California State Senator wants Facebook to tighten privacy settings

California State Senator wants Facebook to tighten privacy settings
Published: 20 May, 2011
2 min read

The California Senate Judiciary committee has approved a bill that could change the face of social networking by mandating tighter default privacy settings for websites such as Facebook. Originally, the proposed law only applied to social network users under the age of 18 but a revised version would cover all California residents.

The reasoning behind SB 242, according to its author – Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) – is that:

“you shouldn’t have to sign in and give up your personal information before you get to the part where you say, ‘Please don’t share my personal information.’”

Privacy advocates agree, but Facebook and other internet companies oppose the bill.

The proposed law would require that social networks:

“establish a default privacy setting for registered users of the site that prohibits the display, to the public or other registered users of any information about a registered user, other than the user's name and city of residence, without the agreement of the user;” as well as “establish a process for new users to set their privacy settings as part of the registration process that explains privacy options in plain language.”

Internet websites would not be allowed to complete the registration process of new users until privacy settings were selected by the user. These privacy settings would be “available to all users of the Internet Web site in a conspicuous place and an easy-to-use format.”

Additionally, the bill would require websites to remove “personal identifying information” of registered users upon their request within 48 hours. Personal identifying information not only pertains to a person's name and social security number, but also includes:

“information about a person's current location, including global positioning system coordinates, in different types of media, including photographs and videos, transmitted to, or over, the Internet.”

IVP Donate

Willful violation of these rules could result in a $10,000 fine per infraction.

Groups such as Internet Alliance and NetChoice have spoken out against the bill, arguing that regulatory oversight of privacy settings could degrade the “value” of the social networking experience. They argue that it might make participation in Facebook-like environments limited for new members if their default privacy settings are ratcheted-up. But such arguments hold no weight, proponents say, when new users can easily be notified of how their personal choices for privacy settings might affect their networking experience.

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes voiced his company's concerns to the San Francisco Chronicle, stating that:

“any legislative or regulatory proposal must honor users’ expectations in the contexts in which they use online services and promote the innovation that fuels the growth of the Internet economy.” He added, “This legislation is a serious threat both to Facebook’s business in California and to meaningful California consumers’ choices about use of personal data.”

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read