New Bill Promises an End To Our Privacy Nightmare, Jail Time To CEOs Who Lie (vice.com) 166
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has unveiled updated privacy legislation he says will finally bring accountability to corporations that play fast and loose with your private data. Dubbed the Mind Your Own Business Act, the bill promises consumers the ability to opt out of data collection and sale with a single click. It also demands that corporations be transparent as to how consumer data is collected, used, and who it's sold to, while imposing harsh fines and prison sentences upon corporations and executives that misuse consumer data and lie about it.
Wyden's bill authorizes the FTC to impose fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenues on companies that fail to protect consumer data. The bill also proposes 10-20 year prison sentences for senior executives who knowingly lie to the FTC. Companies whose executives are convicted will pay a tax based on the salary they paid to the officials who lied, Wyden's office told Motherboard. The Mind Your Own Business Act also mandates the creation of a national Do Not Track system that gives consumers the ability to quickly and easily opt out of the collection and sale of their private data without having to dig through confusing corporate websites. The bill also restricts companies looking to make privacy a luxury option. Wyden's proposal would also require that corporations give consumers an easy way to review all of the data a company has about them and correct inaccuracies. Giants like Facebook would also be required to analyze any algorithms that process consumer data -- to more closely examine their impact on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.
Wyden's bill authorizes the FTC to impose fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenues on companies that fail to protect consumer data. The bill also proposes 10-20 year prison sentences for senior executives who knowingly lie to the FTC. Companies whose executives are convicted will pay a tax based on the salary they paid to the officials who lied, Wyden's office told Motherboard. The Mind Your Own Business Act also mandates the creation of a national Do Not Track system that gives consumers the ability to quickly and easily opt out of the collection and sale of their private data without having to dig through confusing corporate websites. The bill also restricts companies looking to make privacy a luxury option. Wyden's proposal would also require that corporations give consumers an easy way to review all of the data a company has about them and correct inaccuracies. Giants like Facebook would also be required to analyze any algorithms that process consumer data -- to more closely examine their impact on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.
4%, an insightful number (Score:5, Insightful)
So at first, I thought, "4% is nothing, that's like a big rounding error," but then I double checked. It is 4% of REVENUE, not 4% of profit. Take away 4% of gross, and many companies will start showing net losses. And that's exactly what you want: punishment that allows the business to continue operating, but delivers a painful whack.
It would be very interesting to understand how that number was chosen, and potentially enlightening as well.
Yeah, ... no. (Score:2)
Compare it to our salaries.
4% may hurt in that one paycheck, but it won't exactly kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's annual income, pre-tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Estimates are that your data is worth between $1 to $100 [usatoday.com] to data collectors, with that high end being for Facebook specifically. So even 4% of revenue seems like it'll be too small. They'll basically pay a $10 fine to make $100. Companies like Facebook will simply use it as a cost they have to pay for legal permission to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$50,000 per violation but not greater than a sum aggregate of 4% of their annual gross revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Appreciate that the 4% is not a one-time fine that protects Facebook in perpetuity. The fine is assessed for each infraction. That's how your figure of 225 million Facebook users in the U.S. becomes a multiplier.
Re: (Score:2)
Even companies like Amazon which do have other revenue streams besides selling their customer's informational souls can get around this by spinning off their privacy violating divisions into another company
Re: (Score:2)
As I mention above, the 4% fine is not a license to continue violating the law. Each instance is the factor that determines the total amount.
Re:4%, an insightful number (Score:5, Informative)
That "up to 4%" seems like it was taken verbatim from the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Of course it does not answer your question of how did calculate it whoever came up with it originally.
Re: (Score:3)
That "up to 4%" seems like it was taken verbatim from the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Of course it does not answer your question of how did calculate it whoever came up with it originally.
Also, I don't think it's a particularly good approach. If a company operates on a 3% gross margin, then 4% may well destroy them. If a company has a 50% margin (some of the big tech companies have even higher margins... Facebook's gross margins over the past 10 years have ranged from a low of 73% to a high of 87%!), then 4% of revenue may easily be written off as a cost of doing business, if the violations are essential to the business model.
I assume that the "up to" part means that regulators can scale
Re: (Score:2)
That "up to 4%" seems like it was taken verbatim from the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Of course it does not answer your question of how did calculate it whoever came up with it originally.
I don't know the reasoning behind the 4%, either.
