Submitted via IRC for Bytram
US lawmakers kick off debate over online privacy
US lawmakers opened a debate Tuesday over privacy legislation in the first step by Congress toward regulation addressing a series of troublesome data protection abuses by tech firms.
Most companies have said they would accept new federal legislation in the wake of bombshell revelations about Facebook and other online platforms' mishandling of users' personal data.
Lawmakers face several key choices, including whether to adopt the model in the European Union's data protection rules, and whether to pre-empt the strict privacy rules adopted by California.
A House of Representatives committee hearing on Tuesday is to be followed by a Senate panel Wednesday where industry and interest groups will make recommendations on US legislation.
Legislators are likely to find broad agreement on the need for greater transparency regarding the collection and sharing of data, and on tougher enforcement for violations.
Beyond that, sharp differences exist on how tightly tech firms should be reined in.
"A federal law must include basic rights for individuals to access, correct, delete and port their personal data," said Nuala O'Connor, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital rights group, in testimony prepared for the House Energy and Commerce panel.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:29PM
They will make it worse somehow, just stay away.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:37PM (3 children)
Great, like I didn't have enough actually important shit to code up for the site already. Now I'm going to have to jump through bullshit hoops to protect the data we don't collect.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:38PM (2 children)
Nope. You'll have to "jump through bullshit hoops to demonstrate that you protect the data you don't collect."
Which may be:
1. a blessing - if you can BS them without much effort; like showing them a dummy-never-to-be-used 'private data table' with all the columns encrypted and then all the other tables containing non-private data that doesn't need protection;
*or*
2. a curse - if you have to jump through bullshit hoops to actually protect some data and then demonstrate it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:59PM
Nah, any work that I have to do to show that we don't collect or use data from our users is time taken away from something actually useful like site coding or fishing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:48PM
Encrypted columns of null. Wonder what that would look like?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:52PM (19 children)
"A federal law must include basic rights for individuals to access, correct, delete and port their personal data,"
Which will do virtually nothing for privacy. It needs to be outright illegal under penalty of public tar and feathering and nuking from orbit to sell or misuse people's personal data.
Quite frankly, there aught to be some penalty for consumertards who willingly give away their personal data.
But of course, none of that is going to happen. Lawmakers are owned by the corporations that are collecting and selling your data, and would like nothing more than to collect your private data for themselves.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:59PM (7 children)
The government is underfunded, that is why we have this situation. The only solution is to raise taxes so they can properly do their job. In this case that probably means keeping track of what every company has on every person in a centralized database with no moats between the various enforcement agencies, which could require a hundred billion dollars per year.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:57PM (2 children)
On the contrary, lower tax rates for the rich creates more taxes collected from the middle and poor classes. At least that's how "free market fairy story" goes and we all know this fairy is for reals (or... was it "for reales"?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:26PM
Raise taxes on them all.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:08PM
https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2613 [smbc-comics.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 27 2019, @05:04PM (3 children)
I'm for raising taxes on rich people, but you are incorrect that the only solution is to raise taxes. For example, if we stopped spending money on ridiculously expensive military toys that we don't need and don't use and in some cases don't even work, that would save us a bundle. And of course raising taxes doesn't necessitate violating the privacy of every American citizen any more than it already is.
But don't worry, tech industry lobbyists: I'm quite certain that the government will never do anything that *really* prevents you from doing whatever you're doing with user information.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @09:20PM (1 child)
Time has proven that the US government can never become more efficient at anything. If they are wasting $2 Trillion per year, then we just have to deal with that and raise taxes so they have more money to spend on other stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @12:59PM
Line building walls and feeding immigrants and paying the dole
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:45AM
Cut funding to the NSA. Even if the law doesn't pass, you still protect the public's data.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:49PM (4 children)
> It needs to be outright illegal ... to sell or misuse people's personal data.
