Schwarzenegger Vetos Data Protection Bill

Another day, another Schwarzenegger veto comes soaring into our inbox. This one is from reader Hassan, who is concerned about data security.

From Ars Technica:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a legislative proposal that aimed to increase California’s data protection standards. The proposed law, AB 779, imposed stronger data protection requirements than the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, an industry-created standard for protecting consumer data.

Governor Schwarzenegger objects to the broad scope of the law and argues that compliance would be excessively costly and burdensome for small businesses. The Governor also argues that the industry is better equipped than lawmakers to evaluate the need for higher standards. “Protecting the personal information of every Californian is very important to me and I am committed to strong laws that safeguard every individual’s privacy and prevent identity theft,” the Governor wrote in a veto statement. “However, this bill attempts to legislate in an area where the marketplace has already assigned responsibilities and liabilities that provide for the protection of consumers.”

Ars says the bill was immensely popular and passed in a landslide, suggesting that there may be enough of a margain to overrule the veto.

We would just like to mention out of fairness that one bill Governor Schwarzenegger did not veto was a law giving “image copyright” to the estates of dead celebrities who lived in California. We’re glad that this got resolved. Tacky Marilyn Monroe calendars are a serious consumer issue—a blight upon our nation’s Barnes & Nobles.

Gov. Schwarzenegger says “hasta la vista” to California data protection law [Ars Technica]
Law Decides Who Owns a Dead Star’s Image [NPR]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. hi says:

    “Protecting the personal information of every Californian is very important to me and I am committed to strong laws that safeguard every individual’s privacy and prevent identity theft”

    Like a national ID card with a RFID chip that transmits your information through the air. Now thats protection.

  2. tedyc03 says:

    Your sarcasm about the legislation he signed is poorly veiled. ;-)

  3. Pope John Peeps II says:

    I think what he actually said was:

    Pwwotecteeng dah porsonal ehhnfowmation of evewy CalEEfornEEan is vewy ehhmpoawtant tooh me

  4. Trai_Dep says:

    Yet again, when over 70% of people are fimly in favor of something reasonable and needed, Republicans feel the need to kill it.

  5. vaxman says:

    He will protect your credit information by Terminating the identity theives

  6. Buran says:

    What is it with California’s government deciding that anything that has broad public support should NOT be implemented? I used to think CA had respect for its citizens’ desires, even though I generally (but not always) find myself agreeing with Democrats’ views — not to start a partisan debate here; I think for myself, not toe the party line — but more and more, and especially this week, they’ve been regressing downhill.

  7. timmus says:

    excessively costly and burdensome for small businesses.

    How so? The article just says they can’t keep certain types of information. I run a small SMALL business and it’s no skin off my back to keep my records secure.

  8. @mbills2: Yeah, I always thought that one was interesting as well. I believe government employee’s are being converted over to them as well.

    P.S. Glad to tip another one this way.

  9. On a seperate note, that picture looks evil…

  10. UEAKCrash says:

    @mbills2:

    Precisely.

  11. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    He’s a scumbag that’s term limited out of office in a few years & there’s not a chance in hell that the Constitution will get changed to allow a foreign born President.
    He might try a run for senator, but with this kind of anti-consumer track record, HaHaHa!
    Soon, but not soon enough, he’ll be irrelevant!

  12. guroth says:

    Why don’t you actually read the law instead of glossing over it like the shitty commercials that promoted it.

    “Did you know that hackers stole 60 million credit cards? It happens all the time!” “This law will magically make identity theft retroactively null!”

    The law was so broad and ridiculous and it would have opened businesses up to lawsuits that they didn’t have any business being a part of in the first place.

  13. urban_ninjya says:

    I’m going to take my spot on the other side of the fence. I’m all for data protection, I don’t feel we need another unenforceable useless regulation.

    Higher than Payment Cards standards? Isn’t payment card standards only 2nd to say defense data and the secret recipe to Coca Cola? How much do you think it’ll cost the tax payers to enforce such measures? I’m for consumer protection, but paying 42% of my income to taxes, I’m going to be agaist anything that

  14. California says:

    The current Payment Card Industries (PCI) compliance standards, required for all online merchants that accept Visa and Mastercard, is more that sufficient in keeping personal information secure, but better enforcement of these rules and quicker disclosure by business that loose data is needed. If you look at the corporations that lost personal data in the last year and a half you will find the most were completely negligent and that usually just running some basic anti-virus software could have prevented the data breach.

  15. mrosedal says:

    Just because the Govenor vetoes the bill doesn’t mean that he is against data security. It seems like he thinks the industry is better equipped to make the rules and he is right. Usually government just messes up everything when it comes to technology and privacy.

  16. zolielo says:

    I wish he would veto less. But that is just my point of view on the social welfare that I feel would be optimal.