DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Privacy Groups Challenge Calif. Bill

Posted on June 26, 2009 by Dissent

A California bill seeking to create a new regulatory framework for consumer genomics firms that interpret genomic data but do not analyze samples at an in-house laboratory has raised red flags within the personalized medicine community and among privacy advocates.

California state Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) earlier this year introduced SB 482, a bill that would amend the California Business and Professions Code to distinguish so-called “post-CLIA bioinformatics services” from entities providing laboratory services.

The bill, amended on April 14 and sponsored by California-based 23andMe, would exempt such business from certain requirements that clinical laboratory service providers have to meet under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment. However, the bill does define regulations specifically for “post-CLIA bioinformatics services,” such as algorithm approval processes, and requires that such services use a licensed clinical laboratory.

[…]

… the American Civil Liberties Union and several other privacy groups do not agree that the bill protects patient privacy, and have sent letters to Padilla recommending more stringent privacy provisions and requirements ensuring the accuracy of data analysis.

Read more on genomeweb.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← New Breach Laws in Alaska and SC
MA: Commonwealth Solar Breach →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Anne Arundel ransomware attack compromised confidential health data, county says
  • Australian national known as “DR32” sentenced in U.S. federal court
  • Alabama Man Sentenced to 14 Months in Connection with Securities and Exchange Commission X Hack that Spiked Bitcoin Prices
  • Japan enacts new Active Cyberdefense Law allowing for offensive cyber operations
  • Breachforums Boss “Pompompurin” to Pay $700k in Healthcare Breach
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Cybersecurity Investigation with Vision Upright MRI
  • Additional 12 Defendants Charged in RICO Conspiracy for over $263 Million Cryptocurrency Thefts, Money Laundering, Home Break-Ins
  • RIBridges firewall worked. But forensic report says hundreds of alarms went unnoticed by Deloitte.
  • Chinese Hackers Hit Drone Sector in Supply Chain Attacks
  • Coinbase says hackers bribed staff to steal customer data and are demanding $20 million ransom

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Massachusetts Senate Committee Approves Robust Comprehensive Privacy Law
  • Montana Becomes First State to Close the Law Enforcement Data Broker Loophole
  • Privacy enforcement under Andrew Ferguson’s FTC
  • “We would be less confidential than Google” – Proton threatens to quit Switzerland over new surveillance law
  • CFPB Quietly Kills Rule to Shield Americans From Data Brokers
  • South Korea fines Temu for data protection violations
  • The BR Privacy & Security Download: May 2025

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.