CA battle to protect the privacy of data is approaching

By Justin Klotzko, special for Calmatters

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Let’s say you are working in the food service industry for a large company whose planning software appoints workers’ changes. For you which changes you get means everything, because much of your salary depends on the advice. But in the eyes of the algorithm, you could derioritize yourself and skip lucrative shifts over the weekend based on mysterious data. Without your knowledge, information, such as when you are resting, how quickly you have turned a table or where you live can work against you.

Should you not be entitled to know the logic behind the algorithm and the right to give up your automated solution?

The Californians were about to have new protection against automated solutions in accordance with rules prepared by the best confidentiality agency of California, The California Agency for Protection of PrivacyS But this month, The Privacy Council offered a significantly narrower Privacy rules, including deletion of specific defenses – such as the example above – around criminal justice, education, basic goods as food and employment questions If they were made with automated decisions.

Some members have even suggested deleting the automated decision -making language. The five -member council is also committed to deleting other rules aimed at providing people’s control over their personal information in the training of artificial intelligence and in purposeful advertising.

We are at the main crossroads through California’s Battle of Privacy ProtectionS Following the establishment of the Consumer Privacy Act in California and its law on the confidentiality of voters in 2020 in California, forces within the Privacy Agency and Governor Gavin Newpom, under pressure from powerful business interests, are Pressing to scale back These seminars. A A key hearing is planned For Thursday.

After leaving the first leader of Ashtan Ashkan Soltans and A very dubious dismissal Of the Council member aimed at Vinhcent Le, deviated from the statement of the consumer’s mission of the consumer A small but influential agencyS The agency’s new leader is Tom CampTechnological entrepreneur. Real estate developer who prompted the State Privacy Act is now among some of his The largest skeptics.

But would you not want to know if algorithms, not people, decide sensitive aspects of your life and at least have the opportunity to stop it? Automated solutions dictate everything – from how we get work to basic services or mortgages, such as a quick, non -stagnant and incomprehensible way.

Members of the Council of the Privacy Agency have already recommended loosening the opportunities for purposeful advertising and training data that feeds artificial intelligence systems. Without refusal, companies can train endlessly AI models of your personal data without consent, and since you have said the word baby, the algorithm thinks you are a parent and bombard you with parental ads at each issue.

Californians complain about these things all the time.

The Privacy Agency should not listen to the governor. Board members just have to read voters Proposal 24 And the Privacy Act, which directs them to prepare regulations in the interest of confidentiality – not for the benefit of the interests of several major technology companies.

More importantly, the right to confidentiality is attached to The first article of the California Constitution. By leaving algorithms and AI to take the reins, we release ourselves from responsibility – comfort that comes with the price of our own control.

We are supposed to be in a new era of confidentiality, and California must lead this fee. Instead, we are ready to move in the back of the line. We’ve heard them threats in the industry For decades – these regulations will be too expensive – however, technology companies have grown and remain rooted in our country after 20 years of domination.

We cannot afford to let their tactics scare us.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.