{"id":15907,"date":"2019-07-25T09:10:04","date_gmt":"2019-07-25T17:10:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2019\/07\/25\/news-9652\/"},"modified":"2019-07-25T09:10:04","modified_gmt":"2019-07-25T17:10:04","slug":"news-9652","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2019\/07\/25\/news-9652\/","title":{"rendered":"Changing California\u2019s privacy law: A snapshot at the support and opposition"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Credit to Author: David Ruiz| Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:59:59 +0000<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Last week, the corporate-backed, legislative battle against California privacy met a blockade, as one Senate committee voted down and negotiated changes to several bills that, as originally written, could have weakened the state\u2019s data privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act. <\/p>\n<p>Though the bills\u2019 authors have raked in thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from companies including Facebook, AT&amp;T, and Google, records portray broader donor networks, which include Political Action Committees (PACs) for real estate, engineering, carpentry, construction, electrical, and municipal workers. <\/p>\n<p>Instead, Big Tech relied on advocacy and lobbying groups to help push favorable legislative measures forward. For example, one bill that aimed to lower restrictions if companies provide consumer data to government agencies <a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1416#\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">was supported <\/a>by TechNet and Internet Association. <\/p>\n<p>Those two groups alone represent the interests of Amazon\u2014which was caught <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2019\/06\/03\/amazon-defense-department-jedi-contract\/\" target=\"_blank\">offering a corporate job to a Pentagon official involved in a $10 billion Department of Defense contract<\/a> that the company is currently seeking\u2014and Microsoft\u2014<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/07\/12\/technology\/amazon-oracle-jedi-pentagon.html\" target=\"_blank\">another competitor in the same $10 billion contract<\/a>\u2014along with Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, PayPal, Accenture, and Airbnb. <\/p>\n<p>Below is a snapshot of five CCPA-focused bills that were all scheduled for a vote during a July 9 hearing by the California Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee chair, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, pulled a 12-hour-plus shift that day, trying to clear through more than 40 bills. <\/p>\n<p>Yet another day in politics. <\/p>\n<p>We hope to provide readers with a look at both the support and opposition to these bills, along with a view of who wrote the bills and what groups have donated to their authors. It is important to remember that lawmaking is rarely a straight line, and a campaign contribution is far from an endorsement. <\/p>\n<h3><strong>The assembly bills<\/strong><\/h3>\n<h4><strong>AB 1416 <\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>What\u2019s it all about?<\/strong> Exceptions to the CCPA when companies provide consumer data to government agencies<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author<\/strong>: Assemblymember Ken Cooley<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s top 2018 donors<\/strong>: the California Democratic Party ($111,192), the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC Small Contributor Committee ($17,600), the California State Council of Laborers PAC ($17,600). <\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s tech donors<\/strong>: AT&amp;T ($8,800), Facebook ($6,900)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Supported by<\/strong>: Internet Association, Technet, Tesla, Symantec, California Land Title Association, California Alliance of Caregivers, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billAnalysisClient.xhtml\" target=\"_blank\">among others<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Opposed by<\/strong>: ACLU of California, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Common Sense Kids Action, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1416\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">AB 1416<\/a> would have created a new exception to the CCPA for any business that \u201cprovides a consumer\u2019s personal information to a government agency solely for the purposes of carrying out a government program, if specified requirements are met.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The bill would have granted companies the option to neglect a consumer\u2019s decision to opt-out of having their data sold to another party, so long as the sale of that consumer\u2019s data was \u201cfor the sole purpose of detecting security incidents, protecting against malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity, and prosecuting those responsible for that activity.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>According to multiple privacy groups, those exceptions were too broad. In a letter signed by ACLU of California, EFF, Common Sense Kids Action, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the groups wrote: <\/p>\n<p>\u201cGiven the breath of these categories, especially with the increasing use of machine learning and other data-driven algorithms, there is no practical limit on the kinds of data that might be sold for these purposes. It would even allow sales based on the purchaser\u2019s asserted purpose, increasing the potential for abuse, much like the disclosure of millions of Facebook user records by Cambridge Analytica.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>These challenges were never tested with a vote, though, as Asm. Cooley pulled the bill before the committee hearing ended. <\/p>\n<h4><strong>AB 873<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>What\u2019s it all about? <\/strong>Changing CCPA\u2019s definition of \u201cdeidentified\u201d information<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author<\/strong>: Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s top 2018 donors<\/strong>: California Democratic Party ($105,143), the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC ($17,600), the Professional Engineers in California Government PECG-PAC ($17,600)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s tech donors<\/strong>: Facebook ($8,800), AT&amp;T ($8,200), Hewlett Packard ($3,700)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Supported by<\/strong>: California Chamber of Commerce (sponsor), Internet Association, Technet, Advanced Medical Technology Association, California News Publishers Association, among others<\/li>\n<li><strong>Opposed by<\/strong>: ACLU of California, EFF, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Access Humboldt, Oakland Privacy, Consumer Reports, among others<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB873\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">AB 873<\/a> would have narrowed the scope for what CCPA protects\u2014\u201c<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"personal information (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/security-world\/2019\/04\/what-is-personal-information-in-legal-terms-it-depends\/\" target=\"_blank\">personal information<\/a>\u201d\u2014by broadening the definition of something that CCPA currently does not protect\u2014\u201cdeidentified\u201d information. <\/p>\n<p>According to the bill, the definition of \u201cdeidentified\u201d information would now include \u201cinformation that does not identify, and is not<em>&nbsp;reasonably<\/em>&nbsp;linkable, directly or indirectly, to a particular consumer.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>Privacy advocates claimed the bill had too broad a reach. In a letter, several opponents wrote that AB 873 \u201cwould allow businesses to track, profile, recognize, target, and manipulate consumers as they encountered them in both online and offline settings while entirely exempting those practices from the scope of the CCPA, as long as the information used to do so was not tied to a person\u2019s \u2018real name,\u2019 \u2018SSN\u2019 or similar traditional identifiers.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>During the Senate committee hearing, Asm. Irwin defended her bill by saying that CCPA\u2019s current definition of deidentified information was \u201cunworkable.\u201d She then rebuffed suggestions by the committee chair to add amendments to her bill. <\/p>\n<p>The bill failed to pass on the committee\u2019s 3\u20133 vote. <\/p>\n<h4><strong>AB 25<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>What\u2019s it all about?<\/strong> Exceptions to CCPA for employers that collect data from their employees and job applicants<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author<\/strong>: Assemblymember Ed Chau<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s top 2018 donors<\/strong>: California State Council of Service Employees ($17,600), the California State Council of Laborers ($13,200) the California State Pipe Trades Council ($10,000). <\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s tech donors<\/strong>: Facebook ($4,400), AT&amp;T ($3,900), Hewlett Packard ($3,200), Google ($2,500), Intuit ($2,000) <\/li>\n<li><strong>Supported by<\/strong>: Internet Association, Technet, California Chamber of Commerce, National Payroll Reporting Consortium, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB25\" target=\"_blank\">among others<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Opposed, unless amended, by<\/strong>: ACLU of California, EFF, Center for Digital Democracy, Oakland privacy, among others<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB25\" target=\"_blank\">AB 25<\/a>, as originally written, would  have removed CCPA protections for some types of data that employers collect both on their employees and their job applicants. <\/p>\n<p>Hayley Tsukayama, legislative analyst for EFF, said that a concern she and other privacy advocates had with the bill was that employers are beginning to collect more information on their employees that more often resemble consumer-type data. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are seeing a lot more of these workplace surveillance programs pop up,\u201d Tsukayama said over the phone, giving a hypothetical example of a fitness tracker for employees where the data could be shared with health insurance companies. \u201cThe ways that this collection is being introduced into the workplace, it\u2019s not necessary for the employer-employee relationship, and it is more in the vain of consumer data.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>After Chau agreed to add amendments to his bill, the Senate committee passed it. The bill, if it becomes law, will sunset in one year, giving legislators and labor groups another opportunity to review its impact in a short time. <\/p>\n<h4><strong>AB 846<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>What\u2019s it all about?