IE11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Bills Covering Tech, Privacy Didn't Make the Cut

The debate to strengthen California’s Internet privacy laws was silenced last week after lawmakers quietly shelved legislation that would have limited what ISPs can do with customer data.

The debate to strengthen California’s Internet privacy laws was silenced last week after lawmakers quietly shelved legislation that would have limited what Internet providers can do with customer data.

Senators moved the bill, AB 375, to the inactive file on the last day of session, handing a win to the telecommunications and data industries, which had lobbied aggressively against the bill and for their right to collect data as part of doing business.

Bill author Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, said Californians expect the Legislature to “do the right thing” and pledged to bring up the bill when lawmakers reconvene in January.

"I remain committed to securing the right for California consumers to decide for themselves how their personal information can be used by their ISP,” Chau said in a statement to Techwire. “Despite the lobbying efforts against AB 375, this is common-sense legislation that has received overwhelming bipartisan support from the public.”

The question of whether Internet providers should be allowed to sell customer data came up before the Federal Communications Commission, which under the Obama administration had issued a proposed rule that would have required Internet providers get customers' consent before selling their personal information. Congress this spring overturned the rule before it went into effect, and President Donald Trump signed that reversal into law.

Chau, who chairs the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, said California ought to enact the privacy protections the FCC had envisioned. His bill would have required ISPs to provide a customer opt-in consent requirement for the use, sale, and sharing of personal information. It would have also prohibited pay-for-privacy practices and prohibited penalties against customers who do not consent to unnecessary uses.

At legislative hearings this summer, ISPs told lawmakers examining the bill that the FCC had misled the public into thinking that their privacy wasn’t protected. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and other providers also complained that the bill’s “onerous” privacy regulations would give consumers a false sense of security.

Here are other technology-related bills the Legislature shelved in the last few weeks of session:

  • AB 1680 would have required the director of the California Department of Technology to establish and oversee a training program and curriculum for state workers engaged in the procurement of information technology. Bill author Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, D-Inglewood, contended that the measure would ensure that the state is adequately training employees “to develop, sustain, and advance their skills and competency in order to work on complex IT projects.”
  • Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada-Flintridge, pulled own bill to create a state STEM school, one that provides instruction in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. AB 1217, which was backed by the technology industry, would have authorized the school in Los Angeles County and served primarily low-income minority children. However, the bill faced big opposition from the state superintendent of public instruction, the California Federation of Teachers, the California School Boards Association and a number of school districts.