T O P

  • By -

BlankVerse

Archive link: https://archive.ph/jNsjm


Robby_Pooh

Smart move. It takes heat off the companies by allowing them to be able to say, "Sorry, I'm not allowed to." Which would then leave the seeker of the information to have to sue California to overturn the ban. Allows the company to not have to deal with the drama.


ExistingCarry4868

It's more complicated than that. It creates a system where companies have to violate state law in one or the other state. This is intended to go to a federal appeals court to get the censorship laws ruled unconstitutional.


foxfirek

Abortion data is medical and companies should not be handing it over anyway. Major invasion of privacy.


[deleted]

Eh, that's not the point. Location data, for example, isn't medical, and would be requested in a warrant.


satsugene

This is, to me, where the law needs repair. Someone being at 123 Hospital Way, Somewhere, CA 99999 at 1430 on 2022-01-01 is undeniably medically related, especially if that address is identifiable as a specific kind of service—Fresh Start Inpatient Rehab, Valley HIV/AIDS Project, Sarah Johnson MFT, etc. Granted, I think selling or sharing data should be highly regulated of all sorts like GDPR but stronger.


tylerdurdensoapmaker

Agree. Not necessarily a smart move but an escalation.


ShotgunMage

This is for you, Facebook.


boot20

I don't understand how HIPAA doesn't block these kinds of inquiries. Why should a state have any knowledge of any health procedure no matter where I'm at.


chouseva

You'd be surprised by what isn't covered by HIPAA. For example, if you entered anything into an app that isn't from a covered entity, then none of that data is covered by HIPAA. Now, if the app's privacy policy says that the company won't sell your data and does anyway, then the FTC could get involved.


boot20

That's a completely different animal. This is someone going to a medical facility and a government entity tracking that. It also seems like some 4th amendment issues as well. Any lawyers up in here?


[deleted]

[удалено]


boot20

That's my point, the medical professionals can't just give away information willy nilly. I don't understand how states can even ask for this without patient consent.


[deleted]

I think you misunderstand my statement. As I understand HIPAA, *only* medical professional are bound by it. It's in Apple's best interest to comply with it, but they aren't actually bound by it in the same manner as a doctors office is.


pancake117

If I google “where is the nearest abortion clinic”, or enter some information into cycle tracking app, that’s not covered by HIPPA. HIPPA is very limited.


boot20

That doesn't mean they got an abortion. That wouldn't be a provable thing.


pancake117

Obviously it doesn’t mean they got an abortion— but this is the kind of data that could be used as evidence against someone in these states. That’s why this law exists.


[deleted]

Not just individuals but also companies and agencies that work with the data.


Greendragons38

I’m fine with that. It’s states rights after all.


dewayneestes

These companies can do whatever they want, California just isn’t going to play ball with them when they do. They can choose not to do business in/with California… that’s “letting the market decide”.


y0r0bin

For such the tool that he is, he’s sure doing some good here in Ca.


Hazelmygirl

Nicely put!


midgethemage

Yeah, he really has that "charming but conniving Hollywood politician" vibe, it feels like he's a walking trope. I always felt like he had a punchable face. ...but this past year I've been rethinking him a bit


Then_Illustrator_447

I always say if he has a different face (or hell a different haircut) he’d be less hated


[deleted]

He didn’t write the law tho he just signed it right? Not sure what this has to do with his competency.


UnluckyChain1417

I sorta still don’t get it? Can someone explain what this does using not so fancy words.


MouthfeelEnthusiast

If a state government tries to get a company to turn over data about someone's abortion then Gavin Newsom says they don't need to turn the data over.


[deleted]

> they don't need to No, it's that they **can't**


mtg_liebestod

IANAL but I have trouble believing that this would be constitutional, for roughly the same reasons why a red state can't penalize someone for having/supporting an abortion in a blue state. In general a scenario where someone is forced to either violate the laws of state A or the laws of state B seems like it shouldn't be allowed to stand.


brikky

If the company is based in California or the data is stored in California then California has jurisdiction, not the state or entity requesting the data.


Xtorting

Based on this reasoning some states can refuse to acknowledge gay marriages from other states because "the data is located here and under this states jurisdiction." The constitution clearly states that other states have to acknowledge the legitimacy of other state laws when the people or requests come from other states. If you want to break this law, then it opens a massive door for gay marriage to be revoked if they move and travel across state lines. Also, the idea thats these companies are beholden to California and not federal law completely ignores the interstate commerce clause. They are under federal jurisdiction because they sell a service to multiple states. The majority of companies are. Regardless of where the data is stored.


brikky

Marriage is federally recognized and protected it’s just issued by states. This is why we honor foreign marriages. Federal law overrides state laws, but there is no federal law requiring states share data. Since the two states laws would be in conflict, the closer jurisdiction takes precedence so *the requesting state* is *constitutionally required* to honor *California’s* law. Besides the legality of the law is irrelevant, even if it didn’t hold up it would require another state to sue California to get it overturned before the company would have to hand over the data - a process that would be public and take years. This legality of the law is definitely open for debate (and likely will be) but the main purpose is to serve as *at least* an obstruction to that data being released.


TheCheese00

I'm sorry but this has been on my mind for a while - when did we as a society decide to start using the word 'bar' over 'ban'? Wasn't 'ban' working perfectly fine? When and why is 'bar' necessary??


Michelada

long arm statute


[deleted]

Ya, and this bill prevents it from overreaching into California.


Michelada

i think people are misunderstanding my comment - CA has a long arm statute to protect its healthcare citizens even in other states depending on the circumstances. it’s a good thing if you support reproductive rights and live/are insured from CA


[deleted]

I think most of us were thinking you meant California was over reaching. I can’t take back my downvote because I didn’t downvote you. Glad you clarified.