Hannah Beth Jackson

Paul Wellman (file)

Hannah Beth Jackson

Jackson Bill Would Mean Better Privacy Protection for Online Buyers

Legislation Looks to Close Loophole of Credit Card Purchases

Friday, January 31, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

California residents could soon be awarded stronger online privacy protections when buying download-able products — such as music, movies, television shows, e-books, and apps — if a bill written by State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson and approved by the Assembly on Thursday passes the state Senate and receives Governor Jerry Brown’s signature.

With recent incidents at Target, Michaels, and Neiman Marcus casting aspersions on merchants’ ability to safeguard customers’ personal information, Jackson said that her bill would close a loophole in online purchasing. The proposal, SB 383, would require that sellers of certain download-able content only ask for credit card users’ — the law wouldn’t apply to debit card users — personal information if they deem it necessary for the prevention of fraud or identity theft; if collecting the information were required, the information would have to be destroyed after a certain period of time. The law would also make selling the data, or using it for marketing, illegal.

Although supported by organizations such as the Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Action, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, SB 383 has faced opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Bankers Association, and several technology-industry groups. Jackson said Wednesday that her idea for the bill — first introduced in early 2013 — came from a ruling by the California Superior Court last year that permitted online merchants to ask for buyers’ addresses, phone numbers, and other information.

“This measure is a balanced approach that ensures that when it comes to purchasing content that is downloaded online, our Constitutional right to privacy remains intact,” Jackson said in a statement. “We are living in a new digital age when that basic right is being challenged in ways we could never have imagined 40 years ago [when right to privacy was established],” she continued. On Wednesday, Jackson called SB 383 a “modest bill” that is “delicately balanced” between consumers’ rights and companies’ needs. “We want them to combat fraud but not to sell information,” she said.

Not all personal information would be up for argument. “Finding out what color your eyes are wouldn’t work for fraud purposes,” Jackson said Wednesday. The information that does pass the sniff test would be later deleted, akin to how gas pumps require credit card users to provide their billing zip codes, which go on to be destroyed. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse founder Beth Givens summed up her support of Jackson’s bill on Wednesday. “In the age of mega data breaches, this is a vitally important bill for consumer protection,” she said. “If you don’t collect it, it can’t be hacked.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

More government micromanaging from now our Queen of Consumer Protection, who thinks only the government can rescue us from our own choices with ever more burdensome regulations and unenforceable mandates.

Try the market place, Ms Jackson. If a company abuses its customers with lax security measures, it deserves to lose those very same customers who in their right mind, and on their own, will go elsewhere to spend their money.

But no, Ms Jackson ever looking for more ways to get her face in our face now pounces on her latest nanny-state crusade for her own next re-election agenda: Champion of the Little People!

And get to take a few more swipes at those nasty old corporations at the same time. What a twofer. Meanwhile the state's far more pressing issues continue to escape her concerns.

How about becoming a champion of Prop 43 spending instead, and get those with addictions off the streets and into safe care facilities since voters have already raised billions of dollars for exactly this type of action, eh Jackson?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with foofighter on this one.

Dear Government:

Keep your greedy, slimy hands off the internet before you ruin it.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "If a company abuses its customers with lax security measures, it deserves to lose those very same customers who in their right mind, and on their own, will go elsewhere to spend their money."

In the last 3 years, Target had 100 million customers credit cards and ATM pin numbers stolen, Sony had the confidential information of 77 million users stolen (including credit card numbers), Adobe has 130 million user records stolen, Countrywide Financial had 2.5 million users records stolen. These aren't mom and pop shops failing to lock the doors, these are major corporations (two of them in the tech field). Those are just the biggest ones - there are more.

So based on that, foofighter, I have some questions for you.

What would happen to national economy if Target went belly up due to a lack of consumer confidence?

Don't you think (wait, who am I talking to again?) that there should be strict regulations that hold accountable corporations who don't ensure 'public safety' by securing the confidential information of their customers?

And pray tell - what exactly would a 'market place' solution be, when it's the 'market place' solutions, or lack of initiative to implement thereof, that are the causing the problem to begin with?

Do you have even the slightest clue as to what you are talking about? Or is this yet another in a long string of anti-government rants that have no basis in reality and are merely spouted off solely to promote an agenda that's easily proven to be ridiculous?

Have you ever heard of the Commerce Clause? This is precisely the very thing out government was designed to do - regulate interstate and international commerce.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There should be strict Regulations that hold accountable all Legislators that violate the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Bill of Rights.

The Commerce Clause is an often abused Federal Constitutional Issue and has not a thing to do with State Government except when a State violates it.

