Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#261

Post by soundwave106 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #200

zoul wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, social media users are the goods being sold, so the companies running the networks don’t have much interest in offering tools and algorithms for high quality discussion. With paying customers the situation would be very different. (Not that it’s going to happen – I’m just saying that we already pay a hefty price for the “free” services.)

If I had to test that hypothesis I would consider the comments section on the NYT (a website that requires a subscription to access more than 10 articles a month). Just checking the comments section there shows that people are just as vitriolic there _even_ if they've posted on more than 10 articles that month. I'm comfortable saying that paid networks won't in-and-of-themselves improve conversation.

What this bill might help (or at least give law enforcement additional tools to prosecute with) is preventing situations like the Cambridge Analytica situation, where corporations with nefarious motives gather user profile information from social media in questionable ways, and use these tools to try to manipulate in areas outside of mere marketing.

In other words, while I'm not sure if this will improve discourse, at least it mitigates a little bit of the questionable social media meddling that we've seen of late.

I kind of see jimmaswell's point that there is a risk of creating a "tiered Internet". But I'm not sure it's completely an either/or situation. It sounds like that the bill also emphasizes more transparency on what is being done with the data and who it is sold to. As long as personal data is not shared haphazardly and in a leaky fashion, consumers might be just fine with the bargain they get.

Things like shopper loyalty programs already offer this sort of bargain: in exchange for allowing companies access to more granular shopper information, the shopper gets access to greater discounts. Loyalty programs currently are subject to various consumer protection rules. In contrast, the bargain social media has struck with users (free service in exchange for marketing data) is not well protected.

Personally, I'm fine with a little more transparency and disclosure in this fashion. I don't think this necessarily means the end of free social media per se. (I will say though that this is a sign, one of many, that the days of social media "moving fast and breaking things" is over.)

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#262

Post by syshum » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:16 AM UTC

throwawayou812 wrote: post #256

syshum wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with me... if more people would like me Facebook, Twitter, etc would not exist at all, and Google would have a massively different business model more like when they started then what they have become. I do however want ownership over my data, and the right to demand these companies tell me what they collect on me (often with out my permission see Facebooks Shadow Profiles on people that do not…

If you don't put the information out there, then they won't have it. It's a simple cause and effect relationship. Not giving up this information will likely cause you to not be able to use some services, however you have no inherent right to access services run by private parties. They are offered to you under certain conditions, and if you choose not to comply with those conditions, you are free to not use the servi…

>>If you don't put the information out there, then they won't have it

This is false.

> Not giving up this information will likely cause you to not be able to use some services, however you have no inherent right to access services run by private parties.

Ahh the old "if you do not like it leave society" bullshit, it is pointless logical fallacy but given your posting history on this topic I do not expect much more than that from you.

One should not have to choose between privacy and functioning in society. We place all kinds of regulations on business for various reasons over the years, Data privacy should not be seen as any different than the countless of other regulations we have placed on business.

As to the "no inherent right to access services run by private parties. " Again many of these companies collect data you are REQUIRED to give to organizations that are are a basic function of life, like government services, which are then "public records" For example after I bought my home I got a endless stream of calls, mails, and other things (including scams) because my purchase was recorded as part of the PUBLIC RECORD, which i could not simply refuse to give.

it is unbelievably naive and moronic to believe it is simply as "not putting your data out there"

> simply use incognito mode if you are this worried about it.

ROFL, this tells me not only do you not under the law but you do not understand technology either. Incognito mode is useless for privacy unless you are sharing a computer with others.

Incognito mode DOES NOT IN ANY WAY STOP A WEBSITE FROM TRACKING YOU.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#263

Post by fjsolwmv » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #196

conradev wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (For what it's worth: I don't think this bill is going anywhere; it's a discussion draft by a single member of the minority party.) Ron Wyden is indeed a single member of the minority party, but he is establishing himself as one of the leading voices on these issues. Christopher Soghoian probably played a big role in drafting this bill as his Senior Advisor for Privacy and Cybersecurity.

When the bill gets a Republican co-sponsor, it'll be time to take it seriously as "news".

Or when the Senate gets a Democrat majority

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#264

Post by fjsolwmv » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:39 AM UTC

gist wrote: post #249

tptacek wrote: post #185

This is an extremely frustrating headline. The draft bill we're discussing does not appear to establish "prison time" for "data privacy violations". The bill "covers" any entity with over 1MM users (Flappy Bird) or $50MM in revenue over 3 years (most mid-sized startups). It creates a compliance regime, violations of which can be pursued by the FTC under its "Unfair Trade Practices" authority. A subset of Covered Enti…

> I don't think this bill is going anywhere You can actually also tell that by the fact that the article states that privacy regulations are backed by FAANG or similar et al. They think that an eventual bill would be so watered down or not matter that they don't even mind stating up front that they support such a bill. This is similar to a technique that I have used with my wife. She wants to know say if we can do th…

It's clearly dishonest and wrong. It's also sneaky and smart.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#265

Post by fjsolwmv » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:43 AM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #237

I've said it before, when it comes to mass surveillance,intentionally malicious backdoors and general societal loss of ptivacy, the solution should be primarly legislative not technical. Good example: every store with a camera uses ML to identify customers and passerby's and shares this info with 3rd parties. Should we talk about how to best facial and gait ML analysis or is the answer simply criminally outlawing thi…

It can't be criminal because corporations can't go to jail. The only punishment you can apply to corporation is to take a little bit of its money, but not so much that it declares bankruptcy and gives all its assets to a new corporation formed by the same owners, who are protected from the Limited Liability structure from having to pay their debts.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#266

Post by fjsolwmv » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:45 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #32

Would these rules also apply to NSA/CIA misuse of surveillance?

No. The government is sovereign; no one can prosecute the government. Only individual scapegoats can be prosecuted.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#267

Post by fjsolwmv » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 2:49 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #173

oliwarner wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a bad thing. The big tech companies are edging towards complete monopolies in their spaces and a significant part of this is that they know everything and they're allowed to leverage that data. Why would you go to anybody else to advertise? Unbundling this, making advertising harder again will spread out the budget, probably push more towards publishers rather than networks. Again, not a bad thing. It also…

I think it would be a pretty horrible thing if all these once free internet services suddenly cost money. Nobody seems to be thinking about the significant amount of people who wouldn't be able to afford monthly subscriptions to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. even if it did all add up to "only" $15/month. Poor people should not be priced out of the online spaces where modern discourse happens. Single mothers should…

They could still be freemium, or could use less targeted advertising. Would it be a catastrophe if Mark Zuckerberg only made $20B off Facebook instead of $40B?

Also, today, privacy conscious users are cut off from the main forums of discourse. Is that better?

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#268

Post by _8j50 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 4:25 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #265

_8j50 wrote: post #237

I've said it before, when it comes to mass surveillance,intentionally malicious backdoors and general societal loss of ptivacy, the solution should be primarly legislative not technical. Good example: every store with a camera uses ML to identify customers and passerby's and shares this info with 3rd parties. Should we talk about how to best facial and gait ML analysis or is the answer simply criminally outlawing thi…

It can't be criminal because corporations can't go to jail. The only punishment you can apply to corporation is to take a little bit of its money, but not so much that it declares bankruptcy and gives all its assets to a new corporation formed by the same owners, who are protected from the Limited Liability structure from having to pay their debts.

That's what CEOs are for. All corporations have a structure where one person or a group of persons are accountable for decisions. For example,look at financial crimes(think Enron),executives are sent to jail all the time.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#269

Post by alexanderwept » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:02 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #265

_8j50 wrote: post #237

I've said it before, when it comes to mass surveillance,intentionally malicious backdoors and general societal loss of ptivacy, the solution should be primarly legislative not technical. Good example: every store with a camera uses ML to identify customers and passerby's and shares this info with 3rd parties. Should we talk about how to best facial and gait ML analysis or is the answer simply criminally outlawing thi…

It can't be criminal because corporations can't go to jail. The only punishment you can apply to corporation is to take a little bit of its money, but not so much that it declares bankruptcy and gives all its assets to a new corporation formed by the same owners, who are protected from the Limited Liability structure from having to pay their debts.

>The only punishment you can apply to corporation is to take a little bit of its money

There's a death penalty for corporations - revoking their charter.

Re: Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill

#270

Post by anticensor » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:34 AM UTC

ebullientocelot wrote: post #125

blululu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless inflation happens... This only applies to big businesses now, but in 25 years it will start effecting medium sized firms and it will eventually hit small businesses. This will create a morass of bureaucratic regulations stifling entrepreneurship...

Granting the assumption of monotonically increasing inflation at a wild rate, this is still only true ceteris paribus. I can't imagine inflation that would make a small coffee shop chain into 50m/year revenue (customer floor requirement notwithstanding) would happen in a vacuum.

What he means is regulatory inflation, not the monetary one. A few years later, the customer threshold would be amended to a few thousands, ten years later, the thresholds would be abolished.