I speculate that since 4% is a working number somewhere, it's convenient to use that figure as a precedent. GDPR may be establishing a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'll never actually pass, but I've been saying for years forget huge fines to corporations, jail the CEO and board of Directors.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's 4% of global revenues in the EU's GDPR, but that might be just a happy random happenstance. Sounds all very similar to the GDPR on the surface, although the prison terms are a cool bonus ;)
Re:4%, an insightful number (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one gap. Corporations should be required by law to inform all people they keep information on, once per year and provide a copy of that information, all of it, on request, don't want them spreading lies about you that impact you, that you never hear of. Fail and custodial sentence, send incomplete data, custodial sentences, the data is incorrect, you contest it and they fail to correct sue they lose in court over the accuracy custodial sentence, a fine and damage. They should also provide a complete list of companies they supplied data to so you can verify what additional data those companies keep.
This, make no mistake what so ever, is all about hugely increasing the cost of storing data. Privacy invasive shite weasel like Google would have to contact and verify billions of people, even it if just costs 10 dollars from start to end, that's ten billion dollars every year and then there is the cost of contested data, more billions gone, it will be cheaper to minimise data kept.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same as the GDPR, which this law seems to be based on (e.g. 4% is the same as the GDPR), and Google complies with that just fine. I doubt the cost will be all that significant, especially as they have most of the infrastructure in place already to handle it for Europe.
Re:4%, an insightful number (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the same as the GDPR, which this law seems to be based on (e.g. 4% is the same as the GDPR), and Google complies with that just fine. I doubt the cost will be all that significant, especially as they have most of the infrastructure in place already to handle it for Europe.
You and the post above you are on point. The GDPR is where the 4% comes from. The EU is really getting tough on data privacy.
America should have been in the lead on this years ago.
What with the rise of the Capitalistic Party, and with the help of SCOTUS Citizen United, American ideals are a small noise drowned out by the scramble for money.
Re:4%, an insightful number (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it should be 4 percent of annual revenues per person affected
Same with the prison sentence. 10-20 years per person affected
Politics is the art of the possible. Even as written, this bill has less than 1% chance of becoming law. With what you propose, it would have no chance at all.
You greatly overestimate how much your fellow citizens care about this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping the absurdity made the facetiousness clear. Everybody is so literal!
To tell the truth, this "proposal" looks more like a media event than anything. Everybody knows it won't pass with this congress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was hoping the absurdity made the facetiousness clear.
For some it may have. For others, not so much.
Everybody is so literal!
Being clear and unambiguous facilitates more efficient communication with less misunderstandings, which is in most cases good for everyone.
Case in point: You needing to reply to your own post to clarify. You could just have been clear from the start.
Everybody knows it won't pass with this congress.
Putting forth proposals like this conveys the fact that there are options to consider when electing future congresses. For some people - those who actually care about things - that is useful information to have.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody knows it won't pass with this congress.
I can't think of any bill that would pass this Congress. They can only seem to pass condemnations of certain quotes, but in terms of legislation nothing is going to happen. I only bring this up because it's an argument that can be applied to almost anything, and it'd be much better to talk about bills/proposals we like or want improved in terms of some other metric than 'whether Congress would pass it'. Much better to fight for ideas than to be res
Re: (Score:2)
In agreement with your main argument, but one minor quip:
Everybody knows it won't pass with this congress.
I can't think of any bill that would pass this Congress. They can only seem to pass condemnations of certain quotes, but in terms of legislation nothing is going to happen. I only bring this up because it's an argument that can be applied to almost anything, and it'd be much better to talk about bills/proposals we like or want improved in terms of some other metric than 'whether Congress would pass it'. Much better to fight for ideas than to be resigned to the brokenness of our primary legislative body.
To quip your quip, I got hit with this by an English professor:
" Everyone ? Like those in Ethiopia? Like newborns?" I've never made that mistake since.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it should be 4 percent of annual revenues per person affected
Same with the prison sentence. 10-20 years per person affected
Politics is the art of the possible. Even as written, this bill has less than 1% chance of becoming law. With what you propose, it would have no chance at all.
You greatly overestimate how much your fellow citizens care about this issue.
I agree except that your value of 1% is a huge overestimate. Even those people who are aware and actually give a shit don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Even less of a chance of any CEO seeing the inside of a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it should be 4 percent of annual revenues per person affected
Same with the prison sentence. 10-20 years per person affected
That might work.
Deal is, what are the loopholes? And what are the chances of it passing? Or is this a media event?
It isn't a loophole, it is a protection racket.
