Information privacy: connected devices.
The introduction of SB 327 is expected to have a notable impact on state laws regarding data privacy. By defining a 'connected device' as any gadget that can connect to the internet and is assigned an IP or Bluetooth address, the bill extends existing privacy protections to a broader category of devices. The requirement for security features may lead manufacturers to develop more robust technology, thereby potentially elevating overall data security standards within the state. This could foster public trust in technology and encourage the adoption of smart devices among consumers.
Senate Bill 327, approved by the Governor on September 28, 2018, is a significant piece of legislation focused on enhancing information privacy for connected devices in California. The bill mandates that manufacturers of connected devices must implement reasonable security features appropriate to the nature and function of the device. This requirement is aimed at protecting user data from unauthorized access and ensuring the devices themselves have safeguards against breaches, which is crucial in the age of increasing cyber threats.
The general sentiment surrounding SB 327 has been predominantly supportive, particularly from consumer advocacy groups and privacy experts who argue that the bill represents a necessary step in protecting personal information. However, there have also been concerns raised regarding the potential burden on manufacturers and the feasibility of implementing such security features. Critics argue that while the intentions behind the bill are sound, the practical implications for small manufacturers, in particular, could create challenges and push them out of the market.
One notable point of contention regarding SB 327 is the challenge it presents concerning who is held accountable for data breaches. The bill stipulates that manufacturers have to provide security for the information their devices collect, but it does not create a private right of action for consumers, meaning enforcement is left to the state through the Attorney General. This limitation has prompted discussions about whether the lack of direct avenues for consumers to seek recourse will undermine the protections intended by the legislation.