We could have a measure on the November, 2014 ballot that would provide a bit of privacy from government. It all sounds good, in theory. In reality the Federal government has had the NSA violate court orders, the IRS violate Federal laws and the Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary refusing to provide information to Congress. This does not include the lies about Benghazi—we now know that at least 32 CIA folks were in town that could have saved the Ambassador and the three other Americans—but apparently too busy illegally dealing in guns.
I might support the effort by former Senator Peace—but the symbolism of it all. In fact, this is a worthless measure when we have a government that fires whistleblowers, openly violates laws and refuses to abide by the rules. Why expect the Feds, or the State, to obey this? Remember, the Governor took an oath to defend our laws, as did the State Attorney General—and both refused to do that in respect to Prop. 8. Think they would defend this law?
“Peace is proposing a ballot initiative that would add new privacy protections to the state constitution. Specifically, it would establish standards for the collection of personal information by government and commercial entities — including the presumption that such information is confidential and unauthorized disclosures harm consumers.”
Ex-lawmaker seeks to bolster privacy
By Christopher Cadelago, San Diego U-T, 8/3/13
SACRAMENTO — After leaving his post as finance director, Steve Peace tried unsuccessfully to acquire the rights to make a movie based on George Orwell’s “1984,” the dystopian tale of pervasive government surveillance.
Peace, co-producer and co-writer of the 1978 cult-classic “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes,” introduced several consumer-protection bills while representing parts of San Diego County in the Legislature. With privacy resurfacing as a major issue, the former Democratic lawmaker has opened a new front in the enduring battle.
Peace is proposing a ballot initiative that would add new privacy protections to the state constitution. Specifically, it would establish standards for the collection of personal information by government and commercial entities — including the presumption that such information is confidential and unauthorized disclosures harm consumers.
In an interview Friday, Peace touched on examples of what he deemed intrusive practices, including the spiraling international scandal over the mass collection of personal telephone and Internet records.
“It’s just out of control,” he said.
“You can’t keep government from acting as a tyrant, whether it’s as serious as those issues, or as everyday as license plate readers and red light cameras, if you don’t start with a premise that privacy has value in and of itself. At its core, that’s what this proposal does. It says overtly what I believe a right to privacy in the constitution says by implication: ‘when you violate my privacy, you harm me.’”
By defining an invasion of privacy as a harm, his proposal could open the door for new kinds of lawsuits with a better chance of success — and his partner on the project is noted trial lawyer Michael Thorsnes.
But Peace rejected the notion that the proposal would spur a bonanza of privacy-related litigation, saying it merely clarifies existing law and requires companies and agencies to act responsibly.
Indeed, the business community has been on its toes since the law firm DLA Piper published an analysis on a draft of the proposal last week. Representatives for technology and telecommunication companies said they were closely monitoring the process but would not speak on the record.
Christine Haddon, a spokeswoman for the California Chamber of Commerce, said the board won’t consider the measure until it qualifies. California is considered a consumer-protection bellwether because such a large percentage of corporate customers are from the Golden State.
Peace said his experience in state government led him to conclude that its privacy protections were “a joke.”
He referred to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor wanted for leaking classified information on various government surveillance programs as “a genially motivated guy.” While Snowden deserves to be charged with crimes, Peace said, the Obama administration erred by bringing charges of espionage.
“I think it was a political decision. They wanted to look tough,” he said. “If he had simply been charged with theft, he’d be in the United States right now negotiating for not having changes later added on. Because, the guy is guilty at a minimum of violating his contract.”
“My righteous indignation is born out of all of these decisions that I see more and more being made. These guys don’t think anymore,” he added.
A draft of the ballot initiative has been submitted to the Attorney General’s Office. Proponents would have to collect more than 807,000 signatures to qualify for the November 2014 ballot.
Said Peace, “I wouldn’t start it if I didn’t think I could finish it.”
