A Rhode Island software company that sells primarily to businesses is nonetheless making sure it complies with a strict California law about consumers' privacy.
AVTECH Software is preparing for what some say is the wave of the future: laws requiring businesses to be upfront with customers about how they use personal information. California has already passed a law requiring businesses to disclose what they do with people's personal information and giving consumers more control over how their data is used — even the right to have it deleted from companies' computers.
Privacy rights have gotten more attention since news earlier this year that the data firm Cambridge Analytica improperly accessed Facebook user information. New regulations also took effect in Europe.
In this Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2018, photo Michael Sigourney, founder and CEO of AVTECH Software, a company that makes software to control building environmental issues, sits for a portrait at the company, in Warren, R.I. AVTECH Software is preparing for what some say is the wave of the future: laws requiring businesses to be up-front with customers about how they use personal information. (AP PhotoSteven Senne)
For more small business news, insights and inspiration, sign up for our free weekly newsletter here: http://discover.ap.org/ssb
For AVTECH, which makes software to control building environmental issues, preparing now makes sense not only to lay the groundwork for future expansion, but to reassure customers increasingly uneasy about what happens to their personal information.
"People will look at who they're dealing with and who they're making purchases from," says Russell Benoit, marketing manager for the Warren, Rhode Island-based company.
Aware that California was likely to enact a data law, AVTECH began reviewing how it handles customer information last year. Although most of the company's customers are businesses, it expects it will increase its sales to consumers.
While it may yet face legal challenges, the California Consumer Privacy Act is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2020. It covers companies that conduct business in California and that fit one of three categories: Those with revenue above $25 million; those that collect or receive the personal information of 50,000 or more California consumers, households or electronic devices; and those who get at least half their revenue from selling personal information.
Although many small businesses may be exempt, those subject to the law will have to ensure their systems and websites can comply with consumer inquiries and requests. That may be an added cost of thousands for small companies that don't have in-house technology staffers and need software and consulting help.
Under California's law, consumers have the right to know what personal information companies collect from them, why it's collected and who the businesses share, transfer or sell it to. That information includes names, addresses, email addresses, browsing histories, purchasing histories, professional or employment information, educational records and information about travel from GPS apps and programs. Companies must give consumers at least two ways to find out their information, including a toll-free phone number and an online form, and companies must also give consumers a copy of the information they've collected.
Consumers also have the right to have their information deleted from companies' computer systems, and to opt out of having the information sold or shared.
The law was modeled on the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect May 25. The California Legislature passed its law to prevent a more stringent proposed law from being placed on the November election ballot.
Frank Samson hopes the California law will help prevent what he sees as troubling marketing tactics by some in his industry, taking care of senior citizens. When people inquire about senior care companies online, it's sometimes on sites run by brokers rather than care providers themselves.
"It may be in the fine print, or it may not be: We're going to be taking your info and sending it out to a bunch of people," says Samson, founder of Petaluma, California-based Senior Care Authority.
That steers many would-be clients to just a handful of companies, he says, and can mean seniors and families get bombarded with calls while dealing with stressful situations.
But many unknowns remain about the California law. The state attorney general's office must write regulations to accompany several provisions. There are inconsistencies between different sections of the law, and the Legislature would need to correct them, says Mark Brennan, an attorney with Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C., who specializes in technology and consumer protection laws. Questions about the law might need to be litigated, including whether California can force businesses based in other states to comply, Brennan says. There are similar questions about the European GDPR.
In the meantime, small business owners who want to start figuring out if they're likely to be subject to the California law and GDPR can talk to attorneys and technology consultants who deal with privacy rights. Brennan suggests companies contact professional and industry organizations that are gathering information about the laws and how to comply.
Some small businesses may benefit, such as any developing software tied to the law. Among other things, the software is designed to allow companies and customers to see what information has been gathered, who has access to it and who it has been shared with.
The software, expected to stay free for consumers, could cost companies into the thousands of dollars a year depending on their size, says Andy Sambandam, CEO of Clarip, one of the software makers. But, he says, "over time, the price is going to come down."
And other states are expected to adopt similar laws.
"This is the direction the country is going in," says Campbell Hutcheson, chief compliance officer with Datto, an information technology firm.
Follow Joyce Rosenberg at www.twitter.com/JoyceMRosenberg . Her work can be found here: https://apnews.com/search/joyce%20rosenberg
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration said Friday that Israel's use of U.S.-provided weapons in Gaza likely violated international humanitarian law but wartime conditions prevented U.S. officials from determining that for certain in specific airstrikes.
The finding of “reasonable” evidence to conclude that the U.S. ally had breached international law in its conduct of the war in Gaza, released in a summary of a report being delivered to Congress on Friday, represents the strongest such statement from Biden officials.
