Slashdot Mirror
Senators Introduce Bill That Would Ban Websites From Using Manipulative Consent Forms (vice.com)
U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Deb Fischer (R-NE) have introduced a bill to ban online social media companies from tricking consumers into giving away the rights to their data. The Deceptive Experiences To Online Users Reduction (DETOUR) Act would ban companies "from manipulating adults into signing away their data, or manipulating children into staying on a platform compulsively," reports Motherboard. "The bill also requires platforms to ensure informed consent from users before green-lighting academic studies." From the report: The DETOUR Act would make it illegal to "design, modify, or manipulate a user interface" in order to obscure, subvert, or impair a user's ability to decide how their data is used. The interface refers to the "style, layout, and text" of a privacy policy. The rigor of default privacy regulations would also be subject to regulation under the DETOUR Act. The DETOUR Act would also ban features that encourage "compulsive usage" for children under 13 years old. This would directly target platforms like YouTube, which has auto-play for both its regular site and for its child-specific YouTube Kids app. A representative for Common Sense Media told Motherboard in a phone call that the organization provided feedback and input to the authors of the bill.
The law would also apply to "behavioral or psychological experiments or studies," such as the ones used by Cambridge Analytica in order to sort users by personality type. Per the bill, any such studies have to get informed consent first, and experimenters would need to make routine disclosures to participants and to the public every 90 days. If enacted, the DETOUR Act would require tech companies to make their own Independent Review Boards, which would be responsible for making sure they comply with the law. The act would also give the FTC one year to make infrastructure to would review tech companies and enforce violations of the law.
The law would also apply to "behavioral or psychological experiments or studies," such as the ones used by Cambridge Analytica in order to sort users by personality type. Per the bill, any such studies have to get informed consent first, and experimenters would need to make routine disclosures to participants and to the public every 90 days. If enacted, the DETOUR Act would require tech companies to make their own Independent Review Boards, which would be responsible for making sure they comply with the law. The act would also give the FTC one year to make infrastructure to would review tech companies and enforce violations of the law.
Aside from 'deceptive' practices I think the average person doesn't understand what they're consenting to in the first place. Make it into a teaching session, and they have to pass a quiz, proving they understand what they're signing.
Hows that going to work for ads? :)
A person looks at a web site, social media for content they want and expect.
Are all ads placed now "manipulating" as the user did not consent to see any ads?
This returns all power of content back to the user and what is displayed on their computer
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yet another fucking so-called "acronym" that was built backward. They started with the acronym they wanted and just plugged words until it almost sounded like english.
#DeleteFacebook
Approximately 50% of American adults don't know who the Vice President is.
Yet some say it's super important that everyone come out and vote for your Senator. Because they all know which fiscal policy proposals supported by each Senate candidate will be more effective in the long run, and in the short run?
For a lot of people, public policy, economics, and international relations are not on their top 10 list of interests. They don't care to spend their time learning about any of that. I'm not so sure our state or country is so much better off because they vote (based on a Tweet their friend told them about, or "he's good looking").
Maybe, just maybe - we should encourage people to learn about civics so they can be informed voters. If they decided they don't want to know the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics, if they don't care who the incumbent is, if they don't know what their current tax rate is, maybe it's okay if they leave the voting to people who do have some basis for making a rational decision of who to vote for.
Actually, expanding that idea might make for a good system. I've had multiple friends put me in the awkward position of asking me who they should vote for, because I'm a nerd who likes to study this stuff. I don't feel right answering the question of who they should vote for, but I kinda don't feel right leaving their questions unanswered. So here's an idea:
I bet most people know someone who knows who the Vice President is. They probably have one friend who knows their current tax rate. They could vote for the person that they know. You vote for whichever of your friends you think is most informed or would vote smart. Maybe one every ten or twenty adults gets voted in by their friends. Then it is their responsibility to study the candidates and the the issues and vote for the actual office holder. That way everyone gets a say, and the people directly voting for a senator or president actually know what the candidate's policy proposals are.
Do you want to allow us to track you all over the internet using cookies, scripts, malware and zero day exploits?
[x] Yes, please do not exclude me from your list of people not on the list of those who you do not track using less harmful techniques.
[_] No, I do not want to be included on the list that tracks people who do not want to be on the list of those we track using invasive and harmful techniques.
Please select your choice.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.