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 "However, the Act's imprecise language, limited legislative history, and somewhat outdated regulatory guidelines have rendered it a difficult statute to decipher and apply."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