The Raucous Battle Over Americans' Online Privacy is Landing on States (politico.com) 19
Tech privacy advocates frustrated by failures on Capitol Hill are looking to mine state capitals for legislative victories. From a report: A broad bipartisan federal privacy bill that died in Congress last year has quickly become the template for a statehouse-by-statehouse campaign to enact tough new restrictions on how Americans' personal data can be mined and shared. Lawmakers in Massachusetts and Illinois are already proposing privacy measures modeled on the federal bill, and Democrats in Indiana are using it as inspiration to strengthen legislation that's already been proposed. Four other states have already passed their own data-privacy laws in the past two years -- raising anxiety levels among tech companies about a national "patchwork" of hard-to-navigate data rules -- but encouraging advocates who see an appetite for broader consumer protections.
"We were wondering if there would be something passed federally. It would definitely guide what we would be doing for the state," Democratic Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder said in an interview. "Because that failed, it put us in a position of needing to do something." The new statehouse focus by privacy advocates isn't necessarily designed to sweep across all 50 states but rather tighten regulations just enough in just enough places to force the industry into a de facto national standard. They're hoping to enact state-level privacy proposals that align closely with what Congress attempted to pass with the American Data and Privacy Protection Act: regulations that would limit what data companies can collect and share, create a data broker registry and establish new rights for Americans to delete data about themselves. But they're playing catch-up to an industry-led campaign that's made significant headway in several states, including Virginia and Utah, where weaker laws were enacted over the past two years.
"We were wondering if there would be something passed federally. It would definitely guide what we would be doing for the state," Democratic Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder said in an interview. "Because that failed, it put us in a position of needing to do something." The new statehouse focus by privacy advocates isn't necessarily designed to sweep across all 50 states but rather tighten regulations just enough in just enough places to force the industry into a de facto national standard. They're hoping to enact state-level privacy proposals that align closely with what Congress attempted to pass with the American Data and Privacy Protection Act: regulations that would limit what data companies can collect and share, create a data broker registry and establish new rights for Americans to delete data about themselves. But they're playing catch-up to an industry-led campaign that's made significant headway in several states, including Virginia and Utah, where weaker laws were enacted over the past two years.
How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we just criminalize data brokers and most of this data collection? Ermagerd, muh big gubmint, muh free merkitz. Er no. Surveillance Capitalism is just Totalitarianism via state-corporate partnerships (mostly backdoor ones as we've seen with Twitter even having a literal freaking Jira server for government uses to send censorship tasks).
Re: (Score:1)
How about we just criminalize data brokers and most of this data collection? Ermagerd, muh big gubmint, muh free merkitz. Er no. Surveillance Capitalism is just Totalitarianism via state-corporate partnerships (mostly backdoor ones as we've seen with Twitter even having a literal freaking Jira server for government uses to send censorship tasks).
Computers are literally machines to keep databases and every transaction between processes is kept and tagged for retrevial from some database. So trading that data is an immoral thing in many cases, my opinion. Yet private networks can do what they want with most of that data. So my suggestion is to bring transportable data under some federal jurusdition just like rails, roads, sky ways,... Deregulation and smaller government has never been possible at any point in history while private interests have neve
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Twitter even having a literal freaking Jira server for government uses to send censorship tasks).
I'm supposed to be appalled that twitter has a system to track requests and notifications from law enforcement? Well actually, Elon probably fired them by now. I mean the headquarters can't even pay rent now. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Let me translate your twisted logic to what actually happened.
Biden Campaign: Hey twitter can you remove these Hunter Biden dick pictures because they fall under your revenge porn policy.
Twitter: Ok yeah they do we'll remove them
Conservatives: GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP! HEL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just about anonymity. As an example; the amount I earn cannot be completely anonymous. The employer knows it. I am required by law to provide my SIN. I am required to file taxes and declare my earnings. This is all private information that cannot be anonymous.
What we need are laws that hold accountable those that handle our information. Private data that can identify an individual cannot be shared between businesses unless you deal with each and agree that they can hold this data. Doing business w
Re: (Score:2)
Pitting State Against State (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a bit of the problem with our "United" States of America. The idea that we are a federation of states and a representative democracy is a decent form of government, until some political party figures out how to sabotage it.
The elite political right has know for decades their power and majority is slipping at the national level, despite gerrymandering. The strategy has been to get courts to decide an argument for them so they have no official voting record or convince courts it should really all be up to states and local government, so red states can keep retarding the country. (retard: to delay or impede the development or progress of : to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment)
Given how interconnected things are across legal borders, privacy laws should exist at the national level, especially given the the beliefs of the founding fathers like the 4th amendment. https://constitution.congress.... [congress.gov]
The interstate commerce clause at a very high level should be considered as well. Basically, if the states make it to difficult for a business to navigate from state to state, then the government comes in and sets some ground rules to smooth things out. https://www.senate.gov/artandh... [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The elite political right has know for decades their power and majority is slipping at the national level, despite gerrymandering. The strategy has been to get courts to decide an argument for them so they have no official voting record or convince courts it should really all be up to states and local government, so red states can keep retarding the country. (retard: to delay or impede the development or progress of : to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment)
Given how interconnected things are across legal borders, privacy laws should exist at the national level, especially given the the beliefs of the founding fathers like the 4th amendment. https://constitution.congress.... [congress.gov]
The interstate commerce clause at a very high level should be considered as well. Basically, if the states make it to difficult for a business to navigate from state to state, then the government comes in and sets some ground rules to smooth things out. https://www.senate.gov/artandh... [senate.gov]
Actual conservatives wouldn't be wasting government time and money like this dummy. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Hates big government, then asks big government declare her the winner.
Re: (Score:2)
> Actual conservatives wouldn't
I think we need to retire this arguement. At this point, it's become a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The "party of Lincoln" hasn't lived up to that slogan for more than a little while. Hell, they're not even the party of Reagan, or even Nixon, anymore.
> Hates big government, then asks big government
> declare her the winner.
Times change. In the real world, yes... that *IS* who they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The conservatives wanting a job in government don't care about the job, either the reality of plutocratic back-room deals, or the ideal of representing the will of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the 'my side is right' division in US politics is destructive but not the most dangerous: There's the obvious corporate sponsors, vote-buying and the double-think of 'big government is evil, now follow my rules on everything' but the real damage was recently demonstrated by Texas. When political ideology (avoiding federal rules for an electricity grid) doesn't work, the state demands the federal government fix their fuck-ups. It also reinforces the policy of 'big government is evil'.
Re: (Score:2)
None of it matters anyway (Score:2)
The internet never forgets. Once anything about you is out there, its out there forever. Does not matter about having some right to be forgoten etc.
Why because someone made a copy or took a screenshot etc, and they will post it over and over again all the places forever. Thanks to CDA-230 those places that don't feel like dealing with it being against some policy won't be arsed to do anything about it and YOU can't make them.
So which is it slashdot what do you love the most?
CDA-230?
Some future online priv
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but we can do this for our children and grandchildren who do not yet have an Internet presence.
Op-Out By Default (Score:2)
Re: Op-Out By Default (Score:1)
The internet has never at the core reasoning been about anything but productivity. And productivity has never been about privacy or anonymity. We can always just talk to each other or just look forward to public gatherings, things like state fairs use to be all important at one time.
Re: (Score:2)