SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Why-doesn't-the-US-just-implement-the-GDPR? dept.
U.S. Unveils First Step Toward New Online Privacy Rules
The US administration called Tuesday for public comments on a "new approach to consumer data privacy" that could trigger fresh regulations of internet companies.
The Commerce Department said the announcement is part of an effort to "modernize US data privacy policy for the 21st century."
The move follows the implementation this year of ramped up data protection rules imposed by the European Union, and a new privacy law enacted in California.
Both measures will impact internet firms whose websites can be accessed around the globe.
Privacy and data protection have come into greater focus in response to these new laws, and also because of growing concerns on how private data is handled following revelations on the hijacking of millions of Facebook user profiles by a political consultancy ahead of the 2016 election.
"The United States has a long history of protecting individual privacy, but our challenges are growing as technology becomes more complex, interconnected and integrated into our daily lives," said David Redl, who heads the agency's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @05:20AM
Only short-sighted authoritarian fools have established this. Stop repeating this nonsense as if it cannot be changed or questioned. With the right judges in place, these standards can change.
The reality is that mass surveillance of all sorts is inherently dangerous to democracy. [gnu.org] This is because, in addition to tracking ordinary people, it also tracks whistleblowers, journalists, political opponents, dissidents, and other people who play pivotal roles in democratic societies. Obviously, as we've seen time and time again, the government seeks to destroy people who challenge it, and mass surveillance enables it to do so on a level never before seen. Then, we also have dangers such as parallel construction. [wikipedia.org]
Because of that, even mass surveillance of public places needs to be banned. There is no inherent reason why it cannot be, except people stupidly insisting that being in a public place means that anything done to you is acceptable.
That is not mass surveillance. It is not in any way equivalent to mass surveillance. Mass surveillance is not done by individual people, but by large, powerful, and well-equipped organizations that have enough resources to install a vast surveillance infrastructure; that is where the true danger lies at this time.
Much of Facebook's business model should be outright illegal, and especially their shadow profiles they create on people like me who don't even use their disservice. If banning such practices made Facebook and similar companies disappear, then good.
People often defend Facebook and similar companies by saying that using them is "voluntary." For the most part, that is true, even though it can be less than voluntary if many employers require their use. However, as with the shadow profiles example, the people who volunteer to use these disservices create significant negative externalities that eventually begin to affect those who choose not to be used. Not to mention, most people don't have a good understanding of why it is so dangerous to allow such massive scale data collection, instead viewing it as a harmless trade-off.
Obviously money in politics has to be done away with first, but I see no reason why they can't be stopped. Again, large organizations like this cannot completely cover up their surveillance, and so getting them to comply shouldn't be an impossible task in a less corrupt system.