Is The US About To Pass a Landmark Online Privacy Bill?

Leaders from two key committees in the U.S. Congress "are nearing an agreement on a national framework aimed at protecting Americans' personal data online," reports the Washington Post.

They call the move "a significant milestone that could put lawmakers closer than ever to passing legislation that has eluded them for decades, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the talks." The tentative deal is expected to broker a compromise between congressional Democrats and Republicans by preempting state data protection laws and creating a mechanism to let individuals sue companies that violate their privacy, the person said. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the chairs of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively, are expected to announce the deal next week...

Lawmakers have tried to pass a comprehensive federal privacy law for more than two decades, but negotiations in both chambers have repeatedly broken down amid partisan disputes over the scope of the protections. Those divides have created a vacuum that states have increasingly looked to fill, with more than a dozen passing their own privacy laws... [T]heir expected deal would mark the first time the heads of the two powerful commerce committees, which oversee a broad swath of internet policy, have come to terms on a major consumer privacy bill...

The federal government already has laws safeguarding people's health and financial data, in addition to protections for children's personal data, but there's no overarching standard to regulate the vast majority of the collection, use and sale of data that companies engage in online.

Betteridge's Rule of Headlines

[_xeno_]

Oh, I know the answer to this: no.

preempting state data protection laws

Ah, there, that's the real thing. The open secret is that the NSA has largely outsourced mass surveillance. There's no need for the government to spy on everyone if private industry already does, just make sure private industry pumps all that data to the NSA. Overriding potentially stronger state laws is the real goal here.

The other thing a "privacy law" would likely be used for is to attack foreign apps, like TikTok, in an attempt to ensure that the US continues having access to the data they gather. Or "protect the data of American citizens from foreigners" as they'll surely claim.

The one thing we can be certain of any "bipartisan law" is that the people being screwed are the American people.

Re:

[Kernel Kurtz]

all that is in the text of the bill? can you show us where??

Between all the lines.

Re:Betteridge's Rule of Headlines

[arglebargle_xiv]

That's also historically been how it's worked, whenever Congress' lobbyists got themselves a federal law that pre-empted state laws passed, it was to neutralise state laws that actually protected citizens rights.

Re:Betteridge's Rule of Headlines

[pixelpusher220]

Yeah, the private company angle is the issue. What we need is for 'possession' of citizen data to be prohibited and expressly stipulated the exemptions when it may be possessed. Any prohibition on surveillance is useless when they can simply buy the data and or compel it's production.

Separately, regs on private companies activities are needed as well, but harder. Drawing a line between, it's legal to take your picture in public and taking a picture of you in public every 30 seconds thus providing a full surveillance scope, needs to be figured out.

And Now

[The Cat]

Finally...

Kneel... before Zod.

This law has to reign in Google

[ConstantineXI]

If it doesn't it's pointless!

Sure, why not?

[bistromath007]

Let's all pretend that KOSA isn't going to happen instead.

Step 0: repeal PATRIOT Act

[ne0n]

In this episode of diverting American attention from the greatest heist of taxpayer funds ever, we'll witness Congress inject pork into a bill allegedly intended to protect privacy. No privacy will be protected and government surveillance will be bigger than ever.

Re:

[bagofbeans]

If the bill doesn't include a private right of action, then look no further as none of the measures will be enforced by DAs.

Ha ha ha ha. No.

[rsilvergun]

-signed, the Republican party.

Even if the GOP wasn't so pro-corporate it hurts they'd block it because it's an election year and they don't want *anything* Biden can claim as an accomplishment.

This is a party that held up military promotions so long it became a readiness problem [pbs.org] and took 2 Supreme Court seats for themselves (both with ludicrously incompetent but young and obedient judges) with delays.

The Dems could undo the filibuster but they guy who wants to do it (Adam Schiff) is still in the

Re:

[zephvark]

The GOP? Pro-corporate? You've been snorting their propaganda. They're catastrophic for businesses. Whee! Let's go ban books, education, and medicine, with a side order of trashing the tourist industry. Don't get vaccinated! Go to work sick and kill your coworkers and customers! Ban the gays and block the blacks!

The only thing the GOP wants is to destroy the world. They're as incompetent at it as everything else they do but, they're persistent. In the meantime, they have to settle for hurting as many people

Re:

[ChatHuant]

I agree that nutty ideology has become the main driver of the Republican party, but you'll still notice that whenever the choice is between regular people and corporations/the rich, Republicans consistently side with the corporations.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

I agree that nutty ideology has become the main driver of the Republican party, but you'll still notice that whenever the choice is between regular people and corporations/the rich, Republicans consistently side with the corporations.

I agree, but how does that differentiate them from democrats?

Look at the ACA. It not only writes the insurance companies into the law, it protects their profits and encourages overcharging by capping their profits at a percentage of cost of care.

Re:

[doc1623]

There is a lot of chaos, but the Money behind the GOP is still the ultrarich who control corporate lobbyist, and interest. They still push the disproven supple-side, trickle down, neoliberal economics i.e. the poorer populous subsidizing the richer, instead of vice versa.

GDPR

[Quantum gravity]

The EU has had a data privacy law in the form of GDPR since 2018, replacing an older law that was inefficient. It minimizes collection and storage of personal data.

I wonder how this will compare.

Re:

[bobbiecba]

GDPR gives EU citizens a generalized "right to privacy." So far, all US laws only mandate privacy actions for companies in specific areas. My understanding is that this new law, while much broader than past US law, still does not grant a general right to privacy. Until we get that, companies will continue to figure out work-arounds and hacks to any new US law (just as they have with HIPAA, GLB, and all the rest).

Don't kid yourselves

[hebertrich]

It will never pass.
Goes against the interests of major companies.

Re:

[noshellswill]

You jump too fast ! Major USA companies have a dog in the privacy hunt. Since POTUS declared companies as legal-persons, personal digital privacy constraints will protect training data-sets for any of their AI-generating activity. Legal protections already exist for company documents, but watch the new-law details.   

We Will Have to Vote it in Without Congress

[BrendaEM]

Congress will never give up their sources of revenue.

Margie's Kooky Kaukus will fuck this up...

[AmazingRuss]

... just watch.

No

[bradley13]

let individuals sue companies that violate their privacy

No. Just make *illegal* to collect data without an explicit, unforced opt-in. Done.

Allowing civil lawsuits is just furthering the screwed up US tort system.

"mechanism to let individuals sue companies"

[schwit1]

How about suing government decision makers for doing the same? Government is the bigger monopoly and far more dangerous.

The short answer: nope

[hdyoung]

If this passes, whichever party is in power would get a boost in popularity. So, if the Rs are in power, the Ds will block it. If the Ds are in power, the Rs will block it.

The southern US border is a case in point. The dems wouldn’t let Trump do anything beyond putting up a few hundred feet of useless wall and store a few kids in cages, all for pure showmanship. Once Biden got in office and asked congress for the power to shut the border down, suddenly the Republicans didn’t like the idea. T

I have doubts...

[TheSlashdotHunter]

Just wait for the special interest money. These bills are especially worrisome during a presential term where money for favors is far more common.

Don't we already have laws for this?

[ZenShadow]

I feel like everyone is looking at this wrongly. Data collection, blah blah blah...

Why don't we just extend the anti-stalking laws into the Internet space? Because that's what these people are doing...

doubt that

[GarryIr]

I have a feeling that their goals are to track any of your actions. I doubt that it will be accepted precisely in the spirit of the law. Most likely they will get around this with some condition. Like what they did with the collection of cookies on websites. While preparing the assignment through https://essays.edubirdie.com/law-assignment [edubirdie.com], I learned that the EU now has GDPR. But many sites simply force you to agree. It’s also not always clear what it is. And it’s as if you have already given co