One of the world’s largest advertising firms is crafting a campaign to thwart a California bill intended to enhance people’s control over the data that companies collect on them.

According to emails obtained by POLITICO, the Interpublic Group is coordinating an effort against a bill that would make it easier for people to request that data brokers — firms that collect and sell personal information — delete their dossiers.

SB 362, known as the Delete Act, would require companies to delete all data on individuals upon request — including data purchased or acquired from third parties. This would shrink the trove of personal information they hold, such as browsing history, birthdates and past purchases. Data brokers compile this information to build profiles of people, which can be used to craft advertisements tailored to an individual’s preferences. But that also grants them access to some of people’s most sensitive details, such as whether they are pregnant or suffering from mental illness. The IPG emails reveal how an advertising company could use that same personal data and targeting capabilities to undermine a public policy proposal that threatens its bottom line.

The emails show an exchange between the company’s global chief digital responsibility and public policy officer, Sheila Colclasure, and other executives discussing what the firm can do to block the bill.

“We would like to mount an ‘opposition campaign’ using in-house digital advertising capabilities, targeting California,” Colclasure wrote in an Aug.14 email sent to others at IPG and reviewed by POLITICO.

  • towerful@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welp, good luck.
    GDPR can be painful for developers, but it is excellent for people.
    I hope your government and laws are for the people and by the people (or whatever the phrasing is).

      • Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah! Because companies are reallly overburdened, struggling to make meager profits in the face of a gargantuan government that refuses to listen to their tiniest request. Will noone think of the shareholders? Instead it’s all “10 year olds can’t pack meat” or “maximum level of feces” or “mandatory water breaks”.

      • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then they can vote against the bill. But they should get the opportunity.

        Additionally, laws that curb unbridled greed at the cost of consumers isn’t a burdensome regulation for the people, it’s actually relieving the burden. Just like you can’t make defective products that kill people. That’s not a burden on the people, it saves people’s lives and yes costs a company, but a burden on a company is not equivalent to a burden on the people.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just FYI, that dude is trying to make a name as a troll on here. All over the place with BS

        • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Has there not been ample opportunity for such votes? It’s been 7 years since gdpr passed over in Europe, if we want to be generous and assume nobody was even aware of the possibility of such legislation prior. That’s plenty of time to have written and passed a copycat law, and California did, so would the lack of such laws elsewhere not demonstrate a lack of support?

          • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wait so your argument is that because we lag good ideas elsewhere they must not be good ideas? So by definition a place like South Africa should never have abolished apartheid because obviously if their people wanted it then they would’ve done it within 3 years of the first abolishment of such a system?

            If someone wants to put it on a ballot, let them put it on a ballot and decide. If the will of the people is that their privacy is worth more than a companies bottom line, that is the choice of the people.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, that isn’t my argument in the slightest. What’s good has absolutely fuck all to do with what’s popular or what the government passes. My point was that the choice of the people, agree with it or not, seems to be leaning towards not passing such laws in the US, as evidenced by the fact that, given ample time, they have chosen not to for the most part. Whether you support such laws or not, is the lack of them not also the choice of the people?

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re misguided because they don’t actually understand what’s really going on.

        Regulations on BUSINESS is better for every single human being.

      • Hello_there@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who is in favor of more companies hoovering up data? Did you know you can just search someone’s email address and you can get their name, home address, last few addresses, and people related to them?
        You can email them to get rid of that data, but some ask you to submit a driver’s license photo (giving them more data on you) to delete it.
        Fuck that. Fuck that x 100. I don’t want someone to egg my house, or threaten my mother, just because I disagreed with them on a forum. Regulate the fuck out of that.