[ckastner]

> “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data,” Newsom said from the State Capitol in Sacramento.

This is such an odd sentence to read, post-GDPR, because it sounds as if consumers have no idea what their data is being used for, and/or have no control over how it's processed, and just have to subject themselves to it.

The GDPR literally starts off by recognizing personal data and the protection thereof as a fundamental right, and regulates how others must subject themselves in order to process it.

[wastedhours]

> post-GDPR

As pervasive as the GDPR is, a Californian in California isn't subject to it, and outside of people interested in tech, would make an assumption they probably know little about it?

[ckastner]

I think you misunderstood my point, which was that we're clearly seeing a massive global trend towards privacy and rights thereto. The GDPR is a manifestation of this trend, and has further sensitized consumers.

Cambridge Analytics happened at a time when neither processors nor consumers were yet very sensitive to the topic of privacy. This has changed dramatically, and the GDPR is not the cause thereof, but a consequence thereof.

Of course the GDPR is not binding in California, but it should be at least thought-provoking in California.

[acct1771]

Double entendre on processors.