BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 501
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, TOURISM, AND
INTERNET MEDIA
Ian C. Calderon, Chair
SB 501 (Corbett) - As Amended: June 5, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 23-10
SUBJECT : Social networking Internet Web sites: privacy:
minors.
SUMMARY : Requires a social networking Internet Web site, as
defined, to remove the personal identifying information, as
defined, of any registered user that is accessible online,
within 96 hours after his or her request and would also require
removal of that information in that same manner regarding a user
under the age of 18 upon request by the user's parent or legal
guardian. This bill would not require removal or elimination of
the personal identifying information if federal or state law
otherwise requires the social networking Internet Web site to
maintain the information. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a social networking Internet Web site shall
remove the personal identifying information (PII), as defined,
of a registered user, as defined, that is accessible online in
a timely manner upon his or her request.
2)Further provides that in the case of a registered user who
identifies himself or herself as being under 18 years of age,
the social networking Internet Web site shall also remove the
information upon the request of a parent or legal guardian of
the registered user.
3)Declares that a request submitted by a registered user shall
include sufficient information to verify the identity of the
user and shall specify any known location of the information
that is the subject of the request.
4)Requires that a social networking Internet Web site may
require a request to include the following statement:
"I attest that the information in this request is accurate,
SB 501
Page 2
that I am the registered user or the parent or legal guardian
of the registered user to whom the personal identifying
information in this request pertains, and that I am authorized
to make this request under the laws of the State of
California."
5)Provides that a social networking Internet Web site is not
required to remove or otherwise eliminate personal identifying
information if any other provision of federal or state law
requires the Internet Web site to maintain the information.
6)Declares that its provisions shall not be construed to limit
the authority of a law enforcement agency to obtain any
content or information from a social networking Internet Web
site as authorized by law or pursuant to an order of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
7)Provides the following definitions:
a) "In a timely manner" means within 96 hours of delivery
the request.
b) "Personal identifying information" means a person's
street address, telephone number, driver's license number,
state identification card number, social security number,
employee identification number, mother's maiden name,
demand deposit account number, savings account number, or
credit card number.
c) "Registered user" means any person who has created an
account for purposes of accessing a social networking
Internet Web site.
d) "Social networking Internet Web site" means 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.
8)Provides that a social networking Internet Web site that
willfully and knowingly violates any provision of this part
shall be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed ten
thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this part.
SB 501
Page 3
9)Declares that nothing in this part shall be construed to allow
the imposition of a civil penalty for an unintentional
violation.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that, among other rights, all people have an
inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. (California
Constitution, Article I, Section 1.)
2)Permits a person to bring an action in tort for an invasion of
privacy and provides that in order to state a claim for
violation of the constitutional right to privacy, a plaintiff
must establish the following three elements:
a) A legally protected privacy interest;
b) A reasonable expectation of privacy in the
circumstances; and
c) Conduct by the defendant that constitutes a serious
invasion of privacy. [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic
Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.] Existing law recognizes four
types of activities considered to be an invasion of privacy
giving rise to civil liability, including the public
disclosure of private facts. (Id.)
1)Provides that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in
information posted on an Internet Web site. The information
is no longer a "private fact" that can be protected from
public disclosure. [Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel (2009) 172
Cal.App.4th 1125.]
2)Requires an operator of a commercial Web site or online
service that collects personally identifiable information
through the Internet about individual consumers residing in
California who use or visit its Web site to conspicuously post
its privacy policy. (Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003,
Business & Professions Code Section 22575.)
3)Existing federal law makes it unlawful for an operator of a
Web site or online service directed to children under the age
of 13 to collect personal information from a child, including
a child's first and last name, home or other physical address
including street name and name of a city or town, e-mail
SB 501
Page 4
address, telephone number, or Social Security number. (Child
Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 6501 et. seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Stated Need for Legislation :
According to the author, "Computer systems and the Internet
have brought consumers many conveniences. But these
innovative methods of information sharing can pose a serious
threat to our privacy and security. There are countless
privacy pitfalls when our personal identifying information is
indiscriminately posted.
"Current law does not require a social networking Web site to
honor a user's request or, in the case of a minor user under
the age of 18, a parent or legal guardian's request to remove
certain personally identifiable information (street address,
telephone number, driver's license number, state
identification card number, social security number, employee
identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit
account number, savings account number, or credit card
number).
"This bill is the next logical step in protecting a user's
personal identifying information. The ability to request the
removal of personal identifying information from a social
networking website allows a user to protect him or herself.
In the case of a user who is a minor under the age of 18, it
provides a parent or legal guardian with a reasonable and
logical tool to protect their children from the dangers of
making personally identifiable information available online."
2)Background: Social Media and Minors :
Social networking Internet Web sites such as MySpace and
Facebook have grown in use and become more popular with users
who post messages and photos on a personal web page. Those
personal pages, generated by the social networking Web site,
may also display the user's address, phone number, birth date,
or other personal identifying information. That information
may then be displayed to the user's friends or to the general
public. Although users may limit who may see their personal
SB 501
Page 5
information, many users, including those under the age of 18,
often share that information with their "friends." The list
of "friends" for those users may include people who they do
not personally know, resulting in the sharing of personal
identifying information with unknown persons.
Children under the age of 18 are among the most avid users of
social networking Internet Web sites. A report by the Pew
Foundation entitled Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among
Teens and Young Adults (February 2010) found that 93 percent
of American teens between the ages of 12 and 17 are online,
and that 73 percent of these teens use social networking
sites. (See http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/
2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx, as of April 20,
2013.) A 2005 survey by the Polly Klaas Foundation found that
42 percent of online teens post information about themselves
on the Internet so others can contact them, and 56 percent
have been asked personal questions online. (Polly Klass
Foundation, Omnibuzz Research Poll Results,
http://www.pollyklaas.org/internet-safety/internet-pdfs/Polling
Summary.pdf, as of April 20, 2013.) Additionally, 10 percent
of children aged 8-12 surveyed said they communicate online
with people they don't know. (See id.)
Many research organizations have found that the sharing of
personal identifying information through social networking
Internet Web sites poses a significant threat to personal
privacy. A 2010 Consumer Reports survey found that, "Many
social network users are naive about risks. Forty percent had
posted their full birth date, exposing them to identity theft.
Twenty-six percent of Facebook users with children had
potentially exposed them to predators by posting the
children's photos and names. And in one of four households
with a Facebook account, users weren't aware of or didn't
choose to use the service's privacy controls." (Consumer
Reports, Social insecurity: What millions of online users
don't know can hurt them,
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/june/
electronics-computers/social-insecurity/overview/ index.htm,
as of April 20, 2013.)
Social network users under the age of 18 are particularly at
risk. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),
"[t]he main risk to preadolescents and adolescents online
today are risks from each other, risks of improper use of
SB 501
Page 6
technology, lack of privacy, sharing too much information, or
posting false information about themselves or others." (AAP,
The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and
Families,
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800.full,
as of April 20, 2013.) "These types of behavior," according
to the AAP, "put [minors'] privacy at risk." (Id.)
The posting of too much information may be unintentional, or
in some cases the result of unfamiliarity with a particular
Web site or confusion about how information will be displayed
across a social network. A study by Columbia University
entitled The Failure of Online Social Network Privacy Settings
found that 93.8 percent of participants revealed information
that they intended to keep private, and that 84.6 percent of
participants were hiding information that they actually wanted
to share. (http:// academiccommons.
columbia.edu/catalog/ac:135406, as of April 20, 2013.)
This over-sharing and confusion has contributed to an
environment where 92% of parents are concerned that their
children shared too much information online, and 75% of
parents don't think social networking sites do a good job of
protecting children's online privacy. (Common Sense Media,
Common Sense Media Poll,
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/
privacypoll.pdf, as of April 20, 2013.)
3)Tragedy, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Privacy Actions and
Maturity Bring Changes to Social Network User Information
Practices :
In 2006, according to a CBS News story, 14-year-old Judy
Cajuste was murdered in New Jersey, after she reportedly told
friends she met a man in his 20s through MySpace.com. Across
the country, in Northern California, 15-year-old Kayla Reed
was also active on MySpace until the day she disappeared. The
Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that in
2005, there were more than 2,600 incidents of adults using the
Internet to entice children.
To test the dangers posed to children in the online community,
that same year "Wired News" ran the names of randomly selected
registered sex offenders in San Francisco and neighboring
Sonoma County through MySpace's user search engine and turned
SB 501
Page 7
up, "no fewer than five men whose self-reported names,
photographs, ages, astrological signs, locations and (in two
instances) heights matched those of profiles on the state's
online sex offender registry."
The social networking community responded to these safety
issues. In order to prevent online solicitation of its
members, MySpace developed and implemented a program called
"Sentinel Safe" which allows them to aggregate all publicly
available sex offender databases into a real-time searchable
form, making it easy to cross-reference and remove known
registered sex offenders from the MySpace community. In
February of 2009, MySpace revealed that 90,000 registered sex
offenders have been identified and kicked off its site in the
past two years using this technology.
Chris Kelly, Facebook's then-chief privacy officer stated at
the time that, "We have devoted significant resources to
developing innovative and complex systems to proactively
monitor the site and its users, including those not on a sex
offender registry, for suspicious activity (such as contacting
minors or users of predominantly one gender). We also have
established a large team of professional investigators to
evaluate any reports of potential abuse, including those
surfaced by our systems or from our users."
During approximately this same period of time, 2006-08, the
FTC began a series of enforcement actions against social
network sites, alleging that they did not follow their stated
privacy policies and misled users as to the control and use of
their personal identifying information. The charges include
collecting information provided by users gathered from their
registration information and user activities (such as "likes"
and pictures); sharing user information with third party
applications for marketing purposes, and; making misleading
changes to their privacy policies which intentionally obscured
and broadened their information gathering practices. As a
result of these enforcement actions, Facebook, Google and
MySpace (and others) each signed settlement agreements with
the FTC and agreed to follow their privacy policies and to
annually submit their privacy policies and share any changes
with the FTC for 20 years. In addition, the networks subject
to the settlement agreements must now "clearly and
prominently" disclose to the users sharing of their personally
identifying information beyond that declared in the privacy
SB 501
Page 8
policy, and must have the user's affirmative consent prior to
any sharing of user's PII.
One outcome of the FTC settlements was a task force of
industry and state Attorneys General, who convened in 2008.
Their task for the report, Enhancing Child Safety & Online
Technologies, (Task Force Report) established best practices
for operators in the social network environment.
As a partial result of the activities above, MySpace
established parental controls which allow the parents of teens
to monitor their child's MySpace activities, and to remove the
MySpace page of their child. Facebook and Google also changed
their privacy settlings for youth and child users, limiting
information children and teens may access and the scope of
users who may contact teens and children to those users also
known to be minors.
The social network community now has adopted many of the child
safety practices contained in the Task Force report for users
who identify themselves as minors.
4)Constitutional Right to Personal Information Privacy :
Both the federal and state constitutions provide protection
for individuals' privacy. Unlike the federal Constitution,
California's constitution explicitly recognizes a right to
individual privacy in its text, stating "All people are by
their nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Among these are ... pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness,
and privacy." (California Constitution, Article 1 Section 1.)
The leading case regarding a private right of action under the
California constitution against a private entity for a
violation of privacy rights is Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, 857 (Cal. 1994). In
Hill, the California Supreme Court recognized that the
California constitution's right of privacy creates a private
right of action, not only against the government, but also
non-governmental entities.
The Court further held that the California constitutional
right to privacy protects two types of privacy; anatomical or
physical privacy, and informational privacy, which the court
SB 501
Page 9
defined as protecting interests in "precluding the
dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential
information." Id.
In Hill, the California Supreme Court relied upon the ballot
argument for Proposition 11, a.k.a. the Privacy Initiative,
which urged the need for greater protection against the
potential misuse of information gathered by both government
and private entities. The ballot argument raised the concern
that the government and private entities might use that
information for other objectives not related to the original
purpose of gathering the information. The ballot argument
also raised the concern that information gathered by the
government and non-governmental entities would be used to
"embarrass" individuals. Id.
