A California legislator has introduced a state bill that would regulate the privacy controls of social networking sites.
Under SB 242, the Social Networking Privacy Act, social networking sites would be required to establish a default privacy setting making all information about a user – except his or her name and city of residence – private, absent the express agreement of the user. During the registration process, users would be allowed to choose their privacy settings in an “easy to use format,” to decide how much information to make public, and sites would have to provide an explanation of users’ privacy controls in “plain language.” If requested by a user (or the parent of a minor under the age of 18), the law mandates that sites remove personal information within 48 hours.
Currently, most sites, like Facebook, default to making a user’s photos, information and posts public unless adjusted by a user. “You shouldn’t have to sign in and give up your personal information before you get to the part where you say, ‘Please don’t share my personal information,’ ” state Sen. Ellen Corbett, author of the bill, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Notably, the bill defines a social networking site as “an Internet Web-based service that allows an individual to construct a public or partly public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom the individual shares a connection, and view and traverse his or her list of connections and those made by others in the system,” which allows for broad application. Fines under the law include penalties of up to $10,000 per willful and knowing violation. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, and it has now moved to the floor of the state Senate.
The bill already faces tough opposition, as a group of Internet companies – including Facebook, Google, Skype, Twitter, and Yahoo – sent a letter to Sen. Corbett arguing the law is unnecessary and unconstitutional. The law would actually decrease overall consumer privacy, the coalition argues, by not allowing consumers to try the site and make contextual decisions about what information to make public and what to keep private. Because no harm has been demonstrated, the law is unnecessary and could have a serious detrimental effect on the technology sector in the state, according to the letter, by exposing California companies to “massive and unwarranted civil liability.”
The group also contends that the law violates users’ First Amendment rights by imposing restrictions on their free speech, and would stand in opposition to the Commerce Clause by imposing different rules on California citizens and companies than the rest of the country.
“SB 242 would significantly undermine the ability of Californians to make informed and meaningful choices about use of their personal data, and unconstitutionally interfere with the right to free speech enshrined 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 companies wrote.
To read the Social Networking Privacy Act, click here.
To read the letter in opposition, click here.
Why it matters: While privacy is a popular subject for legislation and social network sites are a current target for lawsuits and privacy advocates, the law nevertheless faces an uphill battle to passage. Sites beyond the major social networks have expressed concern about the implications of the privacy regulations and the impact on Internet business.