Is The US About To Pass a Landmark Online Privacy Bill? (msn.com) 35
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.
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
all that is in the text of the bill? can you show us where??
Between all the lines.
Re:Betteridge's Rule of Headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Betteridge's Rule of Headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Finally...
Kneel... before Zod.
This law has to reign in Google (Score:1)
Sure, why not? (Score:2)
Let's all pretend that KOSA isn't going to happen instead.
Step 0: repeal PATRIOT Act (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
GDPR (Score:3)
I wonder how this will compare.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't kid yourselves (Score:2)
It will never pass.
Goes against the interests of major companies.
Re: (Score:2)
We Will Have to Vote it in Without Congress (Score:2)
Margie's Kooky Kaukus will fuck this up... (Score:4, Interesting)
No (Score:3)
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" (Score:2)
How about suing government decision makers for doing the same? Government is the bigger monopoly and far more dangerous.
The short answer: nope (Score:2)
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... (Score:1)
Don't we already have laws for this? (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)