Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the wind-of-change-is-blowin' dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/opinion/sunday/privacy-congress-facebook-google.html

In the past year, Congress has been happy to drag tech C.E.O.s into hearings and question them about how they vacuum up and exploit personal information about their users. But so far those hearings haven't amounted to much more than talk. Lawmakers have yet to do their job and rewrite the law to ensure that such abuses don't continue.

Americans have been far too vulnerable for far too long when they venture online. Companies are free today to monitor Americans' behavior and collect information about them from across the web and the real world to do everything from sell them cars to influence their votes to set their life insurance rates — all usually without users' knowledge of the collection and manipulation taking place behind the scenes. It's taken more than a decade of shocking revelations — of data breaches and other privacy abuses — to get to this moment, when there finally seems to be enough momentum to pass a federal law. Congress is considering several pieces of legislation that would strengthen Americans' privacy rights, and alongside them, a few bills that would make it easier for tech companies to strip away what few privacy rights we now enjoy.

American lawmakers are late to the party. Europe has already set what amounts to a global privacy standard with its General Data Protection Regulation, which went into effect in 2018. G.D.P.R. establishes several privacy rights that do not exist in the United States — including a requirement for companies to inform users about their data practices and receive explicit permission before collecting any personal information. Although Americans cannot legally avail themselves of specific rights under G.D.P.R., the fact that the biggest global tech companies are complying everywhere with the new European rules means that the technocrats in Brussels are doing more for Americans' digital privacy rights than their own Congress.

The toughest privacy law in the United States today, is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Just like G.D.P.R., it requires companies to take adequate security measures to protect data and also offers consumers the right to request access to the data that has been collected about them. Under the California law, consumers not only have a right to know whether their data is being sold or handed off to third parties, they also have a right to block that sale. And the opt-out can't be a false choice — Facebook and Google would not be able to refuse service just because a user didn't want their data sold.

[...] Where the Warner/Fischer bill looks to alleviate the harmful effects of data collection on consumers, Senator Josh Hawley's Do Not Track Act seeks to stop the problem much closer to the source, by creating a Do Not Track system administered by the Federal Trade Commission. Commercial websites would be required by law not to harvest unnecessary data from consumers who have Do Not Track turned on.

A similar idea appeared in a more comprehensive draft bill circulated last year by Senator Ron Wyden, but Mr. Wyden has yet to introduce that bill this session. Instead, like Mr. Warner, he seems to have turned his attention to downstream effects — for the time being, at least. This year, he is sponsoring a bill for algorithmic accountability, requiring the largest tech companies to test their artificial intelligence systems for biases, such as racial discrimination, and to fix those biases that are found.


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.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:18PM (18 children)

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:18PM (#854722)

    money.

    Personal data makes money.

    Personal data loss doesn't lose money.

    Hence, no corrective legislation until we have politicians that are not bought and paid for.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:31PM (#854729)

      Right, the biggest data analytics companies are American.
      When in the US did we ever want to put a damper on profits?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:36PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:36PM (#854733)

      For example, some of the biggest invaders of privacy just happen to be in and around the district of the Speaker of the House right now, and contributed substantially to her campaign. She's remarkably cheap to buy too: $30K from Alphabet, something like $750K in Apple stock, and she's perfectly willing to do their bidding.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:14PM (#854841)

        Wow, way to be objective. Don't look know but your political biases are showing.

        The lack of privacy legislation and data protection didn't start when Potato Pelosi became the speaker. It's been ongoing for several administrations and speakers.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:48AM

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:48AM (#854958)

          My political biases are that I'm way more left-wing than most Democrats, yes. And yes, Alphabet does a basically 50-50 split party wise, but I thought Pelosi was a pretty darn good example of the quintessential entrenched congresscritter.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:38PM

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:38PM (#854736)

      Yes, money.

      To complete the circle, the American consumertard public is exposed to a constant barrage of advertising and propaganda that helpfully informs them that are expected to give up their privacy to get things they want. Want 5 bucks off your purchase? Sign up for our store credit card! Want up to the second news? Download our FREE weather/news/spyware app and buy a new cell phone while you are at it! And they really believe this is all for their benefit.

      Of course, if spying on consumers it were explicitly illegal and enforced, many of those fake benifits/offers/services would indeed dry up. Who would spend time and money writing and maintaining an "app" if they couldn't mine user data?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:07PM (10 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:07PM (#854754) Journal

      no corrective legislation until we have voters that give a damn enough to vote out the crooks.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:55PM (9 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:55PM (#854893)

        Yeah, you keep saying that, but the weight of propaganda, gerrymandering and outright bribery prevents the voters from having enough influence to matter.

        Look at what the Republicans did when they lost control of Wisconsin to the Democrats. [nytimes.com] Now imagine what they would do if they lost control of a state to, say, the Greens.

        The people who run your country don't give a toss what you or any other voter wants, because you don't pay them.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:16AM (7 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:16AM (#854932) Journal

          There's no "gerrymandering" in the vote for US senators, correct? And propaganda, what? You saying people can't think for themselves? I mean, just because they don't, it doesn't mean they can't, or maybe it does. Whose fault is that?

          The Wisconsin voters failed to vote for a supporting legislature to go with their new governor. If they fill the legislature with Greens, you don't think the Greens will get what they want?

          Politicians don't give damn what people think, because they don't have to. They still win. Where's the incentive to change anything?

          What you have here is learned helplessness. The prison was built by the prisoner, he is the warden and the guard, and even then, the door is wide open. The voters do have influence, they just won't use it. Everybody is wagging the dog.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:25AM (6 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:25AM (#854935)

            There's no "gerrymandering" in the vote for US senators, correct?

            Of course there is. The Republicans and the Democrats controls the electoral system completely.

            The Wisconsin voters failed to vote for a supporting legislature to go with their new governor.

            The Wisconsin voters failed to realise that the Republicans don't want to submit to the will of the voters, and are prepared to grab power in any way they can.

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:38AM (4 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:38AM (#854941) Journal

              They do not! We have a process for nominating anyone we want outside the two (really one) party system, just need lots of signatures on a petition.

              The Wisconsin voters failed to realise that the Republicans don't want to submit to the will of the voters, and are prepared to grab power in any way they can.

              It's because Republicans won enough votes to keep their majority in the legislature that they can do that...

              *sigh* I give up.... But I have to admit I find all this denial quite fascinating. It certainly clarifies a lot as to the source of the problem, as if it needs more...

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:44AM (3 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:44AM (#854942)

                It certainly clarifies a lot as to the source of the problem...

                You might be assuming I live in the US, and I do not.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:14AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:14AM (#854948) Journal

                  No, you already told me that, but the opinion is damn near universal in the states also.

                  The Republicans and the Democrats controls the electoral system completely.

                  That was another hint that went over my head. Evidently in Europe the parties do decide who gets on the ballot. Not so in the US. Here they can kinda decide who the party's nominee will be (still put up the to voters though), but we can also nominate whoever we please with enough signatures. And for the most part we have a write-in option. I think it's a pretty good system, but people have to use their options to make it work. Unfortunately 95% of them prefer to be spoon fed by mass media, thus the illusion that nothing can be done. For the remaining 5% that is sorta true. They(we) are pretty much fucked.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:57PM (1 child)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:57PM (#855262)

                    Evidently in Europe the parties do decide who gets on the ballot

                    I am pretty sure that's wrong. Anyone can nominate themselves to be on the ballot, certainly where I live they can, and many do too.

                    How often do write in candidates win? Almost never is my guess, so that's just a fig leaf.

                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @08:52PM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @08:52PM (#855282) Journal

                      How often do write in candidates win? Almost never is my guess

                      That would be correct, and for precisely the same reason the others don't win, not enough votes. Nothing to do with a "rigged" system. There's no "conspiracy".

                      The blame remains where it always was. And despite the evidence in plain sight, the proverbial elephant in the room, the pathological denial remains as strong as ever.

                      --
                      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:15AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:15AM (#854967)

              Republicans don't want to submit to the will of the voters, and are prepared to grab power in any way they can.

              cf. Democracy In Chains by Nancy MacLean. [c-span.org]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:49AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:49AM (#854998) Journal

          The people who run your country don't give a toss what you or any other voter wants, because you don't pay them extra.

          FTFY.
          Point: actually, they don't give a toss about what the voters want because they know the voters are captive when it comes to money they pay for the "people who run the country".
          As sure as death and taxes, if you get my drift.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:45PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:45PM (#854774)

      Terror - the WAR on TERROR - which, of course, is all about directing the flow of money.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:19PM

      by Hyperturtle (2824) on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:19PM (#855181)

      I disagree with the third point, but it may be due to my internal cynic.

      People that value privacy will have to buy politicians just to even the playfield. Unless there is some initiative to make lobbying forbidden, which is not likely.

