Two bills being considered by the California senate would take significant steps to reduce massive surveillance. But they don't go half far enough.

S.B. 1189 requires that companies and organizations ask for "consent" before collecting biometrics. That will protect you in many situations, but not all, because it is easy for that entity to arrange for others to pressure you to consent. Those others could be employers, schools, or social groups. If it is the general practice for people to chat on Scroo'm, and Scroo'm won't let you use it unless you consent to its collection of biometrics, the pressure may feel irresistible to people in general.

The Student Test Taker Privacy Protection Act (STTPPA) would take a substantial step forward in putting a limit the snooping that these prokto-programs do to students. But the limit in this bill would be vague, because it is easy for the company to argue that collecting your face image, your fingerprint, your voice print and your gait pattern is absolutely necessary. To assure real effect, the bill should set a standard that snoopers can't stretch.

In the event that some kinds of biometric snooping — or other snooping — become accepted, there should be limits on storing the data. Also, having your school testify to your identity, rather than letting the prokto-program's developer see your face, should be an option.

Simply requiring you to run that non-free program (perhaps developed only for Windows and MacOS) on your own computer is an unacceptable injustice, and we need to press the campaign until that is prohibited.

More generally, see https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html