BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 242
Author: Corbett (D)
Amended: 5/17/11
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 5/10/11
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman, Blakeslee
SUBJECT : Social networking Internet Web sites: privacy:
minors
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires social networking Internet
Web sites to: (1) establish a default privacy setting for
registered users that prohibits the display of any
information about the user without the agreement of the
user, as specified; (2) establish a process for new users
to set their privacy settings as part of the registration
process that explains privacy options in plain language;
and (3) remove personal identifying information in a timely
manner upon request. This bill provides that a social
networking Internet Web site that willfully and knowingly
violates the bill's provisions shall be liable for a civil
penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that, among other
rights, all people have an inalienable right to pursue and
obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.)
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
2
Existing case law 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: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and
(3) 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.
Existing case law 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.)
This bill requires a social networking Internet Web site to
establish a default privacy policy setting for all
registered users of the site that prohibits the display to
the public or other registered users, any information about
a registered user, other than the user's name and city of
residence, with the express agreement of the user.
This bill requires a social networking Internet Web site to
establish a process for new users to set their privacy
settings as part of the registration process that explains
privacy options in plain language. The site shall not
complete the registration process until privacy settings
are selected by the user, and the site shall make privacy
settings available to all users in a conspicuous place and
an easy-to-use format that allow the user to adjust his or
her privacy setting.
This bill defines "plain language" as a clear explanation,
written in easy to understand terms that achieve a minimum
Flesch Reading Ease score of 70, as that calculation is
described in the California Code of Regulations, as
specified.
This bill requires a social networking Internet Web site to
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
3
remove the personal identifying information of a registered
user "in a timely manner" upon his or her request. For
registered users that have self-identified as under 18
years of age, the social networking internet web site shall
remove that information upon the request of a parent of the
registered user. This bill provides that for purposes of
this bill "personal identifying information" shall not
include a person's name. This bill provides 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.
This bill defines "in a timely manner" to mean within 48
hours of the request.
This bill provides that a social networking site that
willfully and knowingly violates any provision of this part
shall be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed $10,000
for each violation of the bill.
This bill defines "social networking internet web site" as
an Internet Web based service that allows individuals to
construct a public or partly public profile within a
bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom
they share a connection, and view and traverse their list
of connections and those made by others within the system.
This bill also defines "registered user" and "personally
identifying information."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/17/11)
California State Sheriffs' Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/17/11)
Internet Alliance
Tech America
TechNet
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
4
computers systems and the Internet have brought consumers
many conveniences. Sites like Facebook and Twitter provide
users with a place to share personal information with
friends, family, and the public an activity that's proven
to be hugely compelling to Internet users. In response to
the demand, technology is evolving to encourage the
disclosure of information that was formerly discreet (like
location), and to enable the sharing of information even
when not sitting in front of a traditional computer (like
from mobile phones).
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,
indefinitely stored, and quietly collected and analyzed by
marketers, and identity thieves.
Current law does not require social networking websites to
provide a mechanism for users to adjust their privacy
settings, or remove their personal identifying information;
nor does it govern the disclosure of users' personal
information to third parties and the public.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Internet Alliance (IA), in
opposition, notes that the bill "does not stipulate that
the person provide a specific description of the
information to be removed or its location. Without that
information, social networking sites especially would not
know what information to look for, a problem that gets more
complicated when many users share the same basic
biographical information. For example, there may be 100
John Smiths in the United States. Moreover, social
networks do not currently have the technology to delete a
customer's information from an entire site." While the
above amendment would address the situation where a user
requests the removal of a common name from the social
networking site, it would not address issues relating to
specificity of the request. In an effort to address those
issues, the author offers the following amendment to
require the registered user to verify his or her identity
and to specify any known location of that information.
The IA, in opposition, contends that this bill "would force
CONTINUED
SB 242
Page
5
users to make decisions about privacy and visibility of all
information, well before they have even used the service
for the first time, and in such a manner that they are less
likely to pay attention and process the information than
they are today." IA further contends that this bill is
moving in the opposite direction urged by the FTC in their
proposed privacy framework, that the bill singles out
social networks, that major social networks already remove
personal information upon request under certain
circumstances, and that, if the bill is enacted and
challenged, a court could award attorneys' fees for the
plaintiff if this statute is found unconstitutional.
TechNet echoes similar concerns and argues that this bill
would do significant damage to California's technology
sector by "drastically limit�ing] social networking sites'
growth potential in California by imposing additional
operating costs and raising barriers to consumer
participation in social networking services, all while
exposing those services to massive and unwarranted civil
liability and in turn, creating significant confusion and
uncertainty for investors, businesses and consumers."
RJG:do 5/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED