Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday January 20 2019, @12:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the when's-the-next-election? dept.

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 "However, the Act's imprecise language, limited legislative history, and somewhat outdated regulatory guidelines have rendered it a difficult statute to decipher and apply."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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:44AM (15 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:44AM (#788934) Journal
    Interstate commerce is probably going to be the goto here. They stretched it a lot further than that for the War on Some Drugs and agricultural regulations.

    My suspicion is that the driver is the political attacks by some states on unpopular businesses. For example, New York has a ridiculous amount of power because so many businesses are headquartered or publicly traded in the state (so anything material that affects your business anywhere in the world is a potential grounds for a New York lawsuit for the above companies). And when Exxon Mobil revealed that at one time they had done some climate change research, they were sued [wikipedia.org] by several states and a US territory (New York, California, Massachusetts, and the Virgin Islands), all for the same thing.

    I think there's a case here that some potentially illegal activities shouldn't instantly result in potentially dozens of different court cases all for the same crime. But on the other hand, the federal government is notorious for passing regulations and then failing to police them. This would be a convenient way to void a lot of state law on privacy and data protection arbitrarily (possibly to be expanded in the future to a much wider scope). So while I see some bit of benefit to the proposed ideas, the implementation is a complete disaster and probably would eventually break the separation of power between state and federal government.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:53AM (14 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday January 20 2019, @05:53AM (#788937) Homepage Journal

    Could be but there needs to be an amendment if so. The commerce clause was written to keep say Virginia from slapping a tariff on Carolina tobacco or the like. It was never intended as a shoehorn the government could use for absolutely anything they wanted and that toy needs to be taken away from them badly.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20 2019, @03:03PM (13 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20 2019, @03:03PM (#789037)

      An Amendment to the constittution that makes America an opt-in entity, whose membership is only allowed when both the state and federal budgets are passed on time and the each branch of government has signed renewal paperwork. If either state or federal government has not handled their business, the breaching party (whether state or federal government) may secede or throw out the other.

      This would result in a few years to decades of shakeup which might be better or worse for the US than the situation is right now, but at the same time it would rein in the budgetary abuses going on each year by partisans pushing an agenda, offer a clear road to secession for any state entity or the federal government to remove a party who is breaching their obligations to state or country, and would provide the foundation necessary to clear the way for constitutional congresses at both the state and federal levels, something that is fervently needed in order to clear up ambiguities, obsolete rules or interpretations, and help update legal foundations to match a number of unexpected realities of the modern world ranging from identity/voter fraud to clarified and enumerated privacy protections for all Americans at the local, state, and federal levels.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 20 2019, @10:46PM (12 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday January 20 2019, @10:46PM (#789175)

        I can't help feeling that your suggestion would wind up with Americans killing each other in quite large numbers again.

        I imagine the Deep South would be among the first to secede, and when their wobbly economies collapsed without their current source of subsidies, then their corrupt leaders would be forced to manufacture some sort of casus belli to keep power.

        Just a shower thought.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:44PM (11 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:44PM (#789207) Homepage Journal

          What do you mean "again"? You're far more likely to be murdered today than you were in the actual wild west. Doesn't say much for the usefulness of having all these police around constantly invading our privacy and infringing on our liberties, does it?

          It's kind of odd that you'd think the states that control the food and water of the rich states would be in the disadvantageous position. Even if it were so, all the open borders people would suddenly find themselves flooded with tens of millions of people who were formerly sucking up federal assistance. You don't think it'd happen? How do you think the blues moved from the Mississippi delta to Detroit and Chicago?

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @12:07AM (7 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday January 21 2019, @12:07AM (#789227)

            If you just calmed down for a second, you might have realized I meant the Civil War you guys had not so long ago when I put "again".

            The states you claim control the food and water of the rich states only do so because of the massive subsidies they are paid to do that farming.

            The rich states would spend the billions they save on importing food from other countries.

            You know, like everyone else in the world does.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @12:59AM (5 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 21 2019, @12:59AM (#789279) Homepage Journal

              Those subsidies are there to keep food from commanding market value and starving those in cities who have no means to produce their own. No other reason.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @01:26AM (4 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday January 21 2019, @01:26AM (#789298)

                That is the exact opposite of what farming subsidies are for.

                They're actually to give the farmers a margin on the cost of production.

                Have you never wondered why farmers protest when anyone ever talks about taking their "incentives" away?

                If the farmers could make more money without the subsidies, don't you think they'd be blocking the main street of the capital city with their tractors to demand their removal?

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @12:55PM (3 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 21 2019, @12:55PM (#789537) Homepage Journal

                  I see that you don't understand even the most basic supply and demand dynamics. I'd explain it but I get the impression you're not inclined to learn them.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @07:22PM (2 children)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday January 21 2019, @07:22PM (#789715)

                    You're delusional if you think farmers are anything other than price takers. Any search will explain it to you.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:03AM (1 child)

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:03AM (#790376) Homepage Journal

                      And you're mistaken if you think economics are that simple and lack any feedbacks.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 23 2019, @01:33AM

                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday January 23 2019, @01:33AM (#790401)

                        Farm subsidies have nothing to do with economics, despite what your farming neighbours tell you, they're political.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:13PM (#790142)

              the Civil War you guys had not so long ago when I put "again".

              today I learned 2 centuries ago is "not so long"

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 21 2019, @12:40AM (2 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday January 21 2019, @12:40AM (#789259) Journal

            The 'blues' from Mississippi are nothing like the 'blues' from Hollywood. And thought they won't admit it, the reds suck more money from the feds than the blues. That's a big part of the national paradox. What color is the biggest welfare state?

            And open borders are a two way street. It's always about the money. I still don't know why a caribou, or even chimney smoke has more freedom of movement than a human.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @01:09AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 21 2019, @01:09AM (#789285) Homepage Journal

              I've heard that argument before and it doesn't float any better now than it ever has. They keep voting to turn off the Open Wallet policy and the blues keep telling them no. I see no fault in trying to get a bit of your tax dollars that you had to pay for programs you don't want back through those very programs.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @01:12AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 21 2019, @01:12AM (#789287) Homepage Journal

              Oh, I was talking about the musical style rather than state colors, by the way. People got tired of staying where they couldn't make ends meet and headed upriver, which is how we got the all that fine electric blues coming out of Chicago and Detroit.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.