But the caveat that the U.S. was unable immediately to link specific U.S. weapons to individual strikes by Israeli forces in Gaza could give the administration leeway in any future decision on whether to restrict provisions of offensive weapons to Israel.
The first-of-its-kind assessment, which was compelled by President Joe Biden’s fellow Democrats in Congress, comes after seven months of airstrikes, ground fighting and aid restrictions that have claimed the lives of nearly 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.
While U.S. officials were unable to gather all the information they needed on specific strikes, "given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles ... have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm,” the report said, using an abbreviation for international humanitarian law.
While Israel's military has the experience, technology and know-how to minimize harm to civilians, “the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases," the report said.
Biden has tried to walk an ever-finer line in his support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war against Hamas. He has faced growing rancor at home and abroad over the soaring Palestinian death toll and the onset of famine, caused in large part by Israeli restrictions on the movement of food and aid into Gaza. Tensions have been heightened further in recent weeks by Netanyahu’s pledge to expand the Israeli military’s offensive in the crowded southern city of Rafah, despite Biden's adamant opposition.
Biden is in the closing months of a tough reelection campaign against Donald Trump. He faces demands from many Democrats that he cut the flow of offensive weapons to Israel and denunciation from Republicans who accuse him of wavering on support for Israel at its time of need.
The Democratic administration took one of the first steps toward conditioning military aid to Israel in recent days when it paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs out of concern over Israel’s threatened offensive on Rafah, a southern city crowded with more than a million Palestinians, a senior administration official said.
The presidential directive, agreed to in February, obligated the Defense and State departments to conduct “an assessment of any credible reports or allegations that such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, have been used in a manner not consistent with international law, including international humanitarian law.”
The agreement also obligated them to tell Congress whether they deemed that Israel has acted to “arbitrarily to deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly,” delivery of any U.S.-supported humanitarian aid into Gaza for starving civilians there.
Lawmakers and others who advocated for the review said Biden and previous American leaders have followed a double standard when enforcing U.S. laws governing how foreign militaries use U.S. support, an accusation the Biden administration denies. They had urged the administration to make a straightforward legal determination of whether there was credible evidence that specific Israeli airstrikes on schools, crowded neighborhoods, medical workers, aid convoys and other targets, and restrictions on aid shipments into Gaza, violated the laws of war and human rights.
Their opponents argued that a U.S. finding against Israel would weaken it at a time it is battling Hamas and other Iran-backed groups. Any sharply critical findings on Israel are sure to add to pressure on Biden to curb the flow of weapons and money to Israel’s military and further heighten tensions with Netanyahu’s hard-right government over its conduct of the war against Hamas.
Any finding against Israel also could endanger Biden’s support in this year's presidential elections from some voters who keenly support Israel.
At the time the White House agreed to the review, it was working to head off moves from Democratic lawmakers and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to start restricting shipments of weapons to Israel.
Israel launched its offensive after an Oct. 7 assault into Israel, led by Hamas, killed about 1,200 people. Two-thirds of the Palestinians killed since then have been women and children, according to local health officials. U.S. and U.N. officials say Israeli restrictions on food shipments since Oct. 7 have brought on full-fledged famine in northern Gaza.
Human rights groups long have accused Israeli security forces of committing abuses against Palestinians and have accused Israeli leaders of failing to hold those responsible to account. In January, in a case brought by South Africa, the top U.N. court ordered Israel to do all it could to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering an end to the military offensive.
Israel says it is following all U.S. and international law, that it investigates allegations of abuse by its security forces and that its campaign in Gaza is proportional to the existential threat it says is posed by Hamas.
Biden in December said “indiscriminate bombing” was costing Israel international backing. After Israeli forces targeted and killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen in April, the Biden administration for the first time signaled it might cut military aid to Israel if it didn’t change its handling of the war and humanitarian aid.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, in the 1980s and early 1990s, were the last presidents to openly hold back weapons or military financing to try to push Israel to change its actions in the region or toward Palestinians.
A report to the Biden administration by an unofficial, self-formed panel including military experts, academics and former State Department officials detailed Israeli strikes on aid convoys, journalists, hospitals, schools and refugee centers and other sites. They argued that the civilian death toll in those strikes — such as an Oct. 31 strike on an apartment building reported to have killed 106 civilians — was disproportionate to the blow against any military target.
—-
Zeke Miller and Mike Balsamo contributed.
Palestinians mourn their relatives killed in the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip, at a hospital in Rafah, Gaza, Friday, May 10, 2024. (AP Photo/Ismael Abu Dayyah)
U.S. President Joe Biden boards Marine One at Moffett Airfield in Mountain View, Calif., Thursday, May 9, 2024. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Pool Photo via AP)
