[mindslight]

I don't disagree with the thrust of your criticism of the dynamic (especially long term). But there is a legitimate concern that the first test cases to hit the courts need to be quite unsympathetic egregious violators rather than surveillance dynamics that have been thoroughly normalized for decades. If people start bringing private suits against neighbors that have deployed Amazon surveillance cameras, "credit bureaus", private investigators, big tech surveillance companies directly (eg Google, and especially with weak legal arguments), it is likely to set some poor precedents and create political pushback.

[fultonn]

Section 2 already limits applicability to persons collecting or processing data on not less than 60,000 consumers, so suits brought against neighbors would be (rightfully) dismissed.

The concern about poor precedent stemming from poor cases has some rational sense, but we have the benefit of experience. Empirically it just hasn't tended to play out like that in the case of consumer protection statutes in MA. One reason this doesn't happen in practice might be the limited bandwidth of the appellate process. The SJC could (and likely would) prioritize answering questions about the statute in the context of cases brought by the AG.

The longevity pro-consumer laws in MA provides some good empirical data that cuts against the concern about push-back.

[mindslight]

I'll admit my examples were pretty weak.

What I see is this bill, while a fantastic development, is still just addressing the tip of an iceberg on an industry that has been festering for many decades now (I mean, the "Fair" Credit Reporting Act - aka regulatory capture by the early digital surveillance industry - was passed in 1970). So "pushback" doesn't necessarily mean this law being undone, but rather it ending up as the full amount of privacy we can expect rather than first step of a hopeful trend.

For example look at how many more rights the GDPR grants. If a GDPR-analog were on the table in the US, the entire surveillance industry would balk. And these days the surveillance industry is basically the bulk of our "economy" (ie stock market valuations). And given the way "our" government works, I wouldn't be terribly hopeful about the individual liberty side prevailing over entrenched interests. Which is why I'm making an argument for more of a gradual shift.

Now having said that, perhaps it makes more sense for each bit of legislation to bite off fewer rights (as I'd say this legislation does), while including a private right of action so that the rights it does grant are maximally enforced. Having glaring violations of the law-as-written just sit there unaddressed is certainly its own powerful momentum-killer.

[kmeisthax]

Couldn't this be mitigated by, say, having the private right of action not start until a few years into the applicability of the law?