More California proposition help -- Prop. 24

I’m really stuck on this one. The avowed purpose of the bill is to increase consumer online privacy. It is an initiative statute (put on the ballot by collecting signatures, rather than by the legislature). I am, of course, in favor of increasing consumer online privacy, but I’m not convinced that this measure does that. It seems to overturn some protections that either already exist or that are due to take effect on January 1, 2021. I’m not sure who to believe, and I’m not sure what (theoretically unbiased) sources actually know what they’re talking about.

Other than trying to read and understand the entire 52-page bill myself, are there any knowledgeable and unbiased sources I can look at?

Isn’t there usually a legislative analyst blurb on each prop? I mean, that’s strictly about costs but can be insightful on occasion.

Kevin Drum, LA blogger since 2003, posted his takes on all the initiatives today, and sez:

Other than that, from this thread, Dems abstain, GOP is on board, LAT likes it and SFChron doesn’t.

I’m still trying to figure my own take.

Yes, I read the blurb from the legislative analyst. They seem to have taken everything at face value, and doesn’t seem to mention “pay for privacy,” at least I couldn’t find any reference to it.

Thanks for the quote and the link to the other thread, which I didn’t see (didn’t really look, sorry).

The killer for me, if there is one, is the establishment of a new state agency.

I voted NO as I do for any proposition that can’t be summed up in a couple of sentences. There’s a place for laws written like this, but a referendum isn’t it. If it’s that important, let the legislature with its staffs of analysts and lawyers pass it.

Agreed. My rule is that if I can’t figure out exactly what they are trying to do in a referendum after 5 minutes of reading, it either:

violates the stipulation that a referendum address one issue; OR

the authors have deliberately used murky language to confuse the voters about their real intent.

Over the years on several CA ballots, reading the actual proposition language has uncovered some serious flaws (at least for me) that were not even addressed in the legislative analyst’s summary.

Agree with the last two posters. The chance that a 52-page law written by who knows what will even approach what the writers want it to do is slim. And then when it does something crazy, the legislature can’t fix the crazy part. You have to convince the whole population of CA to fix it!