It's weird how a smaller provision of a much larger work (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) are always trotted out as an argument against regulation. Like if you can't use the majority of the regulation in an argument against it, perhaps it's good regulation.
Although to the actually very narrow point raised, would you rather not know what substances were bad for you? Perhaps a lot of this is pointless as you will commonly see people saw materials without masks but at the same point would you buy carrots labeled with "This product is known to the state of CA to cause cancer?".
And to the rest of the regulation that isn't address by OP. It is very good that companies cannot just dump their cancerous waste materials into rivers.
Prop 65 notices are a useless warning because they are slapped on anything and everything, just like this new law will result in a useless checkbox that people click without thinking.
1. They are everywhere and aren't going anywhere..
2. Network infrastructure to ingest
and analyze thousands of cameras producing video footage is very demanding..
3. Low power and low latency scream asic to me
"First ever" has been used very leniently here. Maybe it's the first ever for any state in America but the rest of the world definitely already has limits on it.
The EU limits are 500 ng/L for the sum of all PFAS in drinking water. Canada has an "objective" of 30 ng/L but I don't know how well it's enforced. The US proposal is for 4 ng/L for each PFAS but I'm not sure how they calculate the combined amounts. If it's simple addition, then it's 38 ng/L according to the article.
Can be read as "U.S. imposes its first-ever national drinking water limits" or "U.S. imposes world's first-ever national drinking water limits". There's a missing word and it's not clear from context what it's meant to be.
Using emphasis doesn't help bring clarity since the problem is the headline has multiple valid interpretations regardless if said words are emphasized or not. Adding something like "imposes its" helps highlight the intended interpretation.
Otherwise you may be able to use SSH's SOCKS proxy mode if you can directly SSH, e.g. ssh -D 3128 user@host .. will listen on port 3128 as a SOCKS proxy.
Clearly, they did not. California is an all party consent state. There is no reason to build a VPN snooping system if you have consent of all parties; Snap Inc could've just straight up given them usage information and/or direct access to monitor behavioral data and read conversations in the app if everyone consented. That would have been much cheaper and simpler if everyone consents. The entire point of building this system is that Snap Inc, at a minimum, did NOT consent. Additionally, I find it very likely that the other participants in conversations on the platform who were monitored did not consent either. The user who installed the app may have consented, but that is not good enough in California. ALL parties must consent.
California is the one state where this argument might have a chance, because both Meta and Snapchat are there and maybe some of the users Meta talked into this are too. However I wouldn't put the chance anywhere near 100%:
Also another article I read says the CIPA has a civil statute $5,000 per violation, so if you're Meta, who cares. Not exactly the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
