this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
240 points (99.6% liked)

Privacy

5088 readers
96 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If you are a resident of California, the state now has a portal where you can demand deletion of your personal data from 500+ registered data brokers with a single request form, for free.

https://consumer.drop.privacy.ca.gov/

https://hachyderm.io/@evacide/115823137786391729

Note: aside from this thread, there is also further discussion in the linked Mastodon toot.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MOARbid1@piefed.social 40 points 1 month ago

Good job California! You’re making some positive moves!

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Here's how it's gonna go:

Government of california: "delete this"

Company: no

Gov: okay well here's a fine for $200 million, don't do it again

Company: that's fine, we made $1.8 billion with the data, this is just the cost of doing business

repeats next year but with a sternly worded letter

Prove me wrong, California. Break companies out of existence when they break the law. Don't just slap them on the wrist with a fine.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Fine them $1 million per day per person who still has data on their site if they submitted the form.

Really, these types of services need to be opt-in instead of opt-out.

They need to not exist.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I appreciate your cynicism, but I'm not personally inclined towards it. I think what it will ultimately boil down to, which you alluded to, is how the law is enforced. If they get fined as a first measure but then get taken to court for a second failure by California's attorney general and get subsequently bankrupted, it might stand as an example to others.

Or maybe they'll still say the potential risk is still worth it. I dunno. We'll just have to see how this goes, but it's still better than the current options, which are:

  • Trying to navigate deleting your own data, staying on top of it, and hoping they're actually deleting things.
  • Paying a private company to do it and hope they're not just pocketing your money.
  • Doing nothing and getting butt-fucked by surveillance capitalism.

None of those are great, so I'm hopeful this is the start of something better.

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Earlier in the year I read an article claiming that something like 40% of the data brokers doing business here (ie collecting data on California citizens) don't comply with elements of existing law, such as registering with the CA secretary of state. So the author wasn't bullish on the idea that they'd suddenly start just because there's a new law. They are sayign the AG will aggressively pursue violators, but we'll see.

If nothing else, we'll have one more data store to get hacked.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

FYI the terms say brokers don’t have to comply until August 2026, so it may take a while to see a difference

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe it's 90 days after August 2026.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

I imagine we'll see a spectrum of compliance:

  • Probably none will comply before the deadline, cuz why throw away free money.
  • Some will comply by the deadline.
  • Some will comply when the AG announces an enforcement action against some data broker.
  • Some will wait until there's an enforcement action against them specifically.
  • Some will never comply until noncompliance (ie the cost of fines and penalties) exceeds the profits from continuing status quo.

There's also a likely side effect where even more of the data brokers outside of CA will just not register with the state, and just wait for an enforcement action against them and pretend they never knew about the compliance requirements. And some who are currently registered may just cease operations and reorganize into new entities that can do the same. Whether it yields any meaningful improvement for California residents really depends on how hard the AG goes after these companies. If it were tax rev, they'd go hard. But since it's not, it's really hard to say. My guess is token enforcement for electoral optics. But who knows.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"What about the other 1000+?"

"Well, it's a start."

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 7 points 1 month ago

Most of the "500+" will simply ignore their legal requirements and eat the fine.

But some won't.

So it's better than continuing to do nothing, it's at least vocally (legally) saying they aren't cool with it.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

Well, I put in a bunch of personal info and then it rejected two 2FA codes that it sent to my phone so I couldn't submit at the end. Sigh.

[–] mmmac@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damn it cuts the connection to the site when I switch to my email app to confirm. Here's to hoping I remember to do this tomorrow!

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] mmmac@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Thanks for the reminder! Just did it

[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

If someone wanted a brilliant business idea: have a house or apartment or yard whatever and "lease" people 1 square foot in it for 90 days for $1 so that they can "prove" CA residency to use this form.

If those silly scams online that make you a Scottish Lord or whatever can do it, so can the privacy community.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Anyone used it yet?

Each time you use DROP, you must use the same method to verify you're a California resident. Example: If you used Login.gov, then you must always use Login.gov.

Does it make a difference which verification you use? Can you "unsubscribe" multiple names/addresses? For example those with nicknames (William/Bill) or married names, and those who have moved around quite a lot?