California Props

HI MarkD 
just reading up myself, I have always found the League of Women Voters to be an objective and helpful resource ( my mom was also active many years ago )

here is their take on 24, and I will be voting no

https://lwvc.org/vote/elections/ballot-recommendations/prop-24consumer-d...

be well brother - dream of some DNB before 2021 is in the rear view mirror - mid year or a "private party" ??

Prop 24 is definitely confusing

I voted no, based on the recommendations of the ACLU of SoCal, and the CA League of Women Voters

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-southern-california-proposition...

mailed my ballot today, and will be tracking it using https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/wheres-my-ballot

the initiative process has been completely bastardized and just another way to fuck the people.

written by lawyers to purposely confuse, pro/con will go to the courts for years...then we get another initiative to roll back or undo the ones that were voted on.

fucking sham a lama ding dong.

here is prop 24 info from john perry barlow's electronic frontier foundation

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24

No one knows!

https://dsa-la.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSA-LA-2020-General-Electi...

Proposition 24
No recommendation

Prop 24 is tricky and everyone seems to be at odds on it. In theory, Prop 24 would establish the California Privacy Protection Agency, which enforces legislation targeting companies that don’t respect that you pushed a button on a Conde-Nast site saying you don’t want them to sell your data. It also closes a loophole in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 which allows Facebook and Google to say they are “sharing” instead of “selling” your data.
 
Supporters of the measure say it will give consumers more control over their personal data, allow you to shield your precise location from tracking, and give you more ability to sue companies if your email and password are stolen or hacked—which sounds good because who isn’t for suing companies that let your life get ruined?

On the other hand, folks like the ACLU say it makes confusing changes before the full California Consumer Privacy Act has taken effect and will make it harder for the Legislature to go back and add fixes for any unintended consequences that arise later. It will delay a rule in the California Consumer Privacy Act that allows workers to find out what information employers have collected about them, make it easier for businesses to charge you more if you don’t let them sell your data, and allow tech companies to grab your data when you leave California. That all sounds bad!

Ro Khanna and the NAACP both like it, and applaud provisions discouraging the use of algorithmic racial profiling. The ACLU and Dolores Huerta don’t and say there are too many loopholes to be exploited.

I voted yes on 24 but it is a toss up. Here is Kevin Drum's take.

Tightens California’s consumer privacy laws. NO. 

This is a tricky one. Prop 24 has some good features that would help consumers, but it also has some murky provisions that might hurt consumers. There are concerns, for example, that it might protect “pay for privacy” programs that allow the better off to enjoy better privacy protection than the working poor. The NAACP supports Prop 24, the local ACLU opposes it, and the EFF is neutral. It’s supposedly designed to close some loopholes in California’s 2018 privacy law, but I’m not sure it’s wise to do this after giving the law only two years on the books. If Prop 24 were clearer and better written I might consider voting for it even given its defects. In its current form, however, I’d vote no.

Also his take on all the props

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/10/a-short-guide-to-californ...

Hey, Mark! Great question! I've been a legislative bill nerd ever since I worked for the Controller's office back in the 70s.
One of my jobs as a messenger was to retrieve and deliver bills and bill proposals to and from the capitol to the lawyers in the Controller's office.
It was a 4 block walk and they would give me an hour to accomplish this. Since it only took a few minutes travel and a few minutes to collect or deliver, I would read these things while toking a little break and feeding peanuts to the squirrels in Capitol Park.
Propositions are written the same way. Basically, they are bills that we vote on. They used to include the text of these in the voter's guide, but stopped a few years ago because 1) the voter's guide became to large and expensive to print and 2) few people read them, either because they are too verbose or they don't understand them.
Some resources, if you ever want to get into understanding the language of a bill or proposition: https://content.acsa.org/articles/how-to-read-a-bill
The Legislative Analyst's Office provides text and summaries: https://lao.ca.gov/ballotanalysis/Propositions
Also, raw text appears on this site: https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions
Turtle, you're partly right about lawyers writing the text of legislative initiatives. While lawyers or consultants may sometime include language that can be confusing and seem to be antithetical to a proposal's intent, they mainly write them with hopes to avoid a passed bill or proposition from being challenged in court.
One thing to remember when reading these proposals, the text will often refer to various statutes already on the books. When a particular article is cited, you sometimes have to refer to that law to see what is being changed or deleted.
Whew! Lot's of homework. Right?
As for your specific question on prop 24, I, too, found the text of the bill cumbersome to read. 52 pages! It has been my experience that propositions this large in text usually contain items which need to be protected from scrutiny. The text references a number of sections of the civil code, chiefly regarding the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which require even further reading. In Sections 21 and 23 I found reference to waivers or exemptions for what appears to me to be "middle middle men", which I found problematic. The best way I can describe this would be a scenario where an online business must provide direct consumers with options to help protect their private data (the 2018 law), such as not selling your info to marketers, partners, etc. However, if the business is using a third party to collect data for whatever purpose, the business itself is not responsible for the protection of the data. The third party may be held responsible for the data, but only if they are directly contracted by the business for specific purposes. If the third party happens to have a relationship with a social media entity, such as Facebook, Google, Etsy, etc., which, by definition, is exempt from things like data mining and targeted advertising, there does not appear to be a guarantee to protect your data all the way through this chain. So, if you went to J. Doe's e-tail website and opted out from receiving ads, texts and phone calls on your mobile phone, for example, it means your info could still find it's way to companies that are exempted from protecting your privacy rights. Make sense?  I thought it was little too muddled up for me, even though I spent at least a couple of hours reading and researching. With all the work I put into this one, I was still a bit confused and came to the conclusion it may actually provide a work-around of the CCPA for companies and agencies in the business of using and sharing the private information. I won't tell you how I voted, but if you read this far, I think you can understand my position on prop 24.
Give me something like prop 20, which is not only a bad proposition by intent, but is so poorly written, it'll be challenged in court if it passes.

yay Bill >>l been far too long,  hope you are well

"obfuscate R us"  is the dance- 

thanks Mylar, hope you are well.

I owe ya a beer next time we see each other.

Here's what we have to vote on in OR:

Measure 107   Authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them

Measure 108   Increases cigarette tax from $1.33 per pack to $3.33 per pack; imposes tax on nicotine inhalant delivery systems such as e-cigarettes at a rate of 65% of the wholesale price; dedicates revenues to the Oregon Health Authority for medical and health programs

Measure 109   Legalizes psilocybin mushrooms for Oregon Psilocybin Services Program under the Oregon Health Authority

Measure 110   Decriminalizes possession of certain drugs and establishes a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded by the state's marijuana tax revenue

In addition to the 12 Ca State Props We have 13 local Props to vote on, everything from bonds for the homeless, various taxes to youth voting! I often feel we citizens are doing the job of our political representatives...

Democracy Now