The digest seems to say that two-party consent would no longer be required for business communications. Do I misunderstand it or is it way more expansive than shielding ad tech?

Whatever the intent, this bill effectively legalizes wiretapping and pen register'ing (i.e. recording phone numbers and IP:port logs you've communicated with) as long as it's for a "commercial purpose".

Far from merely shielding tracking pixel abusers from "frivolous" lawsuits, this bill legalizes wiretapping all your calls and browsing sessions and selling the recordings to the cops. It even had a retroactive immunity clause, which at least seems to have been stripped out.

Yes, it really is that crazy. Read it yourself here: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB690/2025

PS: Your strident defense of the surveillance industry and caustic dismissal of warnings from a well-known and credible civil rights organization makes me wonder where your interests lie. What is your involvement in the industry and what role, if any, did you play in the passage of this bill in the CA Senate?

"SECTION 1. Section 631 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 631. (a) A person who, by means of a machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes an unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with a telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of an internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in an unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of a message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over a wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) This section does not apply to any of the following: (1) A public utility, or telephone company, engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility or telephone company. (2) The use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility. (3) A telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility. (4) A commercial business purpose. (c) For purposes of this section, “telephone company” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 638. (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained in violation of this section is not admissible in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding." Did you read this? It exempts commercial business purposes from the consequences of tapping communications without authorization.

> This "dangerous surveillance bill" simply protects people who are using tracking pixels (commonly used for serving targeted ads) from frivolous lawsuits.

Why should a company's "right" to seek profit through advertising infringe upon my right to privacy on the web?