Slashdot Mirror
Marco Rubio Introduces Privacy Bill To Create Federal Regulations On Data Collection (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced a bill Wednesday aimed at creating federal standards of privacy protection for major internet companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google. The bill, titled the American Data Dissemination Act, requires the Federal Trade Commission to make suggestions for regulation based on the Privacy Act of 1974. Congress would then have to pass legislation within two years, or the FTC will gain the power to write the rules itself (under current laws, the FTC can only enforce existing rules). While Rubio's bill is intended to reign in the data collection and dissemination of companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, and Netflix, it also requires any final legislation to protect small businesses from being stifled by new rules. The caveat comes when one considers states' rights to create their own privacy laws. Under Rubio's legislation, any national regulations would preempt state laws -- even if the state's are more strict. "While we may have disagreements on the best path forward, no one believes a privacy law that only bolsters the largest companies with the resources to comply and stifles our start-up marketplace is the right approach," Rubio wrote in an op-ed for The Hill, announcing his bill.
Like the Bay Area billionaire owners of the Democratic party would allow any of that.
Nobody told him the Senate is closed down by McConnell.
Don't they know that mass data collection is for the FBI, CSI, NSA, IRS, DHS, DMV, Customs and Border Protection, Department of State, Department of Defense, National Counterterrorism Center and any local police departments that care to get in on the party?
"... aimed at creating federal standards of privacy protection for major internet companies ..."
But the workaday individual can pound sand. Big Brother's still gonna be watching. Maybe even more efficiently because of all our new "major internet" buddies.
Rubio proposes a plan for an agency to eventually come up with a plan, that gives Congress 2 fucking YEARS to think about it, then there's this little gem - "any national regulations would preempt state laws -- even if the state's are more strict." - which is probably the underlying (lying, yep, Republicans) motivation in this farcical bullshit "plan" lol. Typical despicable Rubio with the half-ass plan that isn't really, have some water you sweaty bitch, bullshit lawmaking is thirsty work.
In the end they're just going to let the industry write the damn thing anyway, great "plan" though derp, like nobody remembers what sellouts they are. "Benevolent horse sculpture? Awesome, wheel it in here!"
sounds like the name of a programming language.
Build the wall and throw Rubio over it!
No, McConnell is the one stopping the government from being opened, denying votes on that legislation unless and until their hostage demands are met. Trump owns the shutdown, McConnell is his bitch lieutenant in treason.
Schumer is correct not to negotiate with criminals, not that a negotiation were ever possible given Trump's 100% absolutist all-in faggot panache that he's about to be forced to back down from, or be overruled by Congress.
11 GOP senators broke from McConnell today. In a week, a few more will. Trump will be in prison long before any construction at the border actually begins either way, and Pelosi will laugh in Trump's face as they put the bracelets on him.
If it comes from a republican you can bet it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Best to just burn it and move on. No republican is worth a shit; they're all traitors.
Vword: incest
Under Rubio's legislation, any national regulations would preempt state laws -- even if the state's are more strict.
I seems like this is really just a way to prevent states from creating strict privacy laws and moor any possible advancements in partisanship.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is the same guy that called the bribes he takes buying into his agenda.
Like TFS suggests this is most likely just to preempt stronger protections from the states, particularly California. We've been relying on CA to protect the rest of the country from this kind of bullshit by passing laws that end up affecting the other states. Don't think the folks in Congress and their donors haven't noticed that.
The solution is and always will be to stop voting for people like Rubio who take corporate PAC money. I keep on saying this but the Dems have a wing of the party that does just that. I know of no such animal on the GOP side but I'm happy to be proven wrong. In the meantime you can't serve two masters. If your politician accepts corporate PAC money they're not _your_ politician. They belong to the donors who bankrolled their campaign. Full Stop.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The key sentence "under Rubio's legislation, any national regulations would preempt state laws -- even if the state's are more strict."
This proposed legislation is nothing than a veiled attempt to eviscerate State and local privacy laws.
The last thing we need is the government playing data referee. I'm not surprised that Sen. Rubio, aka "Little Marco", is the one to bring it to the floor.
It's "rein in", not "reign in". Think horsepersonship.
Privacy bill will be DOA! But Rubio tried - wouldn't he make a GREAT President?
Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter. Sorry Microsoft you are the past evil.
Corporatism != Free Market
He should have named it the American Data Security Act, otherwise known as the ADS Act.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Unless you're going to have separate companies for each state, you kinda need a uniform set of rules for the country. That's what the EU has done with GDPR. Even with the uniform Privacy Directive providing uniform principles to be applied in each country, they found that wasn't sufficient; a uniform rule was needed across Europe.
There is plenty to debate about what the rules should *be*. There's no doubt that having 50 different conflicting sets of rules would be a mess. One state would require records be preserved for inspection by authorities, while another would require that data be deleted after it's no longer actively used, and it would be impossible to comply with both.
Nice! One nice, clean, and simple point of non-legislative bureaucracy that lobbyists can manipulate. So much better than actual laws with real protections.
That's good that encourages the large entities to be broken up for the sake of state compliance.. this helps to prevent overgrowth. And Encourage turnover,
Seems like Slashdot stories that are positive and political get red white and blue jackass symbols (The Democrat mascot is actually a jackass, not a "donkey", read thye history of it).
For some reason, which MAY be innocent but I'm truly curious about it, postitive political stories related to Republicans (if one can really call Rubio a Republican after all his flip-flopping) usually do not seem to have a red white and blue elephant on them.
No - I do not wear foil hats, I don't think Google or the Bilderburgs or the Masons or the Queen of England are involved; I just want to see equal treatment of both sides.
Perfect! More barriers to entry to protect the established corporations. This was the logical next step after the non sworn-in testishows a short while ago.
Btw I've posted plenty about how we need to pay more attention to the 10th amendment and the enumerated powers. I'm all about the 10th amendment - and web sites are so clearly interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is one of the enumerated powers, and for good reason.
#fuckthewheatcases
That's good that encourages the large entities to be broken up for the sake of state compliance.. this helps to prevent overgrowth. And Encourage turnover,
Also, if only there was a device connected to other devices all over the country and well the world that could be used to automate complex tasks with complex rules.
In short, I'm not remotely buying the "It's too hard to do argument."
Also as someone else pointed out, it is very wrong having a non elected agency head and similar creating effectively laws. Either congress does their job correctly or leave it as it is. In fact just his lame ass suggestion pretty much leads me to conclude that he is too inept to do his damn job and should retire.
Was it Facebook? Google? All of them?
And when they gave it to the senator, how much did they add to his re-election fund?
Experience suggests that any legislation of industry that sounds good for the people is probably very cleverly written (as this is) to give that impression, but it is written by industry with their profits in mind. Our elected officials represent them, not us.
...omphaloskepsis often...
It would make it difficult for you to buy services from other states, bugger up interstate commerce. You would find companies saying "sorry, we don't ship to / provide services to your state".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They should, by your assertion, be why we need a world government that makes laws that override the laws of "sovereign states".
Oddly enough, I don't think you'll accept that.
So will you demand that multinationals be split up?
Not that either.
So your assertion in your post is a load of self serving bollocks. You only mean it where you want it to work, nowhere else.
so what if business is stifled, PRIVACY first. assholes.
Well that may be true and all, but first let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to change this country. He wants America to become like the rest of the world...
> They should, by your assertion, be why we need a world government that makes laws that override the laws of "sovereign states".
It's interesting that you used the correct term, states.
It actually worked pretty well to have a federation of states agree to give certain listed powers to a federation government. We call it the federa(tion) government the federa(l) government.
Where things tend to go sideways is when the states allow the federal government to purport to exercise powers it does not have under the Constitution. The enumerated powers are there for a reason.