"As the argument in favor of Proposition 11 observes: 'At
present there are no effective restraints on the information
activities of government and business. This amendment creates
a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every
Californian. The right of privacy prevents government and
business interests from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary
information about us and from misusing information gathered
for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or to
embarrass us. The proliferation of government and business
records over which we have no control limits our ability to
control our personal lives.' ?" Hill, id.
This measure would expand upon the right to privacy by
allowing registered users of Internet social networks to
remove personally identifying information which they object to
being made public from the site, or in the case of parents,
the personal information of their minor children.
5)Arguments in Support :
a) The Internet Provides a Unique Environment for Predators
to Contact Child Victims :
The Klass Foundation offers the following which is typical
of other supporters for this bill, stating, "Cybercrime
against children represents a criminal phenomenon unique to
SB 501
Page 10
the 21st Century. The days of monitoring your kid's online
activity by putting the home computer in the living room
are long past, because cell phones, PDA's, wireless
laptops, and libraries all offer easy Internet access.
Therefore, we must find other means to protect children
from predatory behavior on the Internet.
"Children used to beware predators lurking in alleys, dark
stairwells, in and around parks and schoolyards. The
Internet has emboldened a new generation of cyber-perverts
who rely upon anonymity and subterfuge to engage their evil
intentions. This small subset lurks behind false profiles
as they attempt to lure, groom, and victimize our children.
The very predators who cannot penetrate our dead bolts,
alarm systems, guard dogs, or personal armories have found
a back alley into our living rooms under the camouflage of
binary code and new world technology."
b) Children and Teens Need "Hind-sight" Privacy
Protections :
Common Sense Media adds in their support, "This common
sense measure is especially important for kids and teens.
Teenagers are using social networking sites such as
Facebook and Twitter in extraordinary large numbers.
According to a recent study, nine out of 10 (90%) 13 to
17-year-olds have used some form of social media.
Additionally, three out of four (75%) teenagers currently
have a profile on a social networking site and 68% of all
teens say Facebook is their main social networking site.
While these sites offer a myriad of benefits, such as
allowing users to easily connect with family and friends
and share information, they also pose risks. Children and
teens often reveal before they reflect, and may post
personal information, such as addresses, telephone numbers
and even social security and account numbers, without
realizing the consequences. Kids do not necessarily
understand that identity thieves and other malicious
individuals can access and exploit this sensitive personal
information."
"This bill addresses this critical privacy issue head-on by
requiring social networks to comply with users' requests to
remove their personal identifying and financial account
information. There are enormous risks when our personally
SB 501
Page 11
identifiable information is indiscriminately posted,
indefinitely stored, and quietly collected and analyzed by
marketers and ID thieves. Those risks are especially
serious when it comes to kids and teens, who are tracked
more closely and widely than adults."
c) Parents Desire the Ability to Protect Their Children
Online :
According to a recent Common Sense Media poll:
94% of parents say they should be able to request the
deletion of all their personal information held by a search
engine, social network, or marketing company after a
specific period.
75% of parents don't think social networking sites do a
good job of protecting children's online privacy.
85% of parents say they are more concerned about online
privacy than they were five years ago.
d) Teen Dating Violence is Often Reflected in Online
Behavior :
The Partnership to End Domestic Violence also supports this
measure for a different reason writing to say, while
technology is an integral part of our lives, and social
networking sites are used by millions, "What is often
unrecognized however are the ways in which technology can
be misused and place victims of domestic violence in
extreme danger. In particular teen dating violence often
intersects with the digital world, where technology is
often used as a tool for abuse. This bill provides another
tool teens can use to protect their privacy."
6)Arguments in Opposition :
a) SB 501 Would Violate Free Speech Rights of Minors :
A majority of opponents to this bill raise concern with the
provision of the bill permitting parents to require removal
of their children's personal identifying information,
claiming it presents significant First Amendment concerns.
