令和6年通信利用動向調査の結果
令和7年度5月期における地方譲与税譲与金の譲与
令和6年経済センサス‐基礎調査(民営事業所)速報集計結果
令和6年度放送コンテンツ製作取引実態調査結果の公表
郵便貯金銀行及び郵便保険会社に係る移行期間中の業務の制限等に関する命令の一部を改正する命令(案)に関する意見募集
「公設光ファイバケーブル及び関連設備の民間移行に関するガイドライン」改定の意見募集の結果及び同ガイドラインの公表
「自治体フロントヤード改革推進手順書」の作成
情報流通プラットフォーム対処法第20条第1項に基づく 大規模特定電気通信役務提供者の指定
情報通信審議会 郵政政策部会(第39回)の開催について
不適正利用対策に関するワーキンググループ(第10回)
令和7年度 特定地域づくり事業推進交付金の交付決定(第3回)
2020年基準 消費者物価指数 東京都区部 2025年(令和7年)5月分(中旬速報値)
情報通信審議会 郵政政策部会 郵便料金政策委員会(第11回)配布資料・議事
労働力調査(基本集計)2025年(令和7年)4月分
ワット・ビット連携官民懇談会ワーキンググループ(第1回)配布資料
California: Local Governments Need Privacy Rules
California state agencies have standard privacy guardrails around data-sharing. But the cities and counties that collect some of your most personal info? Nope. Zip. Zero. A.B. 1337 would fix that.
California’s Cities and Counties Must Step Up Their Privacy Game. A.B. 1337 Can Do That.
“The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies,” some astute California lawmakers once wrote. “The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information.”
Sound familiar? These words may sound like a recent push back on programs that want to slurp up the information sitting in ever-swelling government databases. But they’re not. They come from a nearly 50-year-old California law.
The “Information Practices Act of 1977”—or the IPA for short—is a foundational state privacy law and one of several privacy laws directly responding to the Watergate scandal, such the federal Privacy Act of 1974 and California’s own state constitutional right to privacy.
Now, as we confront a new era of digital surveillance and face our own wave of concern about government demands for data, it's time to revisit and update the IPA.
The IPA puts a check on government use of personal information by establishing guardrails for how state agencies maintain, collect, and disseminate data. It also gives people the right to access and correct their information.
While the need for the law has not changed, the rest of the world has. Particularly, since the IPA passed in 1977, far more data collection is now done at the county and city level. Yet local and county government entities have no standard protections in the state of California. And those entities have troves of data, whether it’s the health data collected from vaccine programs or held by county-administered food programs.
As demand for this type of local data grows, we need to tap back into the energy of the ‘70s. It’s time to update the IPA so it can respond to the world we live in today. That’s why EFF is proud to co-sponsor A.B. 1337, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), with our close friends at Oakland Privacy.
Specifically, A.B. 1337, also known as the IPA Reform Act:
- Expands the definition of covered entities in the IPA to include local agencies, offices, departments and divisions.
- Prevents information collected from being used for unintended or secondary purposes without consent.
- Makes harmful negligent and improper release of personal information punishable as a misdemeanor.
- Requires that IPA disclosure records be kept for three years and cannot be destroyed prior to that period.
- Aligns the definition of personal information and sensitive personal information with the California Privacy Rights Act to include location data, online browsing records, IP addresses, citizenship status, and genetic information.
Privacy is foundational to trust in government. That’s part of the lesson we learned from the 1970s. (And trust in government is lower today than it was then.)
We need to be confident that the government is respecting our personal information and our privacy. More than ever, California residents face imminent danger of being targeted, persecuted, or prosecuted for seeking reproductive healthcare, their immigration status, practicing a particular religion, being of a particular race, gender identity, or sexual orientation—or simply for exercising their First Amendment rights.
California is a national leader on consumer privacy protections, having passed a landmark comprehensive privacy law and established the nation’s first state privacy agency. Now, its local governments must catch up.
We cannot afford to wait for these protections any longer. Passing A.B. 1337 is good governance, good policy, and just good sense. If you’re a California resident, tell your Assemblymember to support the bill today.