OnlinePrivacyNow

Fighting for Online Privacy Rights.

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Outspent 100 to 1 the No on Prop 24 campaign moved #Prop24's 77% yes to 11% no support in a poll released a month ago down to 56% yes to 44% no in the current vote count. Now we start the fight to fix its many flaws. Message us if you want to join the campaign for privacy.

[EFF @EFF]

Would you know a surveillance watch tower if you saw it? EFF's guide to spotting surveillance at protests covers mobile surveillance towers, drones, body-worn cameras and more. https://t.co/FPMOF7HffA

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

CR was very critical of Prop 24 until a couple of weeks ago.Sad to see it flip-flop. We agree with its July 2020 statement that #Prop24 locks in a WEAK Mode of Privacy Protection. Vote NO on #Prop24

[Don Huber @DonHuber30]

#Prop24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Sad to see CR now wants to gloss over its June 2020 testimony and analysis of the significant defects of Prop 24. Vote NO on #Prop24

[Media Alliance @twrling]

@DonHuber30 @CRAdvocacy Maureen Mahoney testifying on #Prop24 in June. “The ballot initiative introduces some less than ideal elements, in some cases weaker than existing law. “New and confusing exemption” “Contradictory” “Convoluted” “Particularly disappointing” https://t.co/AtSODCfEk2

[Consumer Federation of California @consumercal]

SF Chronicle "If Prop. 24 really were as restrictive and airtight as advertised, is there any doubt that those who are exploiting our personal information as a commodity would be pouring tens of millions into defeating it? Their silence is telling."#Prop24 https://t.co/dW8NshAln0

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

News media reports Google helped write #Prop24. Google runs Yes on 24 ads and has blocked No on Prop 24 ads. But with the Yes on 24 campaign flailing, its flacks are peddling the conspiracy theory that Google opposes Prop 24. Google and Facebook will profit from Prop 24. NO on 24

[NoOn24CA @NoOn24CA]

"Voters should reject Prop 24 and hold out for a less muddled solution that both closes the law’s loopholes and sets a proper baseline standard for other states." @GregBensinger editorial board member @nytimes #VOTE NO on #Prop24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

League of Women Voters Opposes Prop 24. Read the @LWVC's thorough analysis and Vote No on #Prop24 https://t.co/gMYxkZGtQ5

[Consumer Federation of California @consumercal]

Proposition 24: Before you vote, read the 52 pages of fine print. That is where the reductions to our privacy rights are hidden. No on #Prop24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Two dozen newspaper editorials agree: Vote No on Proposition 24. It reduces our privacy rights. #Prop24 #NoOnProp24.

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Proposition 24 reduces the privacy rights of California consumers and workers. The takeaways are hidden in its 52 pages of fine print. Vote No on Prop 24 #NoOnProp24 #Prop24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Consumer, privacy, labor and social justice advocates agree: Vote No on Prop 24. It reduces privacy, makes it easier for Facebook, tech giants to misuse your personal data.
#Prop24 #NoOnProp24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Consumer, privacy, labor and social justice advocates agree: Vote No on Prop 24. Prop 24 is a Trojan Horse for big tech privacy abusers.
#Prop24 #NoOnProp24

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

Alice Huffman is also on the take from the Yes on Prop 24 campaign. The campaign is hiding money from disclosure using the wealthy sponsor's business' major donor committee, which won't report who they paid for endorsements until after the election. VOTE NO ON #Prop24

[Your Call Radio @yourcallradio]

LIVE now: California @NAACP president Alice Huffman's consulting firm has been paid more than $1.2 million by campaigns funded by corporate proposition campaigns — exposing major conflicts of interest.

Join us w/@CalMatters reporter @LaurelRosenhall. https://t.co/M39NaCwkXe

[Consumer Federation of California @consumercal]

VOTER ALERT: Read Prop 24. Its fine print reduces our privacy
▪ACLU: “Full of loopholes that undermine consumer privacy”
▪League of Women Voters: “Densely worded…difficult for most voters to understand”
▪SF Chronicle: “Few voters will sift through the 52 pages of fine print”

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

San Diego Union-Tribune Endorsement: Vote no on Prop. 24. It’s too soon to redo California's current internet privacy law. #Prop24 https://t.co/SvbXVH9vdb

[CourageCalifornia @CourageCA]

We recommend #California voters #vote NO on #Prop24 to protect consumers’ personal information.
#NOon24 Learn more: https://t.co/cH2hdRCSNR

[Consumer Federation of California @consumercal]

Lots of voter frustration w. Prop 24's 52 pages of jargon. Same as the thousands of words of legalize you don't read but must Accept to use an app, #Prop24 hides its privacy reductions in the fine print. SF Chron Editorial nails it: When in doubt, vote no. https://t.co/GESOryIcR3

[NoOn24CA @NoOn24CA]

Another voter guide recommending NO on #Prop24. The 2020 Racial & Economic Justice Voter Guide is here.

[OnlinePrivacyNow @OnlinePrivacyCA]

ACLU says NO on #Prop24. So does League of Women Voters, Color of Change, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, Consumer Federation of CA, CA Council of Churches, Dolores Huerta, Public Citizen, CA Nurses Association, CWA, many others @CWAUnion @LWVC @DoloresHuerta @Public_Citizen