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.
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?
Awh come on folks.. This is how this game is played, or didn't you understand?
Anybody in Congress, in either house, can submit bills that say ANYTHING they wish. So you get elected and to "keep" your campaign promises you show up the first week, toss you bill into the growing pile of bills errr Campaign promises that everybody knows will never make it out of committee. They hit the floor, get referred to the appropriate committee and get sent into the committee's inbox to die.
The only way you get a bill out of committee is to have enough pull by getting enough of your cohorts to agree to pull it up. If leadership doesn't want it, it isn't going anywhere but the circular file next to the desk in about 2 years. Everybody in Congress knows how this works.
In this case, Rubio is doing this, hoping to get PR support to make something happen, but chances are it's going to die when the next congress is seated in 2021. It's next to meaningless, except for election ad material in about 2 years when he has to start his next campaign.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
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,
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
"you DO have a choice. A free market can solve this"
Broham, do you work for Big Brother Google or Creepy Facebook? Or have you just been drinking waaaaaaaaaay too much Kool Aid?
Duh fwee market has obviously, spectacularly FAILED to protect even the tiniest shred of privacy. Instead it delivered a fully privatized, fully automated totalitarian surveillance state.
Well-structured markets can do a pretty spiffy job of allocating capital and rationing goods. However markets do a super shittastic job of protecting ordinary people from predatory capitalists.
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