San Francisco — Despite the feigned empathy towards those that are worried about the impending threat of a new social networking privacy law is making for strange bedfellows these days. Google, Facebook, Twitter and more than a dozen other Internet companies from around the worlds of technology and social media have joined a coalition to oppose the California Social Networking Privacy Act (SB 242), which would revamp social networking sites’ privacy policies by requiring sites to institute more stringent privacy settings.
The bill “SB 242″, recommended by California State Senator Ellen Corbett (D-Hayward), would require social media networking sites to establish a default privacy settings for registered users to private and allow parents to edit their kid’s accounts, as well as compels Social networking sites to remove the personal identifying information of a registered user in a timely manner upon users” request within 48 hours, or they will face a $10,000 fine.
If sanctioned, the law would harshly crack the whip on social media networking sites by pushing more restrictive privacy settings that, among other limitations, would significantly inhibit the types of user information that can be legally shared. Obviously, this is a smart idea for the user, as it would let them decide which sensitive information is shared publicly. Besides, this would also take the heat off of the social networking sites, as they would no longer get complaints that their privacy settings where too, well, non-existent.
Among the other bigwigs leading the opposition include Twitter, Google, Facebook, and Yahoo — all of which have jointly signed a letter that lays a written smack-down on SB 242, a bill that — according to the angry social networking giants — “gratuitously singles out social networking sites without demonstration of any harm.”
Moving forward, Facebook delegates have had many meetings with Corbett since January, the company’s spokesman Andrew Noyes said.
“We and countless other online safety experts and industry members believe SB 242 in its current form is a serious threat both to Facebook’s business in California and to meaningful California consumers’ choices about use of personal data,” Noyes said.
Furthermore, the letter, addressed to Corbett, explicitly stated that the new bill would decrease consumer privacy, that the bill is unnecessary, would damage the tech industry and violate the U.S. Constitution. The undersigned, which included eHarmony, Facebook, Google, Match.com, Twitter, Skype, Yahoo and the California Chamber of Commerce, seemed like a Who’s Who of tech and Internet commerce.
From the letter:
There is no indication that Californians want to have personal information removed from social networking sites but are unable to. Pew’s study found that only 8% of social networking site users had ever asked that information about posted about them be removed, and reported no indication that such requests were being denied in droves. The major social networking sites already remove personal information when the requester specifies the information to be removed and the information is not already widely available.
The letter, which does not mince words, suggests that Corbett’s bill will “significantly undermine the ability of Californians to make informed and meaningful choices about the use of their personal data, and unconstitutionally interfere with the right to free speech laid down in the California and United States Constitutions, while doing significant damage to California’s vibrant Internet commerce industry at a time when the state can least afford it.”
The rebuttal also says that the ‘SB 242’ bill would SB 242, also “dramatically constrict social networking sites growth potential in California by imposing additional operating costs and raising barriers to consumer participation in social media networking services, all the while exposing those services to massive and unwarranted civil liability.”
Facebook is concerned that the law would not “honor users’ expectations” of how they use online sites, Noyes added.
In addition, Twitter also is opposing the California law makers who proposed the privacy bill, saying “no way!”
But, search engine giant Google said that the company is taking a neutral stand on the bill. The company said in a statement, “We believe we have reached conceptual agreement on most of the key points, but we have not yet reached agreement on all the details. As is the norm in the legislative process, work still remains on the specific language of the bill.”
Meanwhile, the bill’s opponents said this bill would detriment California’s technology sector and limit social networking sites’ growth potential. The companies have a lot to lose if this bill goes to a vote — it could pass and each company could be on the hook for $10,000 for each violation.
Nevertheless, Corbett rebuffed the viewpoints that the bill was unnecessary and harmful. Corbett said the proposal will ensure consumers understand how their data can be used, and maintain their privacy.
“I have heard from so many people who are grateful that we are trying to protect their privacy and security and protect young people from harm,” Corbett said.