SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has proposed a federal privacy law that would preempt tougher privacy rules issued by states.
Rubio's announcement Wednesday said that his American Data Dissemination (ADD) Act "provides overdue transparency and accountability from the tech industry while ensuring that small businesses and startups are still able to innovate and compete in the digital marketplace."
But Rubio's bill establishes a process for creating rules instead of issuing specific rules right away, and it allows up to 27 months for Congress or the Federal Trade Commission to write the actual rules.
In addition, the bill text says it "shall supersede" any provision of a state law that pertains to the same consumer data governed by Rubio's proposed federal law. That includes names, Social Security numbers, other government ID numbers, financial transactions, medical histories, criminal histories, employment histories, user-generated content, "unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation," and other personal data collected by companies.
[...] Rubio's bill wouldn't do much to protect Americans' data privacy, consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said. The Rubio bill uses the Privacy Act of 1974 as its framework; the 1974 law applies to federal agencies, but Rubio's bill would apply similar rules to the private sector.
[...] The Act "can generally be characterized as an omnibus 'code of fair information practices' that attempts to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal executive branch agencies," the DOJ says in an overview last updated in 2015. "However, the Act's imprecise language, limited legislative history, and somewhat outdated regulatory guidelines have rendered it a difficult statute to decipher and apply."
Despite the DOJ saying the law is confusing, Rubio argued in an op-ed for The Hill that the Privacy Act of 1974 is "widely considered one of the seminal pieces of privacy law in effect today."
[...] Congressional Democrats recently proposed a much stricter privacy law, which could issue steep fines to companies and send their top executives to prison for up to 20 years if they violate Americans' privacy.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @03:23AM (13 children)
The constitution doesn't specify that unaddressed authority be reserved for the people over the states. It leaves the question open to each state to decide. By all rights, the states should have way more power than the federal government. Unfortunately SCOTUS doesn't like the taste of that idea and the feds have more armed forces than any individual state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:31AM (9 children)
By all rights, the states should have way more power than the federal government. Unfortunately SCOTUS doesn't like the taste of that idea...
Yeah, well, you know, Jim Crow and all. And I wouldn't want to be under Sheriff Buford T Justice's thumb either. When the state goes crazy (stuff like dumping pig shit into the water), sometimes you have to call in the cavalry. Just wish people were more interested in keeping things honest.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:48AM (8 children)
Needs to be done legally or not done at all though. Giving the feds your approval to violate the constitution for any reason whatsoever is about the worst possible political position anyone could take.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday January 20 2019, @06:42AM (7 children)
But we have that power, by voting and active petitioning, call it abuse if you want, but one way or another we will (*sigh* if we only would) protect ourselves, through our reps and their big guns (just like Eisenhower sending in regular army to protect peoples' rights). We just have to be rational about it, with great oversight, and of course, that part is not happening now.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @07:48AM (6 children)
That was in fact legal. The constitution was amended to that effect, it just took a long time for enforcement to catch up.
No, being reasonable about when it's okay for the government to ignore the legal limits we have placed upon it is not in fact ever reasonable. Changing those limits is fine but you are either ruled by laws or ruled by tyrants. Because that's exactly what you call someone who can just do whatever they like without regard to any law. I prefer laws.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday January 20 2019, @07:57AM (5 children)
I prefer laws.
I would too, but, rational or not, the majority rules. The inmates run the asylum. That's what we are stuck with. It's on us.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:53AM (1 child)
> > I prefer laws.
> I would too, but, rational or not, the majority rules. The inmates run the asylum. That's what we are stuck with. It's on us.
The majority may rule now, but if you can convince individual members of a majority that they may in future become members of a minority, then they are more likely to support minority rights.
It is only the short-term thinkers who believe that majorities are permanent. Some try to ensure that a particular in-group will remain as a permanent majority, but history shows this is remarkably hard to do.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday January 20 2019, @06:22PM
I never said anything about a particular majority being permanent. On the contrary they are quite fickle and fluid. That's part of the problem. Yes, long term thinking goes out the window. However, the majority still decides where to point the gun.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:34PM (2 children)
No, the majority has no say at all in the matter. SCOTUS is the arbiter of that and they are unaccountable to anyone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 21 2019, @12:26AM (1 child)
they are unaccountable to anyone.
Vee haf vays...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 21 2019, @12:50AM
Vell, ve had better make use of zose vays soon, before ze court ends up 7-2 hardline Neocon und ve end up back in zer nineteenth century viz ze "Vhites Only" signs all over zer place again.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday January 20 2019, @08:11PM (1 child)
Thanks, good clarification. Also yes, very much an instance of the people with the guns get to decide the actual hierarchy of power. A pretty good indication of why submitting to "gun control" is a bad plan for the people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:36PM
You'd think that would be obvious what with not once in the history of the world has disarming a people been a precursor to their increased liberty. It's been the opposite every single time, usually with quite bloody results.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @01:44AM
"'specify that unaddressed authority be reserved for the people over the states"
The preamble defines both the origin of authority and the scope of the document when it says "We the people".
The 10th amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since origin of authority is defined in the preamble, the delegation specified by the 10th amendment is redundant. In this case by saying "respectively" the 10th conflicts with the preamble. If the authority was originally derived from the people, then those rights were already with the people and require no articulation of order of precedence. So what you have hear is typical self conflicting circle jerk rhetoric dating all the way back to 1776.
This is doubly important when we consider that SCOTUS regards the dictionary act to have greater precedence than the preamble of the Constitution. I imagine they would interpret the preamble to be referring to people, but the 10th would be referring to corporations. Probably took em' a while to work that out in a bathroom stall, but we'll never know since they wiped their asses with the constitution so many times that no piece of paper in the building should be regarded as safe.
They don't respect their oaths. The only thing that obliges us to respect their titles is physical force. The problem is no longer rhetorical, political or even legislative. It really doesn't matter what Rubio does, since we aren't a nation of laws anymore. And that is on SCOTUS. It was their job, and they fucked it up.