The current abuse of the Commerce Clause by the Federal Congress is a license to steal Liberty from the People and could not be further from the Original intention.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch your pockets people.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Target needs to think about its customers and its business ahead of time. That is what should happen to Target.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More drivel from HBJ trying to get her 15 minutes of shame. Love this piece of quote I took from her, “This measure is a balanced approach". What I would rather see is a "Balanced budget" that goes toward paying down our debt….

But HBJ will not tackle that one. Lefties would lose voters who would lose hand-outs.

But I see Ph.D. ETR is at it again with another award winning thesis on humanity with his rant, "Do you have even the slightest clue as to what you are talking about? Or is this yet another in a long string of anti-government rants that have no basis in reality and are merely spouted off solely to promote an agenda that's easily proven to be ridiculous?"

ETR, slow down, take a breath and use that Obama Kool-Aid to wash down those meds.. You really have no clue as to what your talking about as well. REALLY your NOT an EXPERT on EVERY issue the Independent writes about….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record: I am for Small Government; not Big Government. I am not anti-government. I like good government. I like thoughtful, educated voters who participate meaningfully and independently in the democratic process of representative government.

Our representative government depends upon universal public education and an educated voting populace. Becoming a state where we rank 46 our of 50 in educational quality while ranking 3 out of 50 in teacher pay means we are failing our primary civic responsibility to our residents. And spending too much, to get so little in return.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Commerce Clause

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

NB: Commerce Clause grants powers to Congress; not the California state legislature.

NB: Commerce Clause is applied to interstate commerce; not intrastate commerce.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Democrat's and "our constitutional rights"!
What is it Oxymoron Day already!
I wish she'd go back to calling Bush "poopy pants" on her radio show!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also agree with EatTheRich, the government is much better at protecting our private data than major corporations. This is definitely something the government needs to be involved in.


loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Priceless: " You really have no clue as to what your talking about as well. REALLY your NOT an EXPERT on EVERY issue the Independent writes about…."

Both you and foofighter exceed my post count in both number and frequency. Unlike you and foofighter, however, I don't enjoy wallowing in my own ignorance.

Let me let you in on a little secret... they hide information from people like you in these things called 'books'. They're pretty easy to open once you've learned to read.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2014 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that....never mind.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep spouting ETR you'll get there some day!!!

ETR, someone has to call bullchit.. If everybody was simple minded like you this state would be run by dumbocrats. OH WAIT!!

You see ETR there are no secrets, when your able to see right through the BS that liberals spew daily it makes you stronger. Your able to sleep at night, work hard, have fun at watching liberals come unglued at the dumbest things in life, laugh at you when you are unable to control your emotions because you can't agree to disagree, shake my head at amazement when I know your sitting at your computer typing away trying to get back at me.

ETR, it's easy to "exceed your post count" because you keep trying to up me with silly comments. I'm trying to help you fool. You should stop your really embarrassing yourself.

Have a great SUPERBOWL Sunday. GO BRONCO'S!!!!!!

Priceless (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

'Priceless', no. 'Worthless', most certainly.

@Priceless: "...If everybody was simple minded like you this state would be run by dumbocrats."

The blissful ignorance of the reactionary right, struggling to come to terms with a world that has passed them by, and too stupid to know when they're beaten. I don't need to get back at you, buddy. You're miserable enough as it is.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ETR: You make a good case why Amy Chua passed over this current generation of younger "white" Americans, in her evaluation of cultural groups in America, who continue to find success and the realization of the American dream and those who do not.

To use you own words, too many younger "white" Americans are too stupid to realize the world their parents knew and fought for has passed them by; or more accurately they actually threw away choosing instead petty rebellions, chronic mind-altering addictions and daily substance abuse.

As you point out, the world has changed and indeed this generation of "white" Americans are no longer their grand-father's Americans, not by a long shot.

The loss of the work ethic, disciplined Depression age parenting, and an edgy Post WIII insecurity as America took center stage in the world for the first time did make the pre-baby-boomer "white" Americans probably the last to be upwardly mobile in this cultural sector.

That path is now grabbed readily and eagerly by those of color with similar culture values to those shared by those older "white" generations, you now mock.

I commend Ms Chua's book to you: The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America.

The good news is America will survive. The bad news is many have chosen on their own volition, to be left behind.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So many ideologues here cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

The truth is, many online vendors do take your personal information and sell it (some used to call this "stealing"). This affects you adversely in many ways you might not even know.

Whatever you think about the size of government, its happening and companies are getting away with it. "the market" has not been effectively self-regulating partly because consumers have been clueless and companies are good at hiding these practices.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you shop electronically, you pays your money and takes your chances. Anyone who does not know this, should be dealing only in cash. How quaint. Might even ask people to save before they purchase. How quaint again.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: