Pluralistic: California's privacy obstacle course (23 Jul 2026)

2023-12-06 · Source: Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow · Field: Government & Public Sector — Public Policy & Governance, Regulatory & Compliance · Depth: Intermediate, long

Summary

California's new Delete Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP), launching in August 2026, aims to allow residents to compel data brokers to delete their personal information and derived inferences. This initiative emerges as federal efforts to regulate data brokers, implicated in issues from deepfake porn to algorithmic wage discrimination, have largely failed. However, the article criticizes DROP as a "privacy obstacle course," describing its implementation as "nearly impossible to complete." The process demands an "incredibly invasive" Login.gov ID, redundant photo ID verification, personal details including car VIN, and a mobile advertising identifier often requiring a separate app like AAID. The author argues this convoluted system, requiring more authentication than filing taxes or becoming a US citizen, is "malicious compliance" that maintains the fiction of consensual surveillance, rather than directly banning data brokers.

Key takeaway

For legal professionals advising on data privacy or policymakers drafting new regulations, California's DROP tool exemplifies the pitfalls of opt-out systems. You should recognize that complex, multi-step processes for data deletion, like those requiring redundant ID verification and mobile ad identifiers, create unnecessary barriers. Prioritize advocating for legislation that bans data brokers or mandates opt-in consent by default, shifting the burden of proof onto data collectors rather than individuals.

Key insights

Opt-out privacy systems like California's DROP are fundamentally flawed, creating barriers to data deletion instead of banning data brokers.

Principles

• Unrestricted data collection enables widespread harms.
• Opt-out consent models contradict user preferences.
• Complex authentication can hinder privacy protection.

Method

The ideal method for avoiding surveillance should be passive: "Step one: Exist. Step two: There is no step two."

In practice

• Utilize California's DROP tool despite its complexity.
• Advocate for policies banning data brokers outright.

Topics

• Data Brokers
• Consumer Privacy
• California Privacy Rights
• Digital Identity
• Opt-out Consent
• Algorithmic Discrimination

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Executive, Policy Maker, Legal Professional, AI Ethicist

Related on AIssential

• EFF to Grindr: This Pride Month, Put Safety and Privacy Over Profits — Default privacy settings are critical for protecting sensitive user data, particularly for LGBTQ+ individuals, against risks from behavioral advertising and AI training.
• I tried to wipe my digital footprint without paying for a data removal service - 5 free ways — Personal data is legally aggregated by brokers, requiring a fragmented, multi-step process for removal.
• Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricing — Surveillance pricing, customizing product costs based on personal data, harms privacy, equity, and transparency, necessitating legislative bans.
• The child exploitation crisis online: Gaps in digital privacy protection — Fragmented privacy laws and data collection practices create significant vulnerabilities, especially for children, in digital spaces.
• Unpacking the SECURE Data Act — The SECURE Data Act is a weak federal privacy bill that undermines existing state protections and fails to address AI's data demands.
• Meta wants its AI glasses to seem less creepy. Its AI strategy says otherwise. — Meta's privacy concessions for AI glasses are overshadowed by its aggressive, contradictory data collection strategy for AI development.

See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow.