Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Motion Picture Association of America kills bill to prevent theft of personal information

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:38 AM
Original message
Motion Picture Association of America kills bill to prevent theft of personal information
By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Dec, 01, 2006

A tough California bill that would have prohibited companies and individuals from using deceptive "pretexting" ruses to steal private information about consumers was killed after determined lobbying by the motion picture industry, Wired News has learned.

The bill, SB1666, was written by state Sen. Debra Bowen, and would have barred investigators from making "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements or representations to obtain private information about an individual, including telephone calling records, Social Security numbers and financial information. Victims would have had the right to sue for damages.

The bill won approval in three committees and sailed through the state Senate with a 30-0 vote. Then, according to Lenny Goldberg, a lobbyist for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the measure encountered unexpected, last-minute resistance from the Motion Picture Association of America.

"The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout and they told legislators, 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,'" Goldberg said.

Consequently, when the bill hit the assembly floor Aug. 23, it was voted down 33-27, just days before revelations about Hewlett-Packard's use of pretexting to spy on journalists and board members put the practice in the national spotlight.

<snip>

"The MPAA told some members the bill would interfere with piracy investigations," the aide said. The association "doesn't want to hamstring investigators."

More:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72214-0.html?tw=rss.index
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jesus
Nice to see legislators doing what's right for the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah, so nice to have a Government that isn't owned by wealthy Corporations.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's not like there are that many people working for the entertainment
industry in California. Being able to protect copyrights and their jobs should mean nothing to the California Assembly??? Everyone working in the entertainment industry is a millionaire and it's only the difference in what type of private jets they have, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You're defending this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. When an industry thinks it needs to act like a criminal
and use fraudulent means to prevent "illegal downloading" there is something seriously wrong.

Should the MPAA also be legally allowed to "kneecap" people it suspects of copyright violation? Would protecting jobs in the entertainment industry justify repealing laws against assault in this case?

Pretexting is an absolutely criminal fraudulent activity. Protecting ALL the citizens of California from this should be more important than protecting any industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. And what about the rest of the bill?
Throw baby out with bath water - check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. no one can rewrite the bill? damn that's some tough legislative rules
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Or it could have been amended
But, whatever, you seem to be more interested in sticking up for Hollywood executives than the privacy rights of everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. This argument is total BS and has been shown as such since the
RIAA first started this crap. If you're really concerned for the workers in the entertainment industry, you should be advocating the enforcement of union regulations by requiring them to be applied wherever the production takes place.

I find it so funny that an industry based entirely on the theft and exploitation of artists is depicted by the ignorant as the poor hapless victims of those evil consumers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Seriously. And they should be made to keep the jobs at home.
I hate seeing those ads - when I'm at the theater seeing a movie I PAID for - that have people who supposedly work in the industry, below the line (not a producer, writer, director or actor), pleading with people not to download because it hurts their livelihood when in fact their own jobs are being exported by the studios/producers they are defending so as to avoid paying union wages. Traitors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. The good news is that Bowen is about to become the Sec. of State
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 11:32 AM by Gormy Cuss
Maybe in her new role she can find another way to address it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. Ain't corporate amerika grand?
Screw you and your silly "ethics", this is money we're talking about here, and that trumps everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll bet these same lobbyists...
are the reason we've got Lieberman and Clinton criticizing video games.

Video games are a bigger threat to the movie industry than piracy, I'd wager.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-02-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. And the internet...
I have to beg my son and his friends to go to see a movie these days and they seem bored by most films. It's hard to even get them to watch a DVD. I think there is a generation gap at play. Kids and teens today do not get the same sense of enjoyment out of passive entertainment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-02-06 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
15. The answer is publicly funded elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-02-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Just six dollars!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC