SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:18PM (18 children)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Of course there is. The Republicans and the Democrats controls the electoral system completely.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
cf. Democracy In Chains by Nancy MacLean. [c-span.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:49AM
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
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:45PM
Terror - the WAR on TERROR - which, of course, is all about directing the flow of money.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Thursday June 13 2019, @04:19PM
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.