Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#2"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory."
Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragraphs from a draft law. Even assuming that those edits would be ignored, they bias the legislators against public interests.
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#3"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…
That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them.
Note that some of the provisions in question would have been a huge boon to plaintiffs’ attorneys:
> While the state's attorney general had called for the inclusion of a right for individuals to sue companies for potential wrongdoing, such a provision was eventually not included in the final proposals. Financial penalties — much-needed teeth to ensure compliance — were capped at just $7,500 for each intentional violation and $2,500 for any unintended infractions.
Violations are generally construed to be “per user.” So a single unintentional error could result in a huge penalty. Creating a private cause of action would have created a huge incentive to turn every unintentional error into a class action lawsuit.
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#4"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…
That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…
It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…
It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
Draft legislation in Washington is publicly available. Anyone (including privacy groups) could submit a redline markup. To the extent that the legislature might prioritize the views of Microsoft isn’t corruption, it’s common sense. The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden. When you are Washington state and one those companies is in your own back yard, the calculus is different.
This is the exactly sort of scenario where lobbying is important. “Privacy” sounds good in the abstract. It’s like “think of the children.” Who could be against more privacy? But what’s going to be the impact on local businesses? On the products people buy?
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#6Really? How does it matter who wrote it? Who voted to force that shit on the people?
What about the corrupt moron legislators elected and paid to do their job and work for the voter?
Enjoy your democracy.
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
Draft legislation in Washington is publicly available. Anyone (including privacy groups) could submit a redline markup. To the extent that the legislature might prioritize the views of Microsoft isn’t corruption, it’s common sense. The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden. When you are Washington state and one those companies i…
> because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden.
How so? You seem to be just repeating the common narrative in US, which isn't based in any factual data.
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
Draft legislation in Washington is publicly available. Anyone (including privacy groups) could submit a redline markup. To the extent that the legislature might prioritize the views of Microsoft isn’t corruption, it’s common sense. The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden. When you are Washington state and one those companies i…
A draft being publicly available does not in any way mean it has the influence of a highly paid, well connected lobbyist.
The point being that lobbying is highly effective, and the public has little chance of having it's voice heard.
I hear you say: 'the voice of the people is heard at election time'. This would be the case if the very same lobbyist didn't fund the campaigns of politicians.
If money can buy influence in policy making, that is textbook corruption.
The other part to this is that the current (American) political system is built on top of this form of corruption, it is an integral part. I would draw a parallel to the Brazilian political system, which simply couldn't function without the corruption it is built upon. Of course the American case isn't as bad, but nor is it particularly good.
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
Draft legislation in Washington is publicly available. Anyone (including privacy groups) could submit a redline markup. To the extent that the legislature might prioritize the views of Microsoft isn’t corruption, it’s common sense. The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden. When you are Washington state and one those companies i…
> Draft legislation in Washington is publicly available. Anyone (including privacy groups) could submit a redline markup.
Yes, but that requires that people know about the legislation and care enough to be involved, and it is unlikely that they'll be more willing than Microsoft will because it will affect them significantly less.
> The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden.
It turns out that American companies are disproportionally affected because there are more large American companies, which means the law will target them more. That's like saying the U.S. should drop out of environmental agreements because they'll hurt our local industry more–it's not taking into account the fact that it's our own companies disproportionately causing the problem the legislation is trying to solve.
> “Privacy” sounds good in the abstract. It’s like “think of the children.”
"Think of the children" tends to lead to mass surveillance and a degradation of liberties, while calls for "privacy" lead to…Facebook earning less money? Where are you trying to take this argument?
Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law
#10"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…
That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…
> That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests.
The goal of corporations is to extract as much money as possible from the public. So in a very real sense, they are opponents, even if sometimes their interests align.