201–210 of 313 posts
Can't read legalese much, and -judging by how these things tend to go- I bet it's butchered beyond recognition before it gets to a vote (if at all). Instead, we should consider a constitutional amendment that enshrines digital privacy as a fundamental human right.
For those following along at home: So far five states have passed local Data Privacy laws (CA, VA, UT, CT, MA). They are all different. This situation makes it much more likely that federal data privacy legislation will happen: while companies wish they could have 0 laws, they would still much rather prefer 1 law rather than 5 (trending towards 50) different laws that contradict each other. There's a whole buncha spe…
A perfect example of how these megacorps destroy the fabric of our political process. The fact that dealing with state regulations is a burden isn't our (the people's) problem, we have a right to have our state's reflect our will. They want to scale up to this massive size raking in billions of dollars, that should come with the territory.
It's not clear that ADPPA will move forward. The current version preempts California's CCPA/CPRA legislation, and (big surprise) California doesn't like that. But, that's far from the only issue with it. Here's an update from a couple of weeks ago which discusses some of the problems, as well as potential next steps. https://thenexusofprivacy.net/adppa-new-compromise/ And, here's EFF's position: " Americans Deserve M…
Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book cas…
It's not clear that ADPPA will move forward. The current version preempts California's CCPA/CPRA legislation, and (big surprise) California doesn't like that. But, that's far from the only issue with it. Here's an update from a couple of weeks ago which discusses some of the problems, as well as potential next steps. https://thenexusofprivacy.net/adppa-new-compromise/ And, here's EFF's position: " Americans Deserve M…
Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book cas…
The Internet is a global entity, and it doesn't strike me as being well served by the "laboratory of the states".
Federal legislation is slow, but executive agencies can move faster if they are empowered by legislation to make rules. Congress sets broad principles, and it's not unreasonable that those principles should stay the same for a decade at a time, even in a fast-moving domain like privacy. And while regulatory agencies can be their own pieces of work, it is much easier to deal with one national agency's rules than 50 different ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, at our company, GDPR requests have to cost at least $50 a pop. It goes to a human team to review and process with a dedicated legal representative.
Very fair point, and I understand the necessity of data collection in some cases. I do feel like that's a cost that's incurred voluntarily, though, and shouldn't fall on the shoulders of users/customers. Some people might not want data to be collected to begin with, so the cost ends up being your company's fault and not theirs.
A majority of requests are actually this way - people use online services that submit blanket removal requests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be the same if the ISP sold the gov. the extracted info they want ? In this setting the gov can hint at what data it wants, and private parties will manage to get it for resale.
I think to OP's point, if we are worried about government wrongdoing we should pass laws against government wrongdoing. It really doesn't matter what the private industry does or doesn't do if the government still has the right to take it. I am not afraid of my data being used against me to sell products. I am afraid of the government abusing their monopoly on violence. The first seems like misdirection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree or agree with what you've written generally here, but specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that. That's an important point, and I think there are a lot of folks who would try to disagree. There are people in this very comment thread that believe 1984 is not a work of fiction, and that's silly. Those are the people I'm disagreeing…
> specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that Of course 1984 is not a reflection of current reality. it was not a reflection of current reality back when it was written. Science fiction is not a fun-house mirror reflecting back a warped version of the present, its a kaleidoscope looking into the future. I have not seen anyone in this thread say "198…
> The thing I tell most people is that we currently live under more surveillance then folks in 1984.
> In ~20 years you'll see how silly you are for welcoming totalitarianism. You won't care until it effects you.
Three examples from this thread (one by you) of folks claiming "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction", at least to the degree of what I originally said (you're misconstruing what I wrote for rhetorical value, but if you look at what I actually claimed, these quotes fit).
There are not "a number of very real parallels between the world we live in and the world of 1984", this is a misremembering of the content of the novel. You don't get to just hand select a few things from the novel and say, "Look, 1984!" in the same way you don't get to cite "well the humans in Lord of the Rings breathed air so it's the same as today!"
For example, without the critical, "or else you die" consequences of misbehavior in the 1984 novel, none of the "scary" things in the novel carry anything remotely approaching the weight or meaningfulness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book cas…
>>Preemption would be an enormous mistake Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything, without even touching the fact that Data privacy is in no way even close to any of the enumerated power of the US Federal Government Federal Laws almost always favor large companies, the exact companies these laws are needed to protect the consumer from Facebook, Microsoft, etc would…
So that my marriage is recognized across state lines, for a start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess they'd better figure out how to get people their data in a more rapid manner. I guess they could use a computer or something to automate it so that users can just click a button to download their data. I mean, what year is this? We've been hearing "automate it, automate it, etc" for years and years now. But to get your personal data, these companies just throw up their hands and say that it's too hard?
I couldn't agree more. Even if it does require a person to do something that isn't automated, they should be required to have people on staff whose first priority is responding to these requests. It seems ridiculous to me that people are claiming this is just too hard for a company so they should get to profit off of it. It's our data, dammit!
Completely disingenuous argument. Literally nobody claimed that.
By the same token of strawmanning, you're claiming that businesses should do nothing than hire people to send your data back to you. Why even have businesses if that's the only thing you think they should do?
If you're so invested in "your data, damnit", then don't give it to them in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book cas…
>>Preemption would be an enormous mistake Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything, without even touching the fact that Data privacy is in no way even close to any of the enumerated power of the US Federal Government Federal Laws almost always favor large companies, the exact companies these laws are needed to protect the consumer from Facebook, Microsoft, etc would…
In what way is data privacy regulation for corporations not a regulation on interstate commerce? That's like, the whole deal. That's the entire internet. If anything, Internet regulations applying at the state level is even more insane, because of the inherently cross-state nature of globally networked communication.