This line of argument is typified by the Electronic
SB 501
Page 12
Frontier Foundation (EFF), who state in their opposition,
"This bill would allow parents or legal guardians to
require social networks to remove the personal identifying
information of their minor children, defined as those under
the age of 18, upon request. As we read the bill, parents
or legal guardians may exercise this power in conflict with
their minor children's wishes, permitting them to restrict
their children's speech and association on social networks.
EFF believes that minors have First Amendment rights to
speak and associate, especially adolescents or teenagers,
who have significant need to discuss issues such as
reproductive health, sexual orientation, lifestyle,
religion, politics, and culture. The sensitivity of these
issues makes the possibility of disagreement over social
network speech and association real. As a result, the bill
places state power behind likely parental or guardian
censorship, and raises grave First Amendment concerns."
b) Creates Incentive for Minors to Lie About Their Age,
Increasing Their Online Risks :
According to a letter signed jointly by many members of the
technology industry (Joint Letter of Opposition), "Many
social networking sites ask for users' dates of birth for
one important reason: to protect users that identify
themselves as under 18. Once a user is identified as a
minor, a number of behind-the-scenes security measures kick
in. These range from restrictions on adults being able to
search for minors, limits on minor's ability to share
information with strangers, and additional steps in the
friend verification process. Additionally, by default,
access to contact information is limited to friends only.
"All of the additional protections social networks can
provide for minors are dependent on the minor accurately
representing her age. By denying minors the ability to
publish data entered into text fields designated for phone
and address information, this bill may encourage minors to
lie about their age to restore the lost functionality, this
would enable them to circumvent the restrictions of this
bill while undermining existing privacy and security
protocols."
c) Creates a False Sense of Safety and Addresses the Wrong
Harm :
SB 501
Page 13
The Family Online Safety Institute and Stop Child Predators
are concerned that, "By diverting attention to restricting
the display of home addresses and telephone numbers -
instead of real online threats such as cyberbullying and
grooming - this bill could actually increase the risk to
minors by creating a false sense of security among both
minors and parents. Parents should not be encouraged to
believe that restricting the display of this type of
information will somehow make children safer, when in fact,
attention needs to be focused on more credible threats."
d) Increases Risk of Identity Theft :
Various opposition groups asserted that the information
gathering necessary to comply with the verification
requirements of this bill could have the unintended
consequence of creating a data base of PII which would be
very attractive to identity thieves. Typical of this
concern is that voiced by iKeepSafe, who write to say that
an "unexpected outcome of this bill is that social
networking sites will gather and review more personal and
confidential information about their young users and their
families and potentially their guardian's family. ?
Determining guardianship and custodial responsibilities
will require that even more sensitive information will be
gathered and shared with industries like Facebook and
Google only increasing risks to family and youth."
7) Committee Staff Drafting Issues :
This bill, as written, contains a number of provisions which
committee staff believe may pose implementation and/or
interpretation issues were the measure to become law.
a) Recent amendment language which added "that is
accessible online" may have created a duty for the social
networks to search the entire Internet for places where PII
of the registered user occurs. However, Social networking
sites (SNS) only have control over their own sites. This
language created a substantial burden for SNS to search for
the information subject to a removal request everywhere on
the Internet - and potential liability for any site where
the PII remains available, despite the inability of the SNS
to remove the information from an unrelated Internet site.
SB 501
Page 14
b) Language which triggers the provisions of this bill for
minors hinges on the self-reported age of the registered
user as being under 18; given that the Pew Foundation
report that 44% of minors who are social network users
admit they lie about their age, this reliance seems
misplaced. Also, if a child can subvert the intent of the
legislation by simply changing their age status to 18 and
above, this language would seem to encourage savvy minors
to misstate their age to avoid its application to them.
c) Language in the bill which requires SNS to remove the
PII of registered users from "any known" location is not
sufficiently clear to require that the SNS remove the PII
of a registered user only when they are informed of the
location. Rather, it could be read to require the request
for removal of PII to state any known location, but if the
requestor did not know the location, leave it up to the SNS
to find the information.
d) There is no deterrent for persons who would maliciously
request a SNS to remove the PII of another person in the
bill, therefore potentially subjecting a SNS to liability
from a claim brought by persons whose PII was stricken from
their site based upon a fraudulent request.