"That's a mighty nice company you have there - it would be a shame if something happened to it, or happened to you. 10 million to my re-election campaign, and 5 million in this Cayman's Island account should keep everyone happy and healthy, capiche? ,
Re: (Score:3)
Realistically I give this about 0% chance of passing. Too many lobbyists.
Nice thought though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
and other phrases like, racist, xenophobe, homophobe, misogynist, democracy, regulation, capitalism, socialist, and well... you get the idea.
Everybody is doing it. But you are right... the overuse and clear misuse of all these terms has definitely watered them down and led to a great many people using them as though they mean something other than what the dictionary says about them.
But there is one thing you are dead wrong on.
"it's an ambiguous phrase, so most people don't actually ascribe any meaning to
Re: (Score:3)
To the truly cynical, every action or phrase is mere virtue signalling. Your comment? Just virtue signalling, showing everyone what a smart guy you are. My comment? Same, just a little self puffery, "Hey everyone, look at me, I'm a critic! I'm smarter than this guy I'm criticizing."
To the asshole, on the other hand, only things they don't like are virtue signalling.
Re: (Score:2)
We should come up with a form of speaking that doesn't have all these troublesome adjectives that can be abused by the disingenuous.
We could call it 'Newspeak' and this would be better because then with a more limited vocabulary, people would be less likely to misuse concepts that can accurately describe a person's intent or even hypocrisy.
Debating also can make people feel bad. We should put a stop to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up!
"Cognitive dissonance" was another one.
And everything these days is "offensive" or "racist", to the point that it means almost nothing anymore.
The earlier example of "Virtue signaling" was a bad example but it's definitely a valid term in the right context, just as racist is.
The issue is when they're used without really understanding what they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up!
"Cognitive dissonance" was another one.
And everything these days is "offensive" or "racist", to the point that it means almost nothing anymore.
The earlier example of "Virtue signaling" was a bad example but it's definitely a valid term in the right context, just as racist is.
The issue is when they're used without really understanding what they mean.
As my momma used to tell me, "Son, it's important to be able to tell the difference between bullshit and wild honey."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the same thing foes for, "triggered," "snowflake," "retard," etc.
One says tomato and one says tomahto. Virtue signaling is effective if there are consequences, motivation be damned.
If Walmart says no open carry, that's virtue signaling. Guess what, though? There's no open carry.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this logic is of course that it leaves no room for true and valid virtue. (a good thing)
Like the guy that actually want's the water his family and his constituents to be free of toxins.
Like the guy who actually wants as many people as possible to have health care. /helps old lady across the street.
"Oh look at this dude virtue signalling"
It's a destructive, and as someone else pointed out, cynical term , all to often used by the weak minded.
Re: (Score:2)
"Virtue Signaling" is acting in a way to appear virtuous without doing any of the hard work of actually being virtuous. You know, working to make the world a better place for your fellow human beings. Examples would be destroying people using social media instead of working to clean up a neighborhood or otherwise helping others.
In short, it's fakery.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with the word "racist". It's lost its dictionary meaning due to the left using it to demean ANYbody they disagree with... I especially get a good laugh out of the left calling Candice Owens a "racist" when she is black. They call her that because she is EVERYTHING the left won't allow for blacks in America. She is a Conservative and speaks her mind, and to the left, any black thats "gone off the reservation" as she has, is demeaned endlessly..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if slashdot turned into a bunch of boot lickers while I was away or if zuckerberg just hired more active shills to socially engineer comments for him.
It's the former.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the ladder. It's the step ladder. We never knew our real ladder.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ooooh....bad idea.
I understand your thinking here, but still, this is a bad idea.
"Government owns the means of production"...sound familiar to you?
This could lead to very unintended
Can still sell the data sets (Score:2)
5 eyes got to spy.
Re:MUST still sell the data sets (Score:2)
Sell? (Score:2)
Nah, pay all the expenses, or end up in concentration camp (aka "black site", e.g. Guantanaml Bay ... yep, STILL existing.)
People get upset about the strangest things (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly can't think of one thing Facebook has done by "selling my info" that has affected me in the slightest. My nerd rage lately is directed towards websites that block my adblocker, the lack of competition in the wired home broadband industry, and that every fucking show seems to be on a separate streaming service these days.
It's trendy to hate on Facebook, but it's not as if they're dumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico or anything.
Re:People get upset about the strangest things (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Facebook etc. get away with it is that they take a lot of care to make sure no one knows what happens with the data.