      Otherwise, I think it is a fantasy to believe that someone with the authority will wake up and impose restrictions on how personal data is monetized. It is a fantasy that lobbying from the social media and advertising firms will stop or become ineffective compared to the demands of the populace (companies will cry about jobs and profits--like *any* company about to get regulated), and it is a fantasy that there will be some sort of hero or heroes that arise, without lobbying burdens, with a purity of heart unseen within the crowd of purchased congress and senate members. It may become more political, even though privacy affects everyone.

      It's even more of a fantasy that somehow this noble person or people in the legislative branch will be able to overcome the odds against unfunded white knights against many funded to actively oppose privacy laws, or at least speak no ill about the panopticonomy. It'd take regime change or a lack of funding.

      The EU likely pulled off what they did because they are leery of American corporations, and by extension, the American government, having so much access to citizen data that the EU governments likely don't have full access to themselves. That lady in charge of the GPDR stuff really confused a lot of the executives of the various US based firms that she worked with. She acted subservient and understanding, offered them coffee when they visited, and then pulled out a sledgehammer when it came time to write the details within GPDR requirements. It took many US companies by surprise.

      Whether the true intentions were for defending the privacy of the common citizen, or perhaps less altruistically in defense their national security (or both)... doesn't matter so much in that they couldn't be as easily bribed due to the levers of power not being connected to the EU governmental bodies.

      That said, I agree with you 100% on the first two items. Privacy will become a luxury that only the rich can afford, and that only the richer can buy back what was once given away for free. It'll cost to remain private; data not handed out will be immensely valuable--sort of a mystique, and will drive more of a digital divide I am sure--the rich that keep control of their data and the non-rich that have to give it up in order to participate on the modern internet.

      Unfortunately, just like everywhere else, on the Internet, freedom has rarely been free.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:21PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:21PM (#854724)

    In America,

    Money == "free speech".
    One dollar, one vote.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:05PM (6 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:05PM (#854752) Journal

      That's strange. I never had to pay a dollar to vote. Now I wonder if it was counted.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:55PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:55PM (#854861)
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:57PM (2 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:57PM (#854924) Journal

          It just didn't count.

          Yeah, well, being a less than 5% minority, I really don't expect it to. But that's because of the other 95% that vote for the same old shit every time, not some vague conspiracy theory about rigged elections. So why should congress care what the voters think?

          And House democrats can bitch all they want about "gerrymandering", but that isn't an issue with the senate or the prez, is it? In fact the "gerrymandered" house won a bunch of democrat seats last year. The non-gerrymandered senate democrats lost a few. No message there, right?

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:51AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:51AM (#854999) Journal

            No message there, right?

            Is there one? 'Cause I fail to see one.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:12AM

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:12AM (#855006) Journal

              Yeah, the democrats' complaints about gerrymandering are bullshit. They refuse to see why they lose elections.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:03PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:03PM (#854865)

        Of course not. You are supposed to staple a check with the ballot. Noob.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:24AM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:24AM (#854934) Journal

          No, they explicitly say not to staple the check. I guess it jams the machine.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:34PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:34PM (#854731)

    i don't like surveillance capitalism nor companies that use it but the idea that an alternative master is going to somehow help the slaves' predicament is just propaganda for the enemy. you can shove your state socialist dystopia up your ass too.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:38PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:38PM (#854737)

      please clarify what socialism exactly you are referring to ?
      Is it the subsidies for corporations and 1% at the expense of the rest of the USA ?

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:10PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:10PM (#854839) Journal

        “While President Trump and his fellow oligarchs attack us for our support of democratic socialism, they don’t really oppose all forms of socialism,” he said. “They may hate democratic socialism because it benefits working people, but they absolutely love corporate socialism that enriches Trump and other billionaires.”

        Senator Bernie Sanders, Today [thehill.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:48AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:48AM (#855013)

          The mask looks good on him, doesn't it?

          Too bad he's just a democrat sheepdog and not a real candidate.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:54PM (#855173)

            And yet I have a sneaking suspicion you voted for Trump.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:10PM (#855776)

              Well, of course you would! Big deal! So what? Bullshit is what we expect from you. That's the typical response from all the democrats to anybody that didn't vote for Clinton!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:11PM (#855230)

        i said "state socialism". what is unclear about that? why would i be in favor of tax credits/reductions for corps or the 1%? the income tax is illegitimate and un-american to begin with. the federal reserve and their control of our "money" is illegitimate. my point was that if you think the state is going to save you from the corp you're an ignorant/brainwashed slave and will forever be abused.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:43PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:43PM (#854741)

      In the absence of market regulation, abuse always occurs.

      In this particular case, the market mechanism is distorted because of information asymmetry in that Americans do not know what PII is being gathered about them, and have no recourse to address that asymmetry.

      Ensuring that such information is (slightly) more symmetrical is a start. There's nothing socialist about trying to ensure more efficient markets.

      If living in a representative democracy represents slavery to you, Somalia beckons, my anarchomoron friend.

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:27PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:27PM (#855236)

        "In the absence of market regulation, abuse always occurs."

        there are more than two ways (fascism[republicans] and state socialism[democrats]) to organize society.

        "In this particular case, the market mechanism is distorted because of information asymmetry in that Americans do not know what PII is being gathered about them, and have no recourse to address that asymmetry."

        i agree. i don't agree that some professional liar is going to help that situation.

        "There's nothing socialist about trying to ensure more efficient markets."

        uhh, there is, when you use state force, and you know that already. you liar.

        "If living in a representative democracy represents slavery to you, Somalia beckons, my anarchomoron friend."

        what does representative democracy have to do with what you want to do with it?

        why can't you stop being deceitful like all the rest of the subversives in this country.

        "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

        i'm not going anywhere. anarchists and libertarians are much closer to what a real american is. fascists and state socialists have plenty of countries to go to.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:37PM (#855257)

          I'd congratulate you on being both deliberately obtuse and disingenuous at the same time.

          However, it may be that you actually are that dumb and brainwashed. As such, I'll refrain from doing so.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:25PM (#854762)

      Heh, sent over the edge by "so far behind Europe." MURRICA NUMBAR UNO BITCHES!

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:53PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:53PM (#854806) Journal

        Well, you could rephrase the title as:
        The US Leads the World in Spying on Citizens.

        We're number 1.

        P.S.: That may not be true, but I have no real reason to doubt it. OTOH, China seems to be coming up fast on the inside track.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:31PM (#855238)

        yes but b/c the title suggests that state socialism is beneficial, and therefore the US is "behind" Europe when it lacks state socialism. that is the purpose of the title. once again i think you people know this, but you lie anyways. either that or you're just fucking stupid.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:36PM (#854734)

    "requiring the largest tech companies to test their artificial intelligence systems for biases, such as racial discrimination, and to fix those biases that are found."

    Of course it will only apply if the AI makes any uncomfortable conclusions about protected races. It anything negative is concluded for whites, then that's just AI confirming wokeness is objective truth. And the AI will be legislatively required to be undergo reeducation using "correct" examples until it repeats back the answers the politcians demand. Just like they do to humans.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:51PM (#854745)

    Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft... And suckers all around the world happily spill their guts to them every single day.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:30PM (11 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:30PM (#854764) Homepage Journal

    The founders thought they had it covered. They tried to restrict the government, by requiring warrants, etc..

    In recent times, well, the EU is a younger government. Corruption is less entrenched in the EU parliament. In the US, essentially all Congress critters are on the take, because that's the only way to get elected.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:21PM (8 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:21PM (#854874) Homepage

      People always say that some of the things in our constitution are antiquated and no longer apply, often citing the second amendment ("assault rifles didn't exist in the days of the revolutionary war"). Well, I disagree with that one, but in retrospect birthright citizenship was a pretty big mistake, because demographic warfare has been a thing since the dawn of time. I think Denmark's attitude regarding birthright citizenship should be the minimum escalation that America should strive for.

      With that, a constitutional convention, and the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census; We'd be on the right track to making America great again. A true despot couldn't just deport all the illegals overnight and then expect to use the violence as an excuse to consolidate his power, because the illegals are his army to use against discontent citizens -- all a despot would have to do is get their CIA or a friendly foreign army such as the IDF/Mossad to provide that army of illegals guns and, thanks to Obama's NSA data sharing relaxations, names and locations of specific targets.

      If I were a despot seeking to consolidate my power through violence, that would be the method I would use, because the violence would at first appear to be committed by random vagrants and the inertia from it being verboten to criticize illegal migrants, even violent ones. They would be able to hide amongst the general population a lot better than former eleven-bravos wearing Oakley shades and with steroids in their blood. In the case of actual Mossad agents on U.S. soil, lots of those people look like Mexicans and in many such cases are real Mexicans, so if they keep a low-profile and only their disposables get caught for interrogation, a lot of damage could be inflicted.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:20PM (6 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:20PM (#854904)

        That spiel would be funny if it wasn't so weird.

        Why are you so frightened of other people?

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:25PM (5 children)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:25PM (#854907) Homepage

          Sometimes a lot of us get together and discuss thought experiments. We are not against our own people, but if you want to dominate a nation, how would you do it? What I just described is how I would do it, should I have that mentality.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:33PM (4 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:33PM (#854909)

            I wonder why so many of your "thought experiments" involve "The Jews" doing bad stuff?

            • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:57PM (3 children)

              by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:57PM (#854923) Homepage

              Don't ask me, ask them.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:10AM

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:10AM (#854930)

                Ha!

                OK, I will phone my sister tonight. Now that she is a Jew she must be busy taking over the world and doing bad stuff and things.

                I will probably have to leave a message.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:26AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:26AM (#854937)

                How can so many voices fit inside one tiny head like that of Ethanol_funnelled? "Thought experiment"= paranoid schizophrenia.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:04AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:04AM (#855003) Journal

                  RIP MDC, de mortuis nil nisi bene.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:21PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:21PM (#854906)

        Oh sorry, I just realised. Spiel is probably a Jewish word too, just to make it worse for you.

    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:16PM (1 child)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:16PM (#854903)

      ...the EU is a younger government.

      You do know that Europe has been doing government for longer than the United States has existed don't you?

      They didn't just forget what they had learned when they set up the EU.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:31AM (#854938)

        Brad is American. That means near complete ignorance of history, and geography. He only lives in the country of "Europe", which is next to the country of "Africa". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:31PM (7 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:31PM (#854766)

    For one thing, I'm glad that us backwards Americans are "so far behind" Europe on their stupid Right To Be Forgotten.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:48PM (6 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:48PM (#854775)

      I love the concept of the "right to be forgotten."

      Too bad that it's about as practical as legislating Pi to be 3.0.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:04PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:04PM (#854782)

        No it isn't. Not all companies will follow the law, but it drastically reduces your digital footprint since most will comply and delete your data. There are too many people, why risk punishment for a few that want their data scrubbed?

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:21PM (4 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:21PM (#854817)

          Not all companies will follow the law, but it drastically reduces your digital footprint since most will comply and delete your data. There are too many people, why risk punishment for a few that want their data scrubbed?

          You say that like it's a good thing. Why does your "right" to hide inconvenient facts about your history override my "right" to be able to read history?

          Presumably the tendency here in the U.S. for people with a felony on their record to basically be SOL about finding a good job for the rest of their life is tightly intertwined with the idea of R2BF, but...there are other ways to deal with that, than covering up history and making it hard to find information on things.

          While the E.U. is approaching this from a different philosophical direction, in the end their demands for the rest of the world to remove information on the Internet to appease them is on the same level as angry Muslims demanding comics with Muhammad in them be censored. If you want to legislate this stuff on servers hosted in your own country, go crazy. Don't try to force the rest of the world to play along.

          Another instance where the global nature of the world is trying to override the U.S. Constitution via treaties and whatever. To which I say, fuck right off.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:54PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:54PM (#854860)

            Why does your "right" to hide inconvenient facts about your history override my "right" to be able to read history?

            That's actually a very good question. You know why ? Because it can be asked the other way around:

            "Why does your right to be able to read history override my right to hide inconvenient facts about my history?"

            ...and it's still similarly impossible to answer.

            This question, and others like it, can be summed up by this simple one: Why does my personal interest override yours ? And Vice Versa ?

            And it is still as impossible to answer today as it was the day it got asked for the first time, tens of thousands of years ago. And yet, finding the answer is the one absolute condition that will enable humanity to exit barbarism and truly enter the realm of civilization.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:58PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:58PM (#854863)

              Yeah, while not really applicable I would say this concept falls somewhat under the 4th amendment.

              If your neighbor suspects you of doing something bad then police should be able to enter your home to search right? /s

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:45AM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:45AM (#854956) Journal

            Why does your "right" to hide inconvenient facts about your history override my "right" to be able to read history?

            Because, uh... privacy. We used to have it. Some of those privacy rights were legislated or came about through court rulings; in other cases (as in many of those dealing with the "right to be forgotten" stuff) privacy often happened de facto because searching old records was hard. But there are legal precedents in various countries going back centuries that hint at a limit to how long a "scarlet letter" should follow you around in your life.

            To your assertion, personal data is NOT "history." History, as normally understood, is a narrative constructed by historians to connect historical facts -- in essence, to tell the "story" of a culture at a particular time or an event or whatever. Most private individuals who are not famous during their lifetimes were not traditionally part of "history" per se. You have no objective "right" to read about other people's actions of fifty years ago anymore than you have the right to enter their house and rummage through their old letters and other records. They are private individuals.

