0

Online Privacy Bill Clears Early Hurdle in House - Slashdot

 1 year ago
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/06/24/1857248/online-privacy-bill-clears-early-hurdle-in-house
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.

Online Privacy Bill Clears Early Hurdle in House

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror

Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 30 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
×

Online Privacy Bill Clears Early Hurdle in House (wsj.com) 16

Posted by msmash

on Friday June 24, 2022 @02:57PM from the moving-forward dept.
Bipartisan legislation to establish broad privacy rights for consumers won approval from a House subcommittee on Thursday, adding to its momentum. From a report: Lawmakers approved the bill, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, on a voice vote with no dissent. It now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for a vote. The bill still faces a long and potentially difficult path, particularly in the Senate. Rep. Frank Pallone (D., N.J.), the committee chairman and a sponsor of the bill, termed it "a massive step forward."

"Every American knows it is long past time for Congress to protect their data privacy and security," he said. "The modern world demands it." Republicans also praised the legislation, while suggesting more changes might be needed. "This bill protects all Americans, regardless of ZIP Code, and provides certainty for businesses so they clearly understand their obligations," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), the committee's top Republican. She said the legislation also would strengthen national security by requiring companies such as TikTok -- owned by Beijing-based ByteDance -- to specify when they are transferring and storing consumers' data in countries such as China.

  • ›

    It will quickly die a quiet death as the lobbyists and GOP members kill it with fire.

    California couldn't pass right-to-repair. You think THIS is going to get through?

  • All of the consequences of "muh privacy" being invaded by me willy nilly putting "muh data", willingly, on the web will be fixed!

    Now, what are those consequences you might ask? Well.. uhh.. You see... Uhh.. Muh Data! Muh Privacy!

    • by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Friday June 24, 2022 @03:24PM (#62648412)

      It's not "me" putting my data willy nilly on the web when my health care prescription service requires me to do it online for me to get my quoted insurance prices.

      It's not "me" putting my data willy nilly online when my doctor and hospital REQUIRE me to make appointments online (excepting the ER of course).

      It's not "me" putting my data willy nilly online when the meta pixel snatches that data off the web pages and begins building a profile and serving me personalized ads based on it.

      And it's not "me" putting my data online when a background check run by a life insurance insurer checks one of the information clearing houses and gets my confidential data and uses it to deny claims.

    • Re:

      When I had a FB picture to a private audience of me in a humidor, and a week later my insurance company sends me a letter demanding a physical with bloodwork, else I'd pay smoker's rates, that info is definitely being passed around without consent, much less even knowledge.

    • Re:

      That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. They didn't rule abortion unconstitutional. They ruled that there is no Constitutional basis for claiming abortion is Federally protected, hence it's up to the states.

      This was the correct ruling. And I'm very pro abortion. We need Federal laws or a Constitutional amendment to protect abortion. They didn't even say the Federal government couldn't regulate or require abortion rights - they just said there is no existing Consitutional mechanism preve

      • Re:

        That's an interesting perspective from a bunch of guys that said Roe v. Wade was "settled law" when interviewing under oath for their jobs and directly asked the question.

        • Re:

          This is just the beginning. The secular court is rolling back rights so we have more in common with the Taliban than a first world nation.

          https://www.latimes.com/politi... [latimes.com]

      • Re:

        My understanding is that Constitutional protection against the government arbitrarily intruding into your medical records sits on the same basis as Constitutional protection for abortion. I guess that Constitutional protection is also now gone? In the absence of a federal law like HIPAA, it's a-okay for the government to go digging through your medical records for any reason whatsoever?

        • Re:

          Actually it's pretty succinct

          It means that SCOTUS has no basis in the constitution to support the right to abortion. It now merely allows those elected officials to pass legislation allowing it or disallowing it. There isn't a right to it offered by the Constitution.

          So, there's remedies:

          • congress can pass an amendment and submit it to the states to amend the Constitution.
          • congress can pass a law, it hasn't in 50 years so there's no reasonable expectation that they'll touch this hot potato issue.
          • states can

          • Re:

            Did they reason that the right to privacy does not imply the right to abortion, or that there is no right to privacy and therefore no right to abortion?
  • What Privacy in the United States Could Look Like without Roe v. Wade: [csis.org]

    Once Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overturned, it is possible that U.S. private businesses could become either voluntary or involuntary participants in the enforcement of state anti-abortion laws. In particular, numerous popular consumer devices and mobile apps collect an enormous amount of sensitive personal information from users...

    If abortion is outlawed in some states, law enforcement officers can use these same to

  • I'm a bit puzzled about what it is that we gain from bills like this. In particular, the dangers of companies having so much information about us isn't from targeting a few ads to us. That's really pretty innocuous.

    The dangers all stem from these companies having so much information about us in the first place. However, as far as I can tell from the senate website on the bill it doesn't actually stop those companies from having all the raw information that could be analyzed to invade privacy (and is now

  • My data is mine, any transactions I do with you or with your services are between me and you. I don't allow you to use or sell or in any way disclose my details, habits or transactions without my expressed written consent except as permitted by court order. Further, I may revoke my consent at any time as I see fit.

    Now watch Facebook, Amazon, Google et. al. collapse.


report

Recommend

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK