Touted as a bill to protect consumer privacy for online purchases, newly amended AB 844 is a Trojan Horse that actually destroys credit card privacy protections in current California law.

CFC supports AB 25 (Campos), which would extend social media privacy provisions to public sector applicants and employees.

One of the biggest concerns with smartphones in medical care is the potential breach of confidentiality. CFC supports AB 658 (Calderon), which closes the medical-app privacy loophole.

AB 1291 (Lowenthal) would require a company to give users access to personal data the company has on them, and a list of companies the users' personal data was shared with.

CFC is sponsoring SB 383 (Jackson) to restore privacy protection for online credit card purchases, which was recently eliminated by a bad California Supreme Court decision.

Enjoying online privacy can happen only if you know how to shield your online activity from outside predators that want to use your information primarily for financial gain.

Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations. The privacy of your health records is protected by federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA.

The Supreme Court has given a gift to online businesses that have demonstrated a callous disregard for customer privacy. The decision is an affront to millions of Californians who care about privacy.

The Consumer Federation of California opposes AB 439 (Skinner) as amended on June 15, 2012. The bill would create numerous loopholes in the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, placing patients at risk of repeated unauthorized release of confidential health information on a massive scale.

CFC Supports SB 1330 to safeguard our right to privacy by reining in the use of license-plate recognition software.

Such a transition also poses significant privacy threats due to so much private data stored in a national network and shared across the country - because in order for the records to be readily available and accessible they would have to be linkable and searchable.

The Do Not Track concept offers a glimpse of where the expected battle lines will likely be drawn: separating those that want privacy, and more control over their own data, versus those that want to profit off violating that privacy, and selling that data.

This rise in behavioral tracking has made it possible for consumer information to be potentially misused, increases the threat of identity theft, and is a fundamental violation of privacy.

The need for such consumer friendly and empowering solutions to this exploding data mining industry and tracking capabilities is clear because we KNOW marketers will stop at NOTHING to ensure they can monitor online behavior...so we can be better profiled by the government and marketed to by advertisers.

In the final analysis, if we include in our definition of "safe" the concept of "safe" from government intrusiveness and corporate profiteering off fear peddling, I would argue these machines make us less secure, not more.

We would do well to - sooner rather than later - recognize the inherent and fundamental value that privacy provides ANY claimed democracy. Without one there can not be the other.

"Google's new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening. Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to Opt Out—especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search."

The fourth amendment isn't completely dead after all! While this fundamental right to privacy is admittedly in tatters, the Supreme Court ruled last week that police must have a warrant in order to track someone using a GPS device.

So let's be real clear, creating a database with millions of facial scans and thumbprints raises a host of surveillance, tracking and security question - never mind the cost.

When it comes to the issue of e-health records certainly one question the consumers should ponder is "Where is my data and who has access to it and for what purposes?" Or perhaps even more importantly, "can my private data be traced back to me personally and sold to others?"

...a lot of this comes down to data ownership and control - as in its OUR data and it should be in OUR control. Clearly, in the case of Carrier IQ and increasing numbers of telecom companies, third party marketers, and many more, we are seeing the invasion of individual privacy on a mass scale...

...this entire episode, with its many questions still unanswered, points to the need for GREATER consumer control over data, which could be achieved, at least partially, through a Do Not Track mechanism.

Since this Carrier IQ story broke last week, we’ve learned that the company’s spying technology is present on 141 million phones, including Androids and iPhones and possibly models made by BlackBerry, Nokia and other manufacturers.

...if law enforcement can argue, and win, the right to track someone's whereabouts without a warrant (or even probable cause) using a device implanted in the car, it goes to reason that this would be done in many cases through an individuals smart phone instead.

The fact is, there's been a virtual explosion in data collection, data analysis and use of behavioral marketing on the internet without the requisite privacy protections to go along with it. Billions of dollars at stake, and your private information is the currency.

...no one wants to feel as if a government agent is following you wherever you go - be it a friend's house, a place of worship, or a therapist's office - and certainly innocent Americans shouldn't have to feel that way.

I think its important to consider this case in the larger context of an increasingly unjust economic system (AND Judicial system) that's leading people, literally, to the streets in protest. We must...stand firm against the ever encroaching and watchful eye of both government and corporate interests.

In light of the growing worldwide Occupy Wall Street protests we would do well to revisit how the Patriot Act has been abused by government, not to catch terrorists, but to stifle dissent and consolidate power.

It was a near legislative sweep for privacy advocates this year as Governor Brown signed all but one of the key privacy bills that reached his desk.

When it comes to the issue of e-health records certainly one question the consumers should ponder is "Where is my data and who has access to it and for what purposes?" Or perhaps even more importantly, "can my private data be traced back to me personally and sold to others?"

SB 24’s common sense changes to the current security breach notification statutes will enhance consumer knowledge about security breaches, and help equip Californians to limit or prevent the harm caused by identity theft.

SB 761 would offer consumers a "Do Not Track Me" mechanism, one of the most powerful tools available to protect consumers' privacy on the web. The mechanism will allow anyone online to send Websites the message that they do not want their online activity monitored.

California's modest investment in privacy protection produces a much bigger positive contribution to our state’s bottom line. The improvements to the state's balance sheet include assistance to law enforcement agencies in combating and enforcing against identity theft.

All in all, this is an important victory for common sense will prevent big retail chains from turning a credit card into another avenue for violating our financial privacy.

A patient's doctor - not a third party marketing company - is the best source for informing a patient about how to manage his or her health condition. By intruding upon and confusing this relationship, this bill could have put patients’ health, as well as privacy, at risk.

In one sense, temporarily at least, California may have succeeded in beating back the banks and protecting a hard fought, landmark consumer privacy law. But let’s be frank; no “blow was struck” in defense of the individual’s fundamental, constitutional right to privacy.

This represents a defining moment for privacy rights. Federal law sets a floor, and the GLB permits the states to enact stronger consumer financial privacy protections. California’s landmark law has provided a successful model for the nation. Please defend our right to keep it strong.

Big banks want the Supreme Court to roll back some of its strongest consumer protections. Will Barack Obama urge the Court to allow the states to serve as incubators of privacy protection laws that have been steamrolled by corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill?

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee rejected the DMV’s proposal to impose sweeping new biometric technologies as an element in a renewal of a vendor contract to produce driver’s licenses and ID cards.

We urge the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to object to the DMV's proposal to impose sweeping new biometric technologies as an element in a renewal of a vendor contract to produce driver's licenses and ID cards.

As the danger of identity theft becomes more prevalent, California needs to take steps to protect the privacy and security rights of its residents. Standardizing security breach notifications and centralizing the reporting process are a small, but critical step in the right direction.

The proper venue for modifying automobile insurance rates under Proposition 103 is through the rate-setting process of the Department of Insurance, not through legislation.

Legislation to permit drug stores to share confidential patient prescription information with third parties died in the State Assembly after the CFC and privacy advocates raised strong objections.

SB 1096 gives drug marketing and pharmaceutical companies exactly what they want: a way to increase customer allegiance to their particular brand name through direct mail. In contrast, consumers’ right to privacy is undercut...

Nonvoters delivered a death blow to Huffman's AB3011 (sponsored by CFC), which would have required California cell-phone companies to get a customer's consent before sharing his or her financial information with third parties...the AT&T lobbyists were out in force. They were aggressive, they were relentless and they were effective.

AB 3011 would clarify existing law which prohibits the disclosure of a person's residential land-line calling records to apply to cell phone consumers as well.

Though recently rendered inactive for the remaining of this session - all four RFID bills by Senator Joe Simitian are still alive in the legislature - and scheduled to move forward as early as January, 2008.

RFID chips allow businesses and government agencies to track our whereabouts, are susceptible to a hacker with an RFID scanner, and expose us to the threat of privacy violations, identity theft, property theft, and stalking.

Check out the Consumer Federation of California Education Foundation's (CFCEF) an in-depth study of the consumer privacy practices of major telecommunications corporations operating in California.

The Consumer Federation of California (CFC) believes REAL ID's represent a gross violation of personal privacy rights by the government and would actually increase the potential for identity theft.

Tiny computer chips called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags that transmit information about us can be embedded in driver's licenses, student ID's and other government issued cards without our knowledge...CFC strongly believes that any RFID technology must be strictly regulated to safeguard our privacy and our liberty.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court decision, finding that portions of California's landmark Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier) are preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit ruling is a setback for financial privacy.

The ink was barely dry on California's new Financial Privacy Law (SB 1 Speier), when the bank and insurance lobbyists got busy in Washington DC. On September 10, the US House of Representatives obeyed the bank bosses and voted to wipe out all state laws regulating information sharing within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

Under threat of a powerful financial privacy initiative, big banks and insurance companies abruptly gave up their opposition to SB 1 (Speier). After beating back all privacy legislation for four years, Assembly Business Democrats and Republicans voted for SB 1 not once, but six times on Monday, August 18th.

For the fourth straight year, Assembly Business Democrats and Republicans teamed up to kill consumer financial privacy protection.

Have all your questions answered as to why financial privacy should be a right of all Californians.

The campaign to give Californians the right to decide for themselves whether financial institutions can share their personal information with other companies is launched.

The Consumer Federation of California recently joined with other consumer groups to place a financial privacy initiative on the ballot in 2004

It's time to break the stranglehold of the banks and insurance companies over lawmakers in Sacramento. The Consumer Federation of California worked on two fronts to win privacy protection.

Law enforcement officials can take routine DNA samples from those they arrest, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. A 5-4 majority held that doing so is little different from taking fingerprints, and therefore does not intrude on a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.

California would take its first steps to protect the public from the increased use of unmanned aircraft under a bill approved by the state Senate.

The California Senate should approve consumer online privacy protection legislation to be fair to consumers and to brick-and-mortar stores struggling to compete against online businesses.

The days of doctor/patient privacy are dwindling as more agencies and companies wield technology to peer into your medical records.

Under California law, genetic snooping is perfectly legal. Now, legislators are considering a bill that would require a donor's consent to collect, analyze or share genetic information.

Online merchants are now free to use information to build customer profiles for marketing or for sale to third parties who may use this information for any purpose.

Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) has announced that the California Right to Know Act (AB 1291) will not be voted on this year but she will keep working to pass it next year.

In California, with the highest unemployment rate, Republican Jeff Gorell and Democrat Steven Bradford presented a privacy bill that guards against drone surveillance, but they are pushing a bill to provide tax breaks to drone manufacturers.

How happy are you with the fact that a long list of Internet companies know so much about you - and are using that information to pad their pockets?

Silicon Valley tech, banks and other powerful industries are mounting a quiet but forceful campaign to kill an Internet privacy bill that would give consumers the right to know how their personal information is being used.

Your online life may not seem worth tracking, but the data you generate is a rich trove of information that says more about you than you realize.

Employers are frequently using monitoring software to make their employees more productive at work...although the Constitution speaks of a "reasonable" expectation of privacy, this is not applicable at private employers.

Two ticket-selling giants have brought an industry turf war to Sacramento, with both sides claiming to represent fans' rights as they compete over billions in proceeds from concerts and sporting events.

Internet firms push back on California proposal requiring they disclose what has been done with users' information.

A technology long deployed on the battlefield could be coming to a farm, newspaper or police station near you.

Consumer Watchdog on the various ways current and upcoming vehicle electronics are collecting and possibly selling your information, including driving habits, frequently used routes, and what radio stations you listen to.

People are used to being watched when shopping. Cookies track our every move online, and salespeople follow us around high-end stores. But many retailers are taking spying to a new level.

Microsoft reveals in a new transparency report that between all of its online services, it received more than 75,000 requests from law enforcement agencies around the world in 2012.

Your smart phone already serves as a portable office, media player, newspaper, GPS, camera and social network hub. Now it can replace your wallet, too.

But for several years the company was also secretly collecting personal information such as e-mails, medical and financial records, and passwords as it cruised by. It was data-scooping from millions of unencrypted wireless networks.

Harris asks California lawmakers to OK funding for a database to identify doctors who recklessly prescribe addictive drugs.

Holding everything from medical and social media material to confidential financial and corporate documents, cloud services are an enormous trove of information that is proving a lure for hackers.

Skeptical consumers, take heed: If you receive a notice that your personal data has been breached, pay attention and take free self-help steps to protect yourself from identity fraud.

Identity theft tops list for 13th consecutive year in report of national consumer complaints.

The bill would extend privacy protections to online stores, but still allow companies to detect credit card fraud. CFC's Richard Holober: They can't..develop all sorts of profiling about you as a consumer, your habits.

California consumers shouldn't have to reveal any more personal information than absolutely necessary, whether they're shopping at a mall or at their computers.

The Equifax credit reporting agency has assembled what may be the most powerful private database of personal information ever created, containing 190 million employment and salary records.

Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, called the ruling "a gift to online businesses that have demonstrated a callous disregard for customer privacy."

Online merchants can require consumers to furnish personal information to make credit-card purchases, a divided California Supreme Court ruled, delivering a blow to consumer advocates worried about privacy in cyberspace.

Internet retailers of music and other downloadable products may seek personal identifying information from consumers, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3.

Data Privacy Day is an effort to empower people to protect their privacy, control their digital footprint, and escalate their protection of privacy and data.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) expressed concern over Disney's plan to track guests at its theme parks using bracelets called MagicBands. Markey is worried that the plan could "have a harmful impact on our children."

Your favorite big box retailer or discount warehouse will soon be able to track your movements via your smartphone. Meet the next big thing in analytics: You.

Now the social network is taking on its archrival, Google, with a search tool to mine personal information, just as people are growing more cautious about sharing online and even removing what they have already put up.

New regulations create information rights that should make life easier for consumers. They also tighten restrictions on medical providers trying to use patient information for marketing, and expand the list of businesses that can be punished for unauthorized disclosures.

Millions of computer users were advised to temporarily disable Java software because of security weaknesses that make their machines vulnerable to everything from virus-infected websites to ransomeware, which often locks users out of their computers until they pay the perpetrators.

In the amount of time it takes to get lunch, the government can now collect your DNA and extract a profile that identifies you and your family members.

Kaiser Permanente is in hot water with state regulators over the mishandling of nearly 300,000 patient records. Officials are investigating whether Kaiser violated patient privacy laws.

California joined five other states in prohibiting employers from demanding social media passwords from employees. Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware proposed similar legislation in their jurisdictions.

The company scrambled to do damage control after announcing policy changes that would allow it to make users' photos part of advertising on its network, posting a note that tried to clarify the proposed changes.

In its first big policy shift since Facebook bought the photo-sharing site, Instagram claims the right to sell user photos without payment or notification, and there is no opting out.

The list of smartphone scams is endless because so many people forget to protect their phones. Other scams that target your smartphone: digital profiling, forced browsing, drive-by download and Wi-Fi sniffing.

The changes come as Facebook and other Internet giants face continued questions from privacy advocates and regulators who are concerned about how personal information is shared across the Web.

Californians who sue licensed professionals will no longer be banned from talking to state officials investigating misconduct when a new law takes effect in January.

The government is investigating whether software companies that make cellphone apps have violated the privacy rights of children by quietly collecting personal information sharing it with advertisers and data brokers.

Facebook's flirtation with democracy has come to an end. If it wants to, the social network can now change its policies without user approval.

The Patent Office delivered a "non-final" rejection of a Verizon application for a technology that would target ads to TV viewers based on what they are doing or saying in front of their sets.

Tis the season for scammers to shop too, and the bad guys are stepping up their game, taking advantage of consumers through traditional rip-off methods, and some new schemes too.

California sued Delta Airlines, alleging they are breaking state law by not warning users that they are collecting sensitive information each time customers contact the company on its "Fly Delta" mobile application.

Hundreds of thousands of people have switched on their computers to find messages that they no longer have access to their PCs and the only way to get their machines back is to pay a steep fine.

Facebook has opened a one-week period for members to vote on the controversial data and privacy policy changes, which include the right to keep voting in the future.

A handful of mobile app makers that defied an order from state Attorney General Kamala Harris to post a written privacy policy can expect enforcement actions to be filed against them as early as next week.

Consumer groups are protesting Facebook's proposal to end its practice of letting users vote on changes to its privacy policies and wants to share more of their data with its affiliates such as Instagram.

For those who plan on doing their holiday shopping online, there are several new threats you need to be aware of. Identity theft and financial fraud usually increase between Black Friday and Christmas Eve - as cyber thieves know there are more people online, not all of whom are familiar with basic security precautions that should be taken when buying online.

A federal judge's ruling in a key privacy case demonstrates the need to implement tough Do Not Track rules and to take decisive action on the antitrust front against Google.

Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans' e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.

They say the drones are vital in the fight to stop illegal immigrants, but the DHS Inspector General issued a report faulting DHS for wasting time, money, and resources using drones that were ineffective and lacked oversight.

Security experts say that Cyber Monday is as attractive to cyber criminals as it is to shoppers looking to score a deal. According to a 2012 report, cyber crime costs $110 billion annually, and claims 556 million victims each year.

A federal judge has approved a $22.5 million fine to penalize Google for an alleged privacy breach, rejecting a consumer-rights group's plea for tougher punishment.

Chances are those online merchants will ask for your personal information to close the deal. And they may just be violating a two-decade-old California law designed to restrict the amount of personal information consumers must provide to make a credit card purchase.

On Tuesday, the California Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider legislation (AB 439) that would limit a state health data privacy law, Healthcare IT News reports.

AB 439 gives health care businesses a signal that negligence in protecting medical records is cheaper than the cost of developing strong security protocols. The health care industry’s record of privacy failure does not warrant this sweeping grant of immunity from deterrent penalties.

California lawmakers are poised to weaken a privacy law that enjoys overwhelming voter support. 77% of voters support the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which gives patients the right to sue a health care provider for damages of $1000 for each medical record that is released without the patient’s permission.

Fewer people were victims of identity theft last year than in 2010, but each person lost substantially more money, according to a new report by the California Public Interest Research Group.

Reports cast doubt on Google's assurances that it did not realize its street-mapping cars were snatching personal data from home Wi-Fi networks and that one lone engineer was to blame.

The American Civil Liberties Union released a troubling report this past weekend demonstrating that law enforcement agencies around the nation routinely track personal cell phones, often without warrants. Conspicuously absent from the survey was information about the tactics of Northern California police departments.

A state lawmaker representing Silicon Valley wants to rein in a cutting-edge law enforcement technology that enables police to stockpile digital personal information on motorists and build a portrait of their whereabouts.

Google and several other advertising companies are bypassing the privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser, according to a report from a Stanford University researcher that set off a heated debate on Friday.

...digital rights activists might now be turning their attention to a lesser-noticed bill aimed at requiring Internet companies to store identifying information about their customers.

Google's plan to integrate all the data it collects as it tracks users across email, video and nearly all its other services will undoubtedly be good for its bottom line. But it ought to give great pause to consumers – and should be a wake-up call for Washington to get more serious about protecting our privacy online.

Capitalizing on one of the fastest-growing trends in law enforcement, a private California-based company has compiled a database bulging with more than 550 million license-plate records on both innocent and criminal drivers that can be searched by police.

A class-action lawsuit filed in December 2011 against the UC Board of Regents in response to the theft of personal information of UCLA Health System patients in early September 2011 has failed to move forward, according to the plaintiff's attorney.

Of all the personal information that you might want to keep private, your medical records are the most important. That's why federal and state laws carry stiff penalties, up to and including jail time, for healthcare providers who let such data loose into the wild.

Data breaches at U.S. health-care providers are increasing as hospitals adopt electronic medical records and mobile technology without spending enough on security to ensure patient privacy, a research group said.

Sutter Health is being sued for negligence and other allegations in the mid-October theft of a computer from Sutter Medical Foundation headquarters that held information on more than 4 million of its patients.

In closing, effective online privacy protection requires a multipronged approach involving policymakers, industry, nonprofits and consumers. It must not be lost to bogus arguments and unfounded myths.

Should the police be allowed to affix an electronic tracking device to a suspect's car without a warrant and follow his every movement for a month? That was the question at an oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Assembly Bill 22 would prevent employers from pulling credit reports of job applicants unless it is required by law, such as for jobs in banking or financial services, or the position is considered managerial.

The state Assembly unanimously approved a bill Monday that would force law enforcement officers to secure a warrant before they can search the contents of a cell phone.

Now car insurance companies want you to install a new device in your car so they can track how you drive and when you drive. The companies say this could reduce your insurance rates, but there is more to the story.

At a time of mounting computer hacking threats, the incident offers an alarming glimpse at privacy risks as the nation moves steadily into an era in which every American's sensitive medical information will be digitized.

By a 5-0 vote, California's Public Utility Commission has unanimously adopted the world's first comprehensive set of rules assuring consumers can access the detailed energy usage data provided by their smart meter while simultaneously protecting the data’s privacy and security.

With the enactment of stricter privacy regulations for library patrons in California, you need not worry about Googling "how to divorce your spouse" at the local library.

The full Assembly could soon vote on a bill to overturn the court’s ruling on warrantless cellphone searches. If approved, the Senate would need to sign off on changes before SB914 advances to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

SB914's warrant requirement would not prevent such searches of cell phones - it would merely require a judge to review the request to assure that it was justified and properly limited in scope.

A proposed law that would have made it easier for patients to see changes in their electronic medical records has been substantially changed to appease several California health care providers.

It's not enough for a bank just to tell customers its security was breached. It should be required to disclose details so people can take informed action. A bill now in the Legislature is a move in the right direction.

As social-networking sites grow and develop in importance, their responsibilities grow as well. And if they don't provide users with the privacy that they need, then government officials must step in.

When you pay by credit card and a merchant asks you for your ZIP code, phone number, driver's license or Social Security number, do you have to show it to complete the sale?

Bill could put California in the forefront of the fight for more Internet privacy. It would create a mechanism to let users tell website operators they don't want their online habits monitored.

A California state senator on Monday unveiled a bill that would force Internet companies doing business in the state to allow local consumers to opt out of online monitoring, adding to the building momentum behind a "Do Not Track" mandate.

State officials said Monday that they are investigating the security practices of Health Net Inc. after the company said it cannot find some computer server drives that contain sensitive information, including personal data about patients.

Bowing to public pressure and common sense, California's top utility regulator finally told Pacific Gas & Electric Co. that it must offer customers an opportunity to opt out of receiving the company's wireless SmartMeters.

Drug makers should be able to market their products, but their 1st Amendment rights shouldn't guarantee them access to sensitive data that wouldn't exist but for the government's requirement that doctors and patients disclose it.

For now, the full-body scanners and enhanced pat-downs are here to stay, according to the TSA. But in the future, air travelers could see additional biometric screening or smarter body scanners - and possibly one day a return to pre-pat-down security protocols.

...companies such as Google and Facebook may know more details about their personal interests than their families does. That's fine as long as users don't mind. But those who want to protect their privacy should be able to do so — easily.

In the wake of a series of privacy missteps by Google, Facebook and other companies, a growing chorus on Capitol Hill is calling for major online privacy legislation and Silicon Valley companies are girding for the battle.

It's ironic that Facebook initially branded itself as the "safe" choice for people who wanted to stay in touch...After an endless series of changes to its privacy policy very little about Facebook seems safe at all.

"...PG&E's basic message has been 'We are 100 percent right, and our customers are 100 percent wrong,'" said Mark Toney...of...TURN. "Today they acknowledged some widespread technology problems, which is what they should have done in the first place."

More Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers who fall behind on their bills will have their power shut off once the utility installs SmartMeters throughout its territory, the company predicted in a recent government filing.