<\/strong> Customer loyalty programs <\/li>\n<li><strong>Author<\/strong>: Assemblymember Autumn Burke<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s top 2018 donors<\/strong>: State Building and Construction Trades Council of California PAC ($17,600), SEIU California State Council Small Contributor Committee ($17,600), IBEW Local 18 Water &amp; Power Defense League ($17,600), California State Council of Laborers PAC ($17,600) <\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s tech donors<\/strong>: Facebook ($8,800), Technet California Political Action Committee ($8,449), Charter Communications ($7,900), AT&amp;T and its affiliates ($7,300)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Supported by<\/strong>: California Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association, California Hotel &amp; Lodging Association, California Restaurant Association, Ralphs Grocery Company, Wine Institute, among others<\/li>\n<li><strong>Opposed, unless amended, by<\/strong>: ACLU of California, EFF, Common Sense Kids Action, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Access Humboldt <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB846\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">AB 846<\/a> targets CCPA\u2019s current non-discrimination clause that prohibits companies from offering incentives\u2014like lowered prices\u2014to customers based on their data practices. <\/p>\n<p>The bill would clarify that CCPA\u2019s regulations are not violated when businesses offer \u201ca different price, rate, level, or quality of goods or services to a consumer if the offering is in connection with a consumer\u2019s voluntary participation in a loyalty, rewards, premium features, discount, or club card program.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The bill received so many changes though, that some groups were puzzled over what it allows. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere was a point at which [AB 846] said any service that has a functionality directly related to the collection of, and use, of personal information was exempt,\u201d Tsukayama said. \u201cWe spent a lot of time going \u2018Well, what does that mean?\u2019 We never got a satisfactory answer.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>She continued: \u201cWe were concerned that this would cover a lot of ad tech, or invasive company programs, to collect more data.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>With additional amendments to be added, the Senate committee passed the bill. <\/p>\n<h4><strong>AB 1564 <\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>What\u2019s it all about?<\/strong> Whether businesses have to provide a phone number for consumer data requests<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author<\/strong>: Assemblymember Marc Berman<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s top 2018 donors<\/strong>: California State Council of Service Employees ($26,100), Northern California Carpenters Regional Council SCC ($17,600), American Federation of State, County &amp; Municipal Employees \u2013 CA People SCC ($17,600)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Author\u2019s tech donors<\/strong>: Facebook ($8,800), TechNet PAC ($6,526)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Supported by<\/strong>: Internet Association (sponsor), Engine, Coalition of Small &amp; Disabled Veteran Businesses, Small Business California, National Federation of Independent Businesses (CA), among others<\/li>\n<li><strong>Opposed by<\/strong>: ACLU of California, EFF, Center for Digital Democracy, Oakland Privacy, Access Humboldt, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, among others &nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>CCPA allows Californians to contact the companies that collect their data and make requests about that data, including accessing it, changing it, and deleting it. The law states that companies must provide at least two methods of contact, including one toll-free telephone number, for those requests. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1564\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">AB 1564<\/a> would allow online-only businesses to provide their direct consumers with just one method of contact\u2014an email address\u2014for data requests. <\/p>\n<p>Privacy advocates previously warned that the bill could make it harder for those with limited Internet access to assert their privacy rights. <\/p>\n<p>The bill, which will be amended, passed the Senate committee. <\/p>\n<h3><strong>What comes next?<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The California Senate is currently in a summer recess, scheduled to return August 12. The bills that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee\u2014ABs 25, 846, and 1564, regarding employee data, loyalty programs, and email address contacts\u2014will next be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee, a separate committee of lawmakers who oversee and move forward bills that have a fiscal component. <\/p>\n<p>That committee has until August 30 to move bills to the floor. <\/p>\n<p>Afterwards, either chamber of the state has until September 13 to send a bill to Governor Gavin Newsom\u2019s desk for signature. <\/p>\n<p>The post <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/privacy-2\/2019\/07\/changing-californias-privacy-law-a-snapshot-at-the-support-and-opposition\/\">Changing California\u2019s privacy law: A snapshot at the support and opposition<\/a> appeared first on <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\">Malwarebytes Labs<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/privacy-2\/2019\/07\/changing-californias-privacy-law-a-snapshot-at-the-support-and-opposition\/\" target=\"bwo\" >https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/feed\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Credit