What if I ask you to sell my personal data? In exchange for some other service perhaps or direct financial reward. E.g. I fill out a poll in return for money.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:51PM (3 children)
Wow. You just made me think of a question. Those polls? Is there any requirement, or even expectation, that a person responds relevantly, factually, or honestly? Does anyone ever give real answers to polls?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:42PM (2 children)
It doesn't matter. GP was proposing a law that would ban the existence of those polls. Seems like an overreaction.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 27 2019, @05:05PM (1 child)
It would make more sense to outlaw the existence of the pollsters, don't you think?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:43PM
Sure, and anyone else you don't like. Banhammer!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:44PM (4 children)
Misuse, yes. Also, collect w/o their explicit permission. But sell with their informed consent, no.
It should be about informed consent.
Otherwise, you're just replacing one abuse with another.
--
What I if told you
you read the previous line wrong
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:53PM (3 children)
Also, if personal data is used and sold, then the person should get royalties for usage and a cut of any sales. Of course, that is a whole another can of worms that would be ripe for fraud and identity theft. Nope, better to ban the practice of collecting personal data.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:02PM (2 children)
As soon as you tell people what they cannot do, in an informed, personal or consensual manner, with their own person, possessions, or data, you have assumed the mantle of evil.
--
When I dunk my cookies, I think of you.
I hold them under until the bubbles stop.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday February 27 2019, @10:30PM (1 child)
Muahahhaha!
But yes you are correct. What we don't have right now (regarding companies collecting personal data) is true informed consent. It may be legal, but there's a lot of bullshit and befuddlement that passes as "legal".
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:34PM
I agree completely.
--
Always stop and look both ways at a train crossing.
You can't trust a train.
They have loco motives.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:58PM
Have a look at this piece, it explains quite well what this is really about. [theregister.co.uk]
TL;DR It is about protecting the tech companies from laws they don't want, rather than consumers' data
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)
As long as there is one, you have none.
You shouldn't trust companies, corporations and conglomerates anyway. They are not trustworthy and proved it numerous times, deliberately compromising your privacy/unintentionally leaking your data because of incompetence.
Just because there are laws doesn't mean they will follow laws, as long as they can lobby and corrupt and function as storefronts of three-letter agencies. Not even talking about possible loopholes and backups.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:02PM
You know we're a corporation here at SN, right? The 'PBC' in SoylentNews PBC stands for Public Benefit Corporation. We have a board and a couple of shareholders and everything. Hell, we even exploit unpaid labor.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:39PM
instead of the government doing it's job to hold companies accountable for fraud and broken laws/contracts (one of the few legitimate functions of government) they claim they need to be rewarded for not doing their jobs with more power. dumb people vote for it every time and the government gets bigger and more powerful.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:57PM (1 child)
The government has a right to be concerned that private companies have more data about people than the government has.
The government needs to have all of the combined information collected by Google, Facebook, banks, credit reporting agencies, health records and all other sources.
The government needs this in order to better serve you. Because the government is your friend and is trying to help you.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:36PM
that's exactly what this is about. a global control system in the early stages fighting over the slaves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by exaeta on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:22PM
It's one thing to restrict secret collection of data, but once the data is collected, disclosure restrictions generally run afoul of the First Amendment.
See, if you tell me your name is X, and the government says I cannot tell anyone else that, that is a speech restriction. Straightforward.
If congress pushes too hard, it will likely result in a case overruling the HIPPA precedents. There's no way to reconcile these speech restrictions with the so-called privacy interest. Privacy of this kind isn't constitutionally mandated, free speech is. As the examples become more egregious speech restrictions, the Supreme Court will be forced to revisit this issue.
Courts compartmentalizing our rights has done untold amounts of damage and many people aren't even aware of that fact. People are starting to wake up, however.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:32PM
if you enter your data into an application on my server it is not your data anymore. it is "our" data that is governed by my privacy policy and the TOS. in my case i don't do shit with our data except provide the services you request. these privacy laws are just pandering so that government slavemasters don't lose all control over their precious slaves to corps and actually only serves to further entrench the worst privacy offenders. they will add regulations over time to force the small players out. there are already some things like extracting all of one users data from backups that i'm not sure how to address, for instance. they are already mandating what features must be built into an app to do business based on the bad behavior of these scum that are so happy for regulation. they will allow the big players with all the lawyers to continue to screw the ignorant windows and mac using slaves. the same ignorant facebook using monkeys that will clamor for this legislation.