Things that might have happened:
1) They sold access to companies that took more information than Facebook said (Cambridge Analytics) and then used it for criminal political ads. Russia is know to have targetted both Neo-Nazis and people they target such as Blacks, Jews, etc.
2) They blocked you from seeing ads for jobs or housing based on illegal criteria, such as age, race, gender, etc. So you did not get a job or house that you did not apply for because they refused to show you it. While they showed it to other people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
criminal political ads.
Back in 2016, the only political ads I saw on Facebook were ones that aligned with my own political views - once I told Facebook I didn't care to see all the Trump ads they kept showing me. I'm not doubting that it might've happened to some people, but I certainly don't recall seeing any "illegal" ads.
So you did not get a job or house that you did not apply for because they refused to show you it.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I have any desire to see ads. As far as I'm concerned, if a company doesn't want to show me ads because I'm gay (yeah, you forgot that one), they're doing me a
Re: (Score:3)
I certainly don't recall seeing any "illegal" ads.
That means they were working as designed.
Re: (Score:2)
criminal political ads.
Back in 2016, the only political ads I saw on Facebook were ones that aligned with my own political views - once I told Facebook I didn't care to see all the Trump ads they kept showing me. I'm not doubting that it might've happened to some people, but I certainly don't recall seeing any "illegal" ads.
So you did not get a job or house that you did not apply for because they refused to show you it.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I have any desire to see ads. As far as I'm concerned, if a company doesn't want to show me ads because I'm gay (yeah, you forgot that one), they're doing me a favor. Hell, I'd totally support if Google let me opt out completely from their ad network under that criteria.
Yes, I realize discriminatory advertising practices are illegal. But if I could get all the homophobic companies to stop trying to sell me shit I don't want anyway, that would be totally worth it.
You're talking about "free," platforms that are advertiser supported. Your wish is granted. The only right you have, according to the ToS is to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that it would be a good thing if he could not see ads for companies that didn't want to sell to gay people. It's kinda a win-win, in a twisted way.
I also think there are very few of these companies. While there have been companies that didn't want to participate in gay weddings, in general, they've been willing to serve gay people ou
Re: (Score:2)
1) They sold access to companies that took more information than Facebook said (Cambridge Analytics) and then used it for criminal political ads. Russia is know to have targetted both Neo-Nazis and people they target such as Blacks, Jews, etc.
Boo
2) They blocked you from seeing ads for jobs or housing based on illegal criteria, such as age, race, gender, etc. So you did not get a job or house that you did not apply for because they refused to show you it. While they showed it to other people.
Hoo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a bad argument and you should feel bad. Anyone can pick up a GQ magazine and look through the ads even if they aren't the target demographic. If someone targets a Facebook ad to everyone except Jewish and Black people, that is a de facto racist ad targeting, because the Jewish and Black people aren't able to see it at all. They are excluded from that good or service, which as I understand it is actually illegal, not just immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you were affected by the electing of Trump
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a wholly separate issue, although it's not the same issue either. By collecting lots of data on people they allow advertisers to focus their money on the people who are most likely to be swayed. Without using personal data, the effect of political advertising would be reduced. (NB I did not say "eliminated", and I can't quantify the reduction). Campaigns would be spending more of their money on showing ads to people who already agree with them and are already planning to vote, and to people who dis
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. I don't use FB but it might affect someone I know but I'll write as though it does affect me.
Possible scenario: FB turns the IP addresses into zip code.
It then figures out that there are fewer zip codes in my area and more 1 town over.
They then sell that info to a supermarket
The store wants to build a new building but doesn't know where to put it.
Assuming FB use is correlated to store customers, they build one in the next town.
But that it farther than it would, or could be, without selling the zip code
Re: (Score:2)
#1: you can't "lose" data you don't have - the bigger problem is when leaks happen and people's data gets in the wild. Get cross-referenced with other "leaks", increasing the potential for bad things to happen (ever get a bill for a credit card you never applied for?, etc.)
#2: spy agencies - stuff like the Snowden revelations shows how data collection from companies have filled the spy agencies' harddrives with data. Companies are acting (unwillingly/inadvertently) as data collection devices for them. This
Re: (Score:2)
I wish the adblockers would add a button so you could receive, but black hole, the ads from those web sites.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly can't think of one thing Facebook has done by "selling my info" that has affected me in the slightest.
The point is to eliminate the guessing (thinking) and force them to make you know for certain.