to Author: David Ruiz| Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:59:59 +0000<\/strong><\/p>\n<table cellpadding='10'>\n<tr>\n<td valign='top' align='center'><a href='https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/privacy-2\/2019\/07\/changing-californias-privacy-law-a-snapshot-at-the-support-and-opposition\/' title='Changing California\u2019s privacy law: A snapshot at the support and opposition'><img src='https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/California-State-Senate.jpg' border='0'  width='300px'  \/><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign='top' align='left'>Before the California Senate returns from its summer recess, we look at the authors, supporters, opponents, and donors involved in an extended fight to change California&#8217;s privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act. <\/p>\n<p>Categories: <\/p>\n<ul class=\"post-categories\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/category\/privacy-2\/\" rel=\"category tag\">Privacy<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Tags: <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ab-1416\/\" rel=\"tag\">AB 1416<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ab-1564\/\" rel=\"tag\">AB 1564<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ab-25\/\" rel=\"tag\">AB 25<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ab-846\/\" rel=\"tag\">AB 846<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ab-873\/\" rel=\"tag\">AB 873<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/aclu-of-california\/\" rel=\"tag\">ACLU of California<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/amazon\/\" rel=\"tag\">amazon<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/att\/\" rel=\"tag\">AT&amp;T<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/autumn-burke\/\" rel=\"tag\">Autumn Burke<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/big-tech\/\" rel=\"tag\">Big Tech<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/california-consumer-privacy-act\/\" rel=\"tag\">California Consumer Privacy Act<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ccpa\/\" rel=\"tag\">CCPA<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/deidentified\/\" rel=\"tag\">deidentified<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ed-chau\/\" rel=\"tag\">Ed Chau<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/eff\/\" rel=\"tag\">EFF<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/facebook\/\" rel=\"tag\">facebook<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/google\/\" rel=\"tag\">Google<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/internet-association\/\" rel=\"tag\">Internet Association<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/jacqui-irwin\/\" rel=\"tag\">Jacqui Irwin<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/ken-cooley\/\" rel=\"tag\">Ken Cooley<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/loyalty-program\/\" rel=\"tag\">loyalty program<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/marc-berman\/\" rel=\"tag\">Marc Berman<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/microsoft\/\" rel=\"tag\">microsoft<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/personal-information\/\" rel=\"tag\">personal information<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/privacy-rights-clearinghouse\/\" rel=\"tag\">Privacy Rights Clearinghouse<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/senate-judiciary-committee\/\" rel=\"tag\">Senate Judiciary Committee<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/senator-hannah-beth-jackson\/\" rel=\"tag\">Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/tag\/technet\/\" rel=\"tag\">Technet<\/a><\/p>\n<table width='100%'>\n<tr>\n<td align=right>\n<p><b>(<a href='https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/privacy-2\/2019\/07\/changing-californias-privacy-law-a-snapshot-at-the-support-and-opposition\/' title='Changing California\u2019s privacy law: A snapshot at the support and opposition'>Read more&#8230;<\/a>)<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>The post <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\/privacy-2\/2019\/07\/changing-californias-privacy-law-a-snapshot-at-the-support-and-opposition\/\">Changing California\u2019s privacy law: A snapshot at the support and opposition<\/a> appeared first on <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.malwarebytes.com\">Malwarebytes Labs<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_container_layout":"default_layout","colormag_page_sidebar_layout":"default_layout","footnotes":""},"categories":[10488,10378],"tags":[22457,22458,22459,22210,22211,22460,5588,14182,22461,15450,21011,22462,22463,22464,11245,3589,1670,21898,22465,22466,22467,22468,10516,17588,5897,21635,22469,22470,22471],"class_list":["post-15907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-malwarebytes","category-security","tag-ab-1416","tag-ab-1564","tag-ab-25","tag-ab-846","tag-ab-873","tag-aclu-of-california","tag-amazon","tag-att","tag-autumn-burke","tag-big-tech","tag-california-consumer-privacy-act","tag-ccpa","tag-deidentified","tag-ed-chau","tag-eff","tag-facebook","tag-google","tag-internet-association","tag-jacqui-irwin","tag-ken-cooley","tag-loyalty-program","tag-marc-berman","tag-microsoft","tag-personal-information","tag-privacy","tag-privacy-rights-clearinghouse","tag-senate-judiciary-committee","tag-senator-hannah-beth-jackson","tag-technet"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}