By Daniel Golightly
>
> A new proposal called the California Consumer Privacy Act appears to
> be spurring some pretty sizeable opposing contributions from some of
> the United States' biggest technology companies, including Google,
> Facebook, and Amazon. As many as half of the eighteen financial
> contributions against the proposal in excess of $5,000 come from big
> names in the tech industry. The proposed California legislation would
> effectively require that companies that collect data disclose what
> data they are collecting and how that data is being used. For example,
> a company like Facebook would need to tell its users which types of
> information they are collecting and that the information will be used
> for targeted advertising. Beyond that, companies would also be
> required to allow consumers to completely opt out of having their data
> collected and sold. The initiative was first started back in 2014 by a
> real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart and currently has 600,000
> unverified signatures which are being sorted through to verify whether
> or not the required 366,000 valid signatures are included.
>
> Meanwhile, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Comcast, AT&T, and
> Verizon have all donated in excess of $190,000 to campaigns against
> the measure. In fact, with the exception of Microsoft and Amazon,
> which donated $195,000 each, every other company has donated a full
> $200,000. Smaller contributions were made by Cox Communications and
> Uber at $50,000. The appearance of those companies on the list
> shouldn't be all that surprising since each company listed draws a
> reasonable portion of its income from advertising. In the case of
> Google and Facebook, in particular, ads make up the overwhelming
> majority of incoming assets. The companies' contributions are directed
> toward a group known as the Committee to Protect California Jobs. The
> committee has argued that the proposal is flawed, while individual
> companies have taken it, in turn, to point out how the proposal might
> harm business models or outright threaten businesses.
>
>
formatting link
Historical Note:
Back in 1966, LIFE ran a detailed illustrated article on the electronic invasion of privacy. Even then, devices were very tiny. These included devices that could be embedded in a telephone that could receive and transmit conversations from a room.
for article please see:
formatting link
for detailed article please see:
formatting link