e) Recent amendment language which added 65(b), contains
imprecise language referring to "unintentional violations"
of the provisions of the bill, and could create a loophole
by giving a defense for any claim that the respondent
unintentionally violated the law, which is a different
standard than the "willful and knowing" standard for
liability in subsection 65(a). In addition, "unintentional
violation" does not have a legal meaning, and thus would
necessitate litigation to clarify its meaning.
f) There are situations where a person may violate the
provisions of the bill through attempting to follow its
mandates. I.e. Section 60(a) requires information be
removed "in a timely manner" upon request; (b) requires
sufficient information to verify the identity of a
registered user; while 62(a) defines "timely manner" to
mean within 96 hours. It is easily conceivable that a
request may come in to a SNS to remove PII without
sufficient identifying information. Were the SNS to
SB 501
Page 15
request further information sufficient to verify the
request is valid in compliance with 60(b), the time for
compliance under 60(a) might toll before the SNS could
comply with the request - thereby exposing them to
liability.
7)Related Pending Legislation :
a) AB 1291 (Lowenthal), would create the Right to Know act
of 2013, repealing and reorganizing certain provisions of
existing law pertaining to the disclosure of a consumer's
personal information. Status: Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
b) SB 568 (Steinberg), would prohibit an operator of an
Internet Web site, online service, online application, or
mobile application, from marketing or advertising a product
or service to a minor if the minor cannot legally purchase
the product or participate in the service in the State of
California. This bill would also prohibit an operator from
using, disclosing, or compiling, or allowing a third party
to knowingly use, disclose, or compile, the personal
information of a minor for the purpose of marketing goods
or services that minors cannot legally purchase or engage
in the State of California. Status: Currently pending
before this Committee.
8)Related Prior Legislation :
a) ACR 106 (Nava) of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, would
have urged user-generated content Web sites to work with
the Safety Technical Task Force and law enforcement to
reduce the use of those Web sites for purposes of criminal
behavior. ACR 106 died on the Assembly Inactive File.
b) AB 632 (Davis) of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would
have required a social networking Internet Web site to
provide a disclosure to users that an image which is
uploaded onto the Web site is capable of being copied,
without consent, by persons who view the image, or copied
in violation of the privacy policy, terms of use, or other
policy of the site. AB 632 was vetoed.
c) SB 1361 (Corbett) of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited a social networking Internet Web
SB 501
Page 16
site, as defined, from displaying, to the public or other
registered users, the home address or telephone number of a
registered user of that Internet Web site who is under 18
years of age, as provided. SB 1361 failed passage in this
committee.
d) SB 242 (Corbett) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have prohibited a social networking Internet Web site
from displaying the home address or telephone number, in
specified text fields, of a registered user who identifies
himself or herself as under 18 years of age. SB 242 failed
passage on the Senate Floor.
e) SB 761 (Lowenthal) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have required the Attorney General, by July 1, 2012,
to adopt regulations that would require online businesses
to provide California consumers with a method for the
consumer to opt out of the collection or use of his or her
information by the business. SB 761 was returned to the
Secretary of the Senate by the Senate Appropriations
Committee pursuant to
Joint Rule 56.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support :
Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California State Parent Teachers Association
California State Sheriff's Association
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Common Sense Media
Crime Victims United of California
Klass Kids Foundation
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition :
Association for Competitive Technology
American Civil Liberties Union of California
America Online Inc.
Application Developers Alliance
SB 501
Page 17
Bay Area Council
CalChamber
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Center for Democracy & Technology
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Engine
Facebook
Family Online Safety Institute
Google
iKeepSafe
Internet Alliance
LGBT Technology Partnership
LinkedIn
MapQuest
Motion Picture Association of America
Moviefone
NetChoice
Patch
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
State Privacy and Security Coalition, Inc.
Stop Child Predators
TechAmerica
TechNet
The Huffington Post
The Internet Association
Tumblr
WiredSafety
Zynga
Analysis Prepared by : Dana Mitchell / A.,E.,S.,T. & I.M. /
(916) 319-3450