In one sense, temporarily at least, California may have succeeded in beating back the banks and protecting a hard fought, landmark consumer privacy law. But let’s be frank; no “blow was struck” in defense of the individual’s fundamental, constitutional right to privacy.

This represents a defining moment for privacy rights. Federal law sets a floor, and the GLB permits the states to enact stronger consumer financial privacy protections. California’s landmark law has provided a successful model for the nation. Please defend our right to keep it strong.

Big banks want the Supreme Court to roll back some of its strongest consumer protections. Will Barack Obama urge the Court to allow the states to serve as incubators of privacy protection laws that have been steamrolled by corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill?

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee rejected the DMV’s proposal to impose sweeping new biometric technologies as an element in a renewal of a vendor contract to produce driver’s licenses and ID cards.

We urge the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to object to the DMV's proposal to impose sweeping new biometric technologies as an element in a renewal of a vendor contract to produce driver's licenses and ID cards.

As the danger of identity theft becomes more prevalent, California needs to take steps to protect the privacy and security rights of its residents. Standardizing security breach notifications and centralizing the reporting process are a small, but critical step in the right direction.

The proper venue for modifying automobile insurance rates under Proposition 103 is through the rate-setting process of the Department of Insurance, not through legislation.

Legislation to permit drug stores to share confidential patient prescription information with third parties died in the State Assembly after the CFC and privacy advocates raised strong objections.

SB 1096 gives drug marketing and pharmaceutical companies exactly what they want: a way to increase customer allegiance to their particular brand name through direct mail. In contrast, consumers’ right to privacy is undercut...

Nonvoters delivered a death blow to Huffman's AB3011 (sponsored by CFC), which would have required California cell-phone companies to get a customer's consent before sharing his or her financial information with third parties...the AT&T lobbyists were out in force. They were aggressive, they were relentless and they were effective.

AB 3011 would clarify existing law which prohibits the disclosure of a person's residential land-line calling records to apply to cell phone consumers as well.

Though recently rendered inactive for the remaining of this session - all four RFID bills by Senator Joe Simitian are still alive in the legislature - and scheduled to move forward as early as January, 2008.

RFID chips allow businesses and government agencies to track our whereabouts, are susceptible to a hacker with an RFID scanner, and expose us to the threat of privacy violations, identity theft, property theft, and stalking.

Check out the Consumer Federation of California Education Foundation's (CFCEF) an in-depth study of the consumer privacy practices of major telecommunications corporations operating in California.

The Consumer Federation of California (CFC) believes REAL ID's represent a gross violation of personal privacy rights by the government and would actually increase the potential for identity theft.

Tiny computer chips called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags that transmit information about us can be embedded in driver's licenses, student ID's and other government issued cards without our knowledge...CFC strongly believes that any RFID technology must be strictly regulated to safeguard our privacy and our liberty.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court decision, finding that portions of California's landmark Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier) are preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit ruling is a setback for financial privacy.

The ink was barely dry on California's new Financial Privacy Law (SB 1 Speier), when the bank and insurance lobbyists got busy in Washington DC. On September 10, the US House of Representatives obeyed the bank bosses and voted to wipe out all state laws regulating information sharing within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

Under threat of a powerful financial privacy initiative, big banks and insurance companies abruptly gave up their opposition to SB 1 (Speier). After beating back all privacy legislation for four years, Assembly Business Democrats and Republicans voted for SB 1 not once, but six times on Monday, August 18th.

For the fourth straight year, Assembly Business Democrats and Republicans teamed up to kill consumer financial privacy protection.

Have all your questions answered as to why financial privacy should be a right of all Californians.

The campaign to give Californians the right to decide for themselves whether financial institutions can share their personal information with other companies is launched.

The Consumer Federation of California recently joined with other consumer groups to place a financial privacy initiative on the ballot in 2004

It's time to break the stranglehold of the banks and insurance companies over lawmakers in Sacramento. The Consumer Federation of California worked on two fronts to win privacy protection.