serve to sate the majority of people that want some level of control over data about them, who will THEN forget about it for a while as it moves to the back page of the news, until it's silently eaten by the bureaucracy to the point that there's nothing left of it but the name and an appearance of good intentions.

      Never underestimate the ability of a corrupt government [Kali-fornicate-you's] to speak out both sides of its mouth, and engage in deep corruption anyway, while *APPEARING* to "do the right thing" [for once].

      [don't get me wrong I think the principal is WONDERFUL - I just expect the political class to completely RUIN it before it truly takes effect, while simultaneously announcing how FOR it they are...]

      1. James 51 Silver badge

        Re: Thank goodness

        I thought this was amanfrommars1 on a bad LSD trip until I looked at the name. Bob, at least have the honesty to admit it's the companies doing the corrupting and the duplicity of officials is a symptom of a deeper problem.

      2. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Thank goodness

        No, it's genuine good news. It's just not the end of the story (or the fight).

  3. Nick Kew
    Stop

    stereotyping

    Regarding that hideous stock pic of some twats round a table throwing papers into the air.

    I expect two of each sex is supposed to be politically correct (though shouldn't there be at least one black face)? But when the two males both have those slimline laptops while the females have none, you're just feeding a "systematic gender bias" line to the likes of the BBC who take it as an article of faith.

    Reg articles in general would be better without silly irrelevant pics. This one more than most.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: stereotyping

      Whist I agree that the image should show role equivalency between the various people shown, only one extra laptop is needed, because.... (wait for it...) Stereotyping isn't possible if there is a number of laptops other than two...

      OK, it's a bad joke in poor taste. I'm posting it anyway.... I can't be the only person who needs a giggle every now and again.

      1. Nick Kew
        Coat

        Re: stereotyping

        Of course it's possible.

        If you have four of them, you can do it twice over!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: stereotyping

      "But when the two males both have those slimline laptops while the females have none"

      Perhaps the two females are upper management and the two males under them have laptops to take down notes of the board meeting?

      Or, perhaps the two other laptops have been thrown into the air along with the documents and are just out of camera shot?

      Never judge a (net)book by it's cover

  4. Mike 16 Silver badge

    Federal action to preempt (neuter) in 3.2.1...

    Unless, of course, the current administration hates the Washington post, and hence Bezos, and hence all tech companies more than they hate the damage done to their other major contributors (e.g. RT, I mean Facebook). Tough call...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019