To me anything that can be seen or heard from a public space is fare game. If I make notes on whose car is parked at the local brothel, for my own purposes, it is fair and reasonable that I do so. Right now we have people who feel that everything they do or say in public is somehow private information and we must avoid falling into this trap. For example stealing money from someone's account must always be a crime the idea of recording their charge card data when they order pizza over the phone should be legal. When you have a means of proving where a person was at a certain time it can be of great use in stopping crimes or even breaking up marriages of cheating spouses. By the way quite a few card numbers are stolen by cell phones ability to record conversation within its hearing range.
I'm not sure how you'd get "fucking over rednecks" out of it. It boils down to :
1. Medicare for All.
2. Tuition Free College.
3. The "Green New Deal" (e.g. a federal jobs guarantee building renewable energy installations)
4. Infrastructure spending.
5. Higher taxes for top earners, think $500k+
#1 is a big issue for "rednecks", e.g. rural voters. Their hospitals are closing left and right.
#3 would help. Coal mining's going away like it or not and they need jobs.
#4 would be good too since their water pipes are going to hell and part of infrastructure is clean water.
#5 probably doesn't impact them, I don't know a lot of "rednecks" making $500k/yr. I know some that _own_ $500k in land (farmers) but that's not their income.
That leaves #2, and it's 2019. They want college just like everybody else. Ask any farmer who isn't just playing around and farming has long since gone high tech and scientific.
As for the other side (the GOP and the corporatists) well, these are the guys closing your hospitals because they're not profitable enough and trying to bring back pre-existing conditions. 'nogh said.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When talking of countries, they are sovereign states. This is not the same thing as "States". What is the normal state of a state stated as? If the word only had one meaning, that sentence there would be meaningless.
So, the USA is a soverign state. Care to explain why multinationals should be causing a world wide law that overrides those of the USA's?
Irrelevant that the figure is 32-36% depending on poll, not 41, that stat does not change McConnell's role nor refute the OP. Try again, fuckwit.
And did you forget tht trump said it was HIS shutdown, he was HAPPY to take it on, and would not blame Schumer. Seems like he's telling his toadies to blame Schumer, thought.
So it is entirely meaningless to use that claim here.
You might want to learn a bit of English. Nation, country, and state all mean different things.
In 1785, Virginia and 13 other states were sovereign states which signed a NATO-like common defense agreement, with these words:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."
The states delegated to the Congress of the Confederation the ability to make war with Britain, and not much else:
"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense"
You know why each state has two senators, not each million people? Why California has electoral votes, and Texas does, while neither you nor I do? Because it's a federation of states.
write their own? Damn, we're getting more evil by the second.
See here. US' healthcare system is crazy bad. It's rife with inefficiencies. Google the phrase "Wallet Biopsy" sometime too while you're at it.
Other countries send everyone to college just fine. If anything we could use a few people hitting the economy later.
The Green New Deal is _supposed_ to be a money sink. The New Deal was a jobs program. The fact that we get clean air and maybe less climate change is just a cherry on the cake.
The tax system can't be simplified. As soon as you try there are loop holes, so you write laws to close the loop holes and it gets complicated fast. Making the ruling class pay for the civilization they enjoy is just a complicated process, there's no getting around it. Flat taxes just become regressive. They're a dodge by the rich to avoid paying. Don't fall for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Which would create demand for local business. Small Local business tends to be symbiotic with its community it serves. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Believe me, as someone who lives with that reality, it's not something you want.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That is something I want. It's been my experience that the majority of the advantages Society provides exclude me in my peersfor partaking in them. Which from that experience makes them useless,. If you have insurance you still have to make it past all the layers of bureaucracy Define lame got to the specialist so the real diagnostic in treatment processes can begin. You have to learn the terms necessary to legally leaverage your doctor into ordering procedures,. Most Technologies are prohibitively expensive so you still have to create your own Solutions. And in the end you still have to operate in between the lines when it comes to the rules of society just to survive and maintain your primary responsibility to keep your family sustained. These benefits are simply not available. While the costs continue to be applied. So the large demographic live like I do get screwed. So the less we can contribute to these societal benefits that we don't receive, the better future we have the potential to realize. At This level we have to do everything ourselves anyway. More local business and less getting bled out of our communities represents more opportunity in life For the Working Poor.