            Now, of course, aggregation of data and new search technologies have made this question more complicated. Now people are often able to easily dig up old records about individuals from public databases, newspapers, etc. There used to be a way of bringing a lawsuit against someone who did that and then used it to shame someone publicly -- it was (is?) a tort called "false light." That is, you may make a true statement about a person, but if it draws attention unfairly to that person in the public eye, it might be similar to libel.

            I'm not saying the way the EU is dealing with "right to be forgotten" stuff is ideal or even a good way to handle it. But if you believe at all in privacy rights, then you have no objective "right" to know everything about someone's personal history, even if it might exist in some public source somewhere. How to deal with that in the modern age is a difficult question, but it is a question we should ask.

            (And if you have a kneejerk reaction against this, please do remember that there are numerous cases where people get unwanted attention even for things they didn't do. Newspapers publish breaking stores about "alleged" pedophiles or rapists or whatever all the time, and some of them turn out to be acquitted. Sometimes the prosecutions were complete overreach and even BS to put pressure for some other reason. These things have happened. They may not be the majority of prosecutions for such crimes, but they HAVE happened. Yet newspapers rarely publish a front-page story when someone random is acquitted of a crime, let alone when the charges are silently dropped when the prosecution realizes its case is crap. But that info remains out there now... how is someone to deal with that? It's not just people trying to hide inconvenient info about bad acts: sometimes people are trying to change the fact that their online profile has been severely distorted by half-truths or completely misleading statements about them.)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:35PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:35PM (#854768)

    This summary just flatly asserts that GPDR works. (I can't see TFA because I've reached my free limits of NYT coverage).

    What does GPDR do again? Ooh, I must be told that the company is collecting my personal information - companies ALREADY did this in their notice of privacy practices. Same fine print, different day. It required the announcement of breaches to relevant authorities within 72 hours. The relevant authority in the United States is.... er .... um .......... Oh, there's not a singular bureaucracy to receive the report. (Outside of healthcare breaches where HIPAA mandates HHS shall be notified in certain cases). And that's a bad thing?

    In theory, the United States is NOT the EU. If it isn't explicitly Federal, it's a state thing, and it's hard to get the Fed to respect that these days. That's not a bad thing either. This was as much a victory for EU hegemonization as actual service.

    According to Slate [slate.com], of all places, the law doesn't really have teeth to fine operators in any way that will deter their practices. (Much like laws everywhere. Too much fines = all small players leave. Too little fines = all big players don't even feel the pinch). Further, plenty of places (like news organizations) just said, "screw it. We don't make money from Europe anyway, so we'll go dark there."

    I'm not arguing privacy shouldn't be protected, and I'm not trying for an intentional troll here. Only that whether GPDR works (and is more beneficial to its costs of compliance) is not something in evidence yet.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:08PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:08PM (#854785)

      companies ALREADY did this in their notice of privacy practices.

      They did? I'm sure archive.org must have captured a ton of them, predating 25 May 2016. Note that legalese doesn't count, as the GDPR states it must be explained in plain language.

      So, either provide proof from before the GDPR installment date, or you have inadvertently proven that both the GDPR is necessary and that it works.

      In theory, the United States is NOT the EU

      In practice, it also isn't. And we're quite happy about that on this side of the pond.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:20PM (1 child)

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @09:20PM (#854848) Journal

        Instead, how about you provide proof that the system before meant people couldn't find out how their data is being used and now they can? I've read dozens of privacy agreements. None of them were difficult to understand and all of them pretty much said: 1) You'll provide us with your data. 2) We will use this data to deliver you services. 3) We may share this data with others. [With the rare exception that said we will not]. 4) By using our service you consent to this use.

        I'll happily give you that GPDR made it necessary to install check boxes to say "I explicitly agree to this," (and failing to do so means you don't get the services), and required adding code to every site that places cookies on your machine (again a useless but feel-good gesture).

        But since the article decided to just establish that GPDR works without proving it, no, the proof is on you to provide tangible evidence of its benefits and how the costs in development of compliance are outweighed by them.

        In theory, the United States is NOT the EU

        In practice, it also isn't. And we're quite happy about that on this side of the pond.

        Could have fooled me - This law seems to neatly twist the arm of any U.S. websites that wanted to welcome European visitors, no matter where the server is located or products warehoused or services delivered under pain of fines or internet breakage. Which is why some groups said, "y'all ain't worth it," and so much for an internet without borders (not that we necessarily had that before, either).

        --
        This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:35PM

          by quietus (6328) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:35PM (#855098) Journal

          Maybe they could find out how their data was used (though I doubt it) before by reading the fine print, but now tracking is in the face of every regular Joe and Jane.

          As a general rule, before you can enter a site, the site will show you a message announcing they use cookies to gather information. If you're ok with that, you can continue to the site; if not, there's a button titled More Information or some such.

          That button will lead to a page where you can select/deselect which cookies you want to allow, split out by functionality (functional, statistics, personalized content, adverts, social media and so on), and showing details like a local paper is working with Froomle, Gravity and Trackuity to offer personalized content.

          I have not yet encountered an EU site which blocked me if I disabled all cookies. While US sites are not yet copying the practice, some are moving towards the model, e.g. slashdot.

          This stuff is hidden behind javascript for non-EU visitors (if (window.is_euro_union)), but underneath you can see the text description of the options available. Deselecting all will still let you view all of slashdot, btw.

          Information storage and access

          The storage of information, or access to information that is already stored, on your device such as advertising identifiers, device identifiers, cookies, and similar technologies.

          Off

          Personalisation

          The collection and processing of information about your use of this service to subsequently personalise advertising and/or content for you in other contexts, such as on other websites or apps, over time. Typically, the content of the site or app is used to make inferences about your interests, which inform future selection of advertising and/or content.

          Off

          Ad selection, delivery, reporting

          The collection of information, and combination with previously collected information, to select and deliver advertisements for you, and to measure the delivery and effectiveness of such advertisements. This includes using previously collected information about your interests to select ads, processing data about what advertisements were shown, how often they were shown, when and where they were shown, and whether you took any action related to the advertisement, including for example clicking an ad or making a purchase. This does not include personalisation, which is the collection and processing of information about your use of this service to subsequently personalise advertising and/or content for you in other contexts, such as websites or apps, over time.

          Off

          Content selection, delivery, reporting

          The collection of information, and combination with previously collected information, to select and deliver content for you, and to measure the delivery and effectiveness of such content. This includes using previously collected information about your interests to select content, processing data about what content was shown, how often or how long it was shown, when and where it was shown, and whether the you took any action related to the content, including for example clicking on content. This does not include personalisation, which is the collection and processing of information about your use of this service to subsequently personalise content and/or advertising for you in other contexts, such as websites or apps, over time.

          Off

          Measurement

          The collection of information about your use of the content, and combination with previously collected information, used to measure, understand, and report on your usage of the service. This does not include personalisation, the collection of information about your use of this service to subsequently personalise content and/or advertising for you in other contexts, i.e. on other service, such as websites or apps, over time.

          Off

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:04PM (#854783)

    n/t

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by jon3k on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:10PM (3 children)

    by jon3k (3718) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 12 2019, @07:10PM (#854787)

    Conversely: why is the US so far ahead of Europe in technology? Maybe there is a correlation between the two? Maybe a less regulated environment fosters more development? I don't know.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:46PM (#854829)

      You are so right. Look at those horrible excuses for trains in Europe. We have them beat badly there.

      And look at all those Mac IIs and PC XTs over there. They don't even have iPhones. Barbarians!

      And they have no aircraft manufacturers, either. Or any space capabilities. Hell, they can't even launch humans into space. Only the US can do that!

      And forget about science! The US always has the biggest and best particle accelerators!

      *For the Poe impaired, that's satire. Why don't you go to Europe and see for yourself. Do you even have a valid passport?

      Although you are right in the sense that we have the best "do mundane shit on a computer so we can track your every waking moment, But wait! There's more! If you use our patented sleep tracker, we'll spy on you 24/7" technology on the planet.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:29PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:29PM (#854876) Homepage

      We're so far ahead of others in the technology space but it doesn't do 99% of us any damn good because that tech is classified and we won't be able to enjoy it for at least another 20 years. For example, my grandfather who was a military officer used his background in optics to develop photogrammetry -- making 3-D models from 2-D images -- back in the fucking seventies.

      Now, finally, we saw it in Google Maps and other software suites decades later.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Common Joe on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:49AM

      by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:49AM (#854959) Journal

      Because after WWII, most of Europe was a smouldering crater while the U.S. wasn't. That had a lasting effect which many Americans confuse with being blessed by God as we jumped ahead technologically. Because of globalization, the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world no longer exists. I'm quite worried how hard the U.S. is about to have its ass handed to it by one of the other superpowers. Given a choice, though, I would rather Europe kick its ass than China, Russia, or India.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:01PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @10:01PM (#854864)

    There's a lot of lip service paid to privacy, but how far does it really go to actually protect people? WRT Germany, I'm thinking of how the Einwohnermeldeamt (civil registration office) will sell data to marketers (the civil registration offices perform a function similar to US identification laws: provide an address for the police to raid at 4am if they want you, registering your residence is mandatory), or the exemptions agreed to because all the big tech companies were processing data in the US, or the exemptions provided for US government agencies to receive data.

    • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:54AM

      by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:54AM (#854961) Journal

      As you point out, the GDPR is far from perfect, but (in my opinion) that isn't the discussion. The discussion is if something GDPR-like for the U.S. is worth the trouble... after we make sure there aren't any exploitable loop holes. And whether we can prevent ourselves from making an impotent GDPR-like law (since we have a tendency to like companies vacuuming up our data).

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:00PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:00PM (#854896) Homepage Journal

    In the eyes of Anti American Editors Bytram(Martyb)& Janrinok -- and the Fake (Corrupt) New York Times. God Bless America!!!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:18AM (#854968)

      USA! USA! USA! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸!

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:25AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:25AM (#855034) Journal

    Could it be, that in its emphasis on guns, religion, a slave-based racisim, America is just stupider than most other nations? That is my experience, and I have a lot of experience, but then, America is a young nation. A young, still stupid, nation.

  • (Score: 2) by Lester on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:53AM (2 children)

    by Lester (6231) on Thursday June 13 2019, @07:53AM (#855038) Journal

    USA citizens don't like regulations, they suspect of government and think that it should step aside and let citizens regulate by themselves and only interfere in the worst cases. Europe citizens like regulations, they suspect of stronger or richer citizens (or companies) and think that government has to protect them by regulations from abuses from 500Lb gorillas. In Europe there is a regulation tradition. They try to anticipate problems and regulate it in advance or, at least, as soon as they detect abuses. In USA there is the tradition of the Far West: let people occupy territory with no laws. So the expansion will be fast, they will occupy territory as soon as possible and as much as possible, and let's not regulate until problems can't be ignored.

    But in this case there are another factors.

    Most IT companies and internet services are supplied by American companies, and those services are sold around the world. They have a huge income from USA, but they have more income from foreign countries. That implies that USA government doesn't want to hinder those companies.

    • Whomever those companies hurt, they hurt more foreign people than USA citizens.
    • Information is power, NSA etc have a golden mine in those companies. (it have been said that in its early days Facebook got 40$ millions from NSA).
    • Governments, democracies or dictatorships, want to control their citizens. All those companies give information to USA government with no court control, in exchange, government let them harvest information and use it for whatever they want. But foreign countries can't do that easily, collaboration with foreign governments, when made public, has had a backlash for this companies.
    • Those companies lobby USA government with a lot of success. They also lobby foreign institutions, but it is a little more difficult, people is a little less eager to be "convinced" by a company that belongs to a foreign power .
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:04PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:04PM (#855137)

      The truth is, you should always be suspicious of those who have power. In the past, that basically was the government. Today, big corporations have almost the same, and in some cases even more power as governments. But unlike the government, the corporations are not controlled at all by the citizens. That's why today, you should be especially suspicious of the big corporations. And the only ones powerful enough to keep the corporations under control are the governments.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:39PM (#855242)

        "And the only ones powerful enough to keep the corporations under control are the governments."

        but they won't. not even in the EU. they will simply bless certain big corps and they will work together to screw the little guy, since that is the business model for both already. it's just a merger with window dressing, IOW.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:46AM (#855082)

    the tiger showed its stripes a while back, the c*ck pentagon and israel are taking over the united states and so they know very well that they have to convince 300 million people to do a lot of things they would rather not do.

    For this end, no one who could explain the functioning of a transistor is included in the 500 or so alleged human beings in the representative, sortof, law making body. This is the main answer, no congresspeople understand in any functional way the technology. This makes a sort of wild west scenario where before no one in washington d.c. knew what was even going on in montana, now no one in washington d.c. knows what is going on in a microchip or router or 5g(lol what) or website or cookie or basically any technological advance of the last 30 years.

    It is very important then that all of the independent minded people capable of explaining how a vast framework of population control is being built, are silenced and never, ever make it into this body, or any other part of the oligarchy and absolutely are never allowed to speak for more than 30 seconds on a mass media channel.

    First they will be algorithmically identified by the IQ level of their postings, then their job and education history will be researched, then their loyalties analyzed.

    If you cannot be integrated with the interests of the oligarchy, you will be harassed, blacklisted, and of course all of the most ironclad tools of surveillance will be automated against you 24/7.

    To ask something like 'why is the usa behind in privacy protections' is the wrong question, 'how can we escape the monster before it eats us' fits this particular moment much better.

    So help the capitalist oligarchy or be eaten by it, or find a third way. A lot of us are working on a third way and I believe it has to do with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

(1)