Gavin Newsom said he opposes mandate on mobile operating system developers.
Such a corporate stooge.
The guy is so strange. I’ll see great decisions from him for months, and then it’s like he goes into a dungeon and randomly approves the opposite type of laws for awhile.
Chaotic.
He’s a liberal capitalist stooge. All of his decent-to-good policies are social, and virtually every financial or corporate decision is dogshit.
Yes. But God forbid anyone realizing someone can be socially left and economically right, or vice versa.
It’s not that he can’t be that, it’s that it makes him a tool.
I mean, at what point do we stop stating the obvious and focus on what is occulted?
When people realize you can do both.
Apparently not. At any rate, the horse has been dead so long, all that’s left are sun-bleached bones.
You don’t have to be economically left to recognize that what corporations have been doing for 30+ years now is an egregious privacy violation and antithesis to our constitutional ideology.
I didn’t say that.
He’s always been surrounded by the wealthy and well-connected, and that’s who he listens to.
When he got caught breaking his state’s own Covid restrictions at French Laundry, the fanciest of wait list fancies in Napa wine country, it’s all you needed to know.
Damn. Fuck money.
I mean yeah we’ve been talking about the issues with capitalism for over 100 years, it excels at keeping things just tolerable enough for the working class that we don’t take heads
Just depends on how big the
bribelobbying effort is.deleted by creator
But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill’s mandate on operating systems. “I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time,” the governor wrote. “No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.”
Oh fuck off Newsom.
deleted by creator
It’s also categorical bullshit in terms of technical accuracy.
Source: 15 years as a software engineer
I think he’s talking about Do Not Track? That’s a signal that’s been in web browsers for over a decade now, but because of a lack of legal enforcement has largely been ignored by websites. To my knowledge, there’s no equivalent signal in Windows, macOS, or Linux. Though none of that stops individual app developers from putting in a setting into their app’s settings/preferences. And heck, the bill only required it to be opt-out, so in reality it would hardly have any impact on their bottom line, thanks to the tyranny of the default.
Not to mention: the government imposes onerous regulations on companies and entire industries all the damn time. Claiming “but it’s harrrrrddddddd :(“ is fucking stupid. This is computer science. Figure it out. We’re not paid as much as we are for our health. It’s because we solve hard problems. It meets the standards with its code or else it gets the hose again.
Source: also worked several years in aerospace; currently working in biotech.
He’s trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about in nuanced detail. But his comment makes it very obvious that he has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about.
That sounds a lot like the legislature passed a bill because the people can’t trust companies to do the right thing, and Newsom said “we should trust the companies to do the right thing!”
It’d be great if the decision was made by developers, they’d probably implement it since they can benefit from it as well. It’s not the developers making these decisions though, it’s the companies who have a vested interest in selling your data that are.
Here’s the extent of the design constraints by the bill:
(b) (1) A business shall not develop or maintain a mobile operating system that does not include a setting that enables a consumer to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the mobile operating system.
(2) This subdivision shall become operative six months after the adoption of regulations by the California Privacy Protection Agency that outline the requirements and technical specifications for an opt-out preference signal to be used by a mobile operating system.
(c) The California Privacy Protection Agency may adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer this section, including, but not limited to, ensuring that the setting described by subdivision (a) is easy for a reasonable person to locate and configure and updating the definitions of “browser” and “mobile operating system” to address changes in technology, data collection, obstacles to implementation, or privacy concerns.
It has to:
- exist
- be a setting
- that people interact with through the operating system
- Be reasonably easy to locate and change
idk guys, seems pretty difficult to me /s
vetoing this is disappointing to say the least and
it should be the other way around;
users should be asked first if they’d like to opt-in firstOnly in the EU, where people matter more than money.
my first thought is “hell yeah! it should be opt in” then I opened comments and… shit.
I’m surprised this asshole has time to veto good bills between his sessions of destroying destitute people’s possessions.
It’s not even opt-in wtf Gavin…
deleted by creator
I voted for this guy before and thought I’d continue to do so, but the crap he’s been pulling recently-ish has just confirmed for me he won’t ever get my vote again. What a jagoff.
Hopefully a better person wins the primary.
The states GDP would probably plummet if phone OS developers couldn’t sell user data lol
Interesting to consider. I’m betting it’s at least as much because he somehow personally profits from data sales, if even just “campaign” funding.
Wait, I thought cali was best when it came to consumer rights. This is a strange divergence. I had to re-read the title because I thought surely the state would be on the side of opt’ing in to the sale of user’s data.
They are only pro-consumer when it doesn’t evolve Big Tech. They are owned by Big Tech…
What are the chances the state legislature overrides the veto?
Why can he veto?
Because he is the governor? If it goes back to the state legislators and gets a super majority it can become law
Ok, i rephrase. Why can the governor veto?
Imagine, if a Kanton could veto in an Abstimmung.
…because that’s the job of the governor. They are the head of the executive branch of the state. You you have the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial.
