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 "However, the Act's imprecise language, limited legislative history, and somewhat outdated regulatory guidelines have rendered it a difficult statute to decipher and apply."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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:44PM (11 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
today I learned 2 centuries ago is "not so long"
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 21 2019, @12:40AM (2 children)
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
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
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.