Re: (Score:2)
You also wouldn't have to worry about having something like these various digital voice assistants, especially the ones with cameras as well as microphones, because you wouldn't have to worry about them being used as
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly some kind of malware on the device she used to enter her credit card number. Or maybe something completely unrelated like an ATM skimmer, a dishonest cashier, someone who picked up the card after it was left unattended, a phishing scam... the timing can be a coincidence.
I seriously doubt that Facebook shares credit card details with anyone except for companies directly involved in payment processing (banks...). The only thing it can do is get them in trouble. Furthermore, there is much more money t
Re: (Score:2)
Point is moot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Patent Lover demanded:
This is the Senate. Do you really think Moscow Mitch will let this little gem get even a committee hearing?
You could have stopped at "This is the Senate." It's not even a matter of it being a partisan issue.
I respect Senator Wyden's efforts. He is the most personally tech-savvy member of the Senate. He doesn't rely on staff briefings to formulate his positions on regulating corporations - especially tech companies - he actually knows what he's talking about. I consider him a true populist, in that his focus is protecting consumers from sociopathic CEOs, regulatory capture, institutionalized
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err...the terms "competent people" and "government employees" have been mutually exclusive terms pretty much ever since the conception of the entity of government.
The two areas have never intersected throughout time, no matter which party has been in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it then, that you've not had the number of years "hands on experience" that I have with them, at ALL levels...from local to federal.
Of course, there are a few gems here and there, statistically, that will happen, but those are overwhelmingly rare.
Re: (Score:3)
Politiicans often say stupid things (Score:3, Interesting)
I like Ron Wyden - his policies on data retention, end to end encryption, and data storage are priceless.
I like Elizabeth Warren too - her ideas on healthcare, treatment, and government coverage of the college fees are also priceless.
HOWEVER, this is YASI (Yet Another Stupid Idea) that would not help anyone. Here's why:
- the corporate veil (yes that is what it's called) shields the owners/operators (shareholders/managers) from responsibility personally for what they do on behalf of the corporation.
- when these operators (managers, CEOs, etc.) find they are NOW personally liable they just won't make public statements... which isn't a big change from now when all their official statements have so many disclaimers.
- "LYING" is a matter of fact, not a matter of law, so it will require a JURY trial for every single enforcement attempt. (Judges solve "matters of law" but Juries decide "matters of fact") so it will require a PROSECUTOR to bring up charges, etc. etc.
The overall complexity of "enforced tell-the-truth" won't work. There's no money in it, and these people are in it to make money for their shareholders. If they don't, they face a shareholder lawsuit!
That lose-lose means no change in behavior no matter what the law says.
Sorry Ron and Liz.
Ehud
Tucson
Re: (Score:2)
-The corporate veil doesn't apply - "the corporation" can't be questioned by the FTC - specific executives are. Making it a crime for them to lie to investigators has nothing to do with the corporation. Or do you imagine the corporate veil protects you from murder charges so long as you only murder on behalf of the corporation?
- They want to shut up -that's fine. Unless they're required by law to answer questions of course. But if you have a choice between a company that promises a certain level of pri
Re: (Score:2)
- the corporate veil (yes that is what it's called) shields the owners/operators (shareholders/managers) from responsibility personally for what they do on behalf of the corporation.
This law breaks some of the veil. If you as an executive lie to the FTC on behalf of the corporation you can go to prison. The shareholders aren't personally liable, but 4% fines on gross revenue are enough to dent share prices a bunch. That will affect shareholders.
"LYING" is a matter of fact, not a matter of law,
If it's illega
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the shareholders can't sue a ceo for not lying or breaking the law in some way. If the only way a business increase share value is by lying, there probably ins't anything the shareholders can do.
Re: Politiicans often say stupid things (Score:2)
One major problem with today's retail is its complete disinterest in selling anything that won't fly off shelves by the millions.
Specific recent example: try buying a 2-gang 4" square old-work electrical box with 3/4" knockouts from Home Depot or Lowes.
Spoiler: they don't have them in stores.
