←back to thread

66 points hn_acker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.406s | source
Show context
nostrademons ◴[] No.44381307[source]
I really wish they went into more detail of the legal issues and existing law around this area. I had to go into the linked statutes to even find out what the this bill is, and "California Corporate Cover-Up Act" is their term for it, not on the actual bill.

From my (IANAL) read, it looks like somebody realized that CIPA could be construed to criminalize recording IP addresses as wiretapping, and yet basically every website and online service does it to prevent DDoS attacks, abuse, and fulfill legal obligations. And so this bill specifically excludes "identifying the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication but not the contents of a communication" when done as part of a commercial purpose from being part of the definition of wiretapping.

I know that the EFF's job is to maximize privacy online, and I'd even agree with (and have donated to) that mission. But unless there's some subtle legal argument here, I don't get the uproar. Companies have been collecting IP addresses for the last 30 years, you are not realistically going to stop that practice without breaking the Internet, and so I don't see much of a change from status quo other than not having a law that can be used to fine tech company execs billions of dollars for wiretapping.

replies(4): >>44381322 #>>44381398 #>>44381416 #>>44381526 #
1. sundarurfriend ◴[] No.44381398[source]
> "California Corporate Cover-Up Act" is their term for it, not on the actual bill.

As they say in the second sentence of the very first paragraph:

>> S.B. 690, what we’re calling the Corporate Cover-Up Act, is

The linked statute makes far broader exclusions that you imply or would be necessary for what you mention. It just adds "A commercial business purpose" with no provisos or clarification, which invites insanely broad interpretations and effectively nullifies the existing law, just as EFF is saying.