Oh... they sell 4x4 metal boxes with 3/4" knockouts and the brackets to keep them from getting pulled OUT of the wall... but they stopped selling the bolt-on "plaster ears" that keep the box from falling INTO the wall ~
Re: (Score:2)
gavron inquired:
You're old enough to remmeber when AIM/ICQ was the rage? Awesome! are you too young to remember that when AOL launched they were NOT on the Internet, and their goal was to keep everyone in their walled garden with "AOL Keywords." It took two years for them to actually provide Internet access
I'm more than old enough to remember AOL before it unleashed its unwashed masses on the poor, unsuspecting Internet. As a beta tester for GeoWorks Ensemble 1.0, I was required to submit bug reports via AOL (which tried its best to keep me from canceling its "service," once the beta period for Ensemble closed - in fact, I had to cancel the credit card I used to subscribe in order to keep from having to contest the monthly charge, even after repeatedly having been assured by AOL's "customer se
Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
The lobbyists will shoot this down as soon as it gets off the runway, way too much money riding on the line.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
.... and the cargo hold of the plane will be filled with cash, gifts, and other things of material value to bribe^H^H^H^H^H^H lobby the politicians.
Almost there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Should be (Score:2)
A MINIMUM of 400% of world-wide revenue, and a MINIMUM 10 years in prison for EACH DIRECTOR and EACH C-Level executive (as well as the guilty employee's and PHBs) of the company. Now that would actually perhaps have a chance of achieving something.
This is just a pretend solution that will achieve nothing.
And it should allow private action.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but only if you apply it to politicians, too, such as when they threaten extermination of a corporation for not censoring their political opponents.
Deal?
What's the difference? (Score:2)
You don't seriously believe there's a difference, do you?
Revolving doors, think-tank-written legislation and all...
The only people I can imagine not being proliticians like that, are Warren and Sanders. Which is why they will be / were destroyed.
Although we see, after the election. Not falling twice for the Obama delusion. On office, they are different people.
A fine of 4 percent of your salary... (Score:2)
So a minor misdemeanor then ...
And if their profit due to privacy violations is above 4%, it's officially a profitable business venture, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
It is disingenious to compare 4% of an individual salary and 4% of a companies revenue.
A company like walmart has 20% to 25% margin. so 4% of revenue is about 20% to 25% of profits. That burns a little more.
Is it enough? That's a different question, but let's present the facts accurately.
Never happens (Score:2)
They are too rich, have too many connections with other people with money and power.
Hmm... okay, but ... (Score:2)
Dubbed the Mind Your Own Business Act, ...
Will this also apply to people who don't want *other* people to: get abortions, have same-sex marriages, or express their sexuality?
Asking for several friends.
Some Data Are More Correlated Than Others... (Score:2)
Social media platforms radically altered browsing, disrupting the first "portals", such as Yahoo's many services and even our beloved
Make It Opt-In, Not Opt-Out (Score:2)
But the problem with an opt-out model is that each citizen will need to maintain an "opt-out" flag/marker, which could be corrupted by malware, deleted by upgrades, etc. Instead, how about applying the equivalent of the "presumption of innocence" and only deliver tracking markers to those who explicitly set a "please track me" flag to on.
Apart from anything else, that might drive home just how harmful the current model is.
Cops lie so why not everyone else? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
The government hates competition (Score:2)
The U.S. Government collects more data than everyone else, combined. The "contract" with the government does not include this data. Nobody voted for it. The issue from the Government's perspective is that private companies may well end up rivalling the U.S. Government, which also includes the U.S. spy apparatus.
A fine of this strength will destroy small businesses. Large, established companies will fight off all claims against them, likely their lobbyists are the ones who write the bill.
Also note that the
False (Score:2)
That is 100% wrong.
The US government doesn't know where you are every minute of the day. Your cell phone company and Facebook and Google do.
The US government doesn't know where you spend every penny. Your credit card company all of the merchant services providers do.
The US government doesn't know the content of all of your email. Google does.
Easy. (Score:2)
By using this site you certify that all data collected is accurate. Click here to see a list of data collected. To receive a copy of your data on record, please mail a self addressed envelope and $25 to PO box 555005550055500. To see a list of our data partners, please mail a self addressed stamped envelope and $25 to PO box 000550000500500
This site is for entertainment purposes only, and no statements on this site, nor any correspondence or statements by employees other than %LEGAL_TEAM should be considere
Why limit it to privacy (Score:2)
won't change anything (Score:2)
Can they include politicians? (Score:2)
jail time (Score:2)
"The bill also proposes 10-20 year prison sentences for senior executives who knowingly lie to the FTC."
This might actually get some results if implemented.
Re: [GDPR] copy/paste (Score:2)
But at least GDPR is a good thing for the most part.
Some one needs to do the comparison, and workout which one is better.
Re: (Score:2)
If he does it on 5th Avenue, he's off the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
CEO? Of what? That piddly Mom and Pop operation that he ran repeatedly into the ground? He has no business experience.