6 ms·

It's become clear over the last year there is a strong need for a data privacy regulatory agency in US government. I understand that regulation hampers growth,

It's become clear over the last year there is a strong need for a data privacy regulatory agency in US government. I understand that regulation hampers growth, but the tech industry is mature and developed to the point that it's time to reel in "moving fast and breaking things" a bit.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
> It's become clear over the last year there is a strong need for a data privacy regulatory agency in US government. I wouldn't trust a governmental regulatory agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. I suspect a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law, with private citizens empowered to sue.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law Agree. But there is still a role for a public prosecutor to (a) collect complaints and (b) launching suits on behalf of the public, for when violations occur and no private action ensues.
- jumelles 9y ago
  > I wouldn't trust a governmental agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. I think this sort of attitude is a big problem - instead of throwing our hands up and deciding that regulatory agencies have always been and thus will always be toothless, we need to give said agencies more power to enable them to actually enforce the rules. Right now, companies regularly weigh the costs of compliance against the costs of non-compliance because to a multinational corporation, the usual fines and punishments just don't hurt that much. Companies that break the law should regularly never, ever recover financially.
  - news_to_me 9y ago
    > Companies that break the law should regularly never, ever recover financially. Personally I would have this reworded to "Companies that regularly break the law should never, ever recover financially." As much as I believe things are tilted too far in favor of companies these days, it is true that over-harsh regulation on business can be very bad — particularly when it becomes harder to start new businesses. But I agree with your sentiment. To a large degree the government is as good as we make it.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      This is an important point, I think. If our ultimate goal is to incentivise good practice, we have to deal with a range of problems from simple ignorance of good practice or what the law requires through to gross negligence or "wilful ignorance" situations. If you have a business that is acting in good faith but makes an error in judgement or isn't aware of some specific regulation, there is no sense taking a punitive stance. Obviously if their actions have caused damage to another party then compensation may be appropriate, but otherwise constructive engagement is likely to work best. On the other hand, if you have a business that is knowingly and deliberately acting in bad faith, there may be little point in being constructive, and the penalties need to be significant enough to force them to change (or their business to fail).
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  You're screwed either way. If a government agency enforces it, opposition politicians attack it. If courts enforce it, courts are attacked instead and opposition politicians push for changes int eh law. the regulated industry will cheerfully spend shareholder money to drive public sentiment in a favorable direction. In US politics, money dominates everything else.
- astrobe_ 9y ago
  I'm not knowledgeable about how the US administration works, but I think it's a universal principle that when you write laws and regulations, it generally has to come with means to inspect and check that the rules are not violated. It's especially difficult with anything digital. Do you really want to rely just on whistleblowers?
- ISL 9y ago
  > I wouldn't trust a governmental agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. It is good when a governmental agency is at the mercy of politicians. As the electorate, we are responsible for the politicians we elect.
- wang_li 9y ago
  >I suspect a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law, with private citizens empowered to sue. There's no chance that will happen. It should, but it won't. By taking away the ability of individual citizens to sue, and vesting that power in a government agency, it protects the companies while empowering the regulators. The end result is fair toothless regulation and more donations/lobbying dollars flowing from the private sector to the public sector/politicians. A number of anti-spam laws ended up this way.
pavlov 9y ago
> regulation hampers growth Is there proof of this? Some countries like Germany and Sweden are both highly regulated and have fastest economic growth in the West.
- deltron3030 9y ago
  Who's growing is the more important question. Regulation benefits the already big.
  - fnord123 9y ago
    Some regulation is bad, but there are plenty of good examples. Regulation on the standards like GSM and use of SIM cards helped new entrants into the European markets. Net Neutrality, standardized electrical systems, etc have benefited everyone large and small. And of course, anti-trust regulations in the EU has not benefited Microsoft or Google.
    - davidw 9y ago
      > standardized electrical systems Except for the damn plugs!
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That's truism that I don't think is accurate. You're assuming all regulation is complex and that this can directly drive administrative costs in linear fashion.
  - smt88 9y ago
    > Regulation benefits the already big "Regulation" isn't guaranteed to do anything. Some regulations benefit already-big, some harm them. Some have no effect at all. Lack of regulation is guaranteed to benefit already-big, though. Unchecked corporations become oligopolies or monopolies. Free markets (meaning free movement, not free of regulation) and consumer protection are impossible without regulations, though.
    - 9y ago
bowlofpetunias 9y ago
This shouldn't be in the hands of a regulatory agency. Serious privacy violations should be legislated and treated as outright crimes, not just regulation infringements. Violating basic civil rights should not just result in the off chance of having to pay a fine. People like Zuckerberg belong in jail way more than the average drug dealer.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This shouldn't be in the hands of a regulatory agency. Serious privacy violations should be legislated and treated as outright crimes, not just regulation infringements. IHIPAA is largely in the hands of HHS as a regulatory body, and yet violation of its privacy mandates (including those HHS is empowered to detail by regulation) are “outright crimes” as well as also potential civil offenses, not some distinct and lesser category of “regulatory violations”. Your argument seems deeply grounded in an incorrect assumption about what it means to involve a regulatory agency.
agumonkey 9y ago
I wonder how these things were before. Maybe there was a bit of data sharing but at such small scale and speed that it didn't really matter.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago

> It's become clear over the last year there is a strong need for a data privacy regulatory agency in US government. I wouldn't trust a governmental regulatory agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. I suspect a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law, with private citizens empowered to sue.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law Agree. But there is still a role for a public prosecutor to (a) collect complaints and (b) launching suits on behalf of the public, for when violations occur and no private action ensues.
jumelles 9y ago
> I wouldn't trust a governmental agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. I think this sort of attitude is a big problem - instead of throwing our hands up and deciding that regulatory agencies have always been and thus will always be toothless, we need to give said agencies more power to enable them to actually enforce the rules. Right now, companies regularly weigh the costs of compliance against the costs of non-compliance because to a multinational corporation, the usual fines and punishments just don't hurt that much. Companies that break the law should regularly never, ever recover financially.
- news_to_me 9y ago
  > Companies that break the law should regularly never, ever recover financially. Personally I would have this reworded to "Companies that regularly break the law should never, ever recover financially." As much as I believe things are tilted too far in favor of companies these days, it is true that over-harsh regulation on business can be very bad — particularly when it becomes harder to start new businesses. But I agree with your sentiment. To a large degree the government is as good as we make it.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    This is an important point, I think. If our ultimate goal is to incentivise good practice, we have to deal with a range of problems from simple ignorance of good practice or what the law requires through to gross negligence or "wilful ignorance" situations. If you have a business that is acting in good faith but makes an error in judgement or isn't aware of some specific regulation, there is no sense taking a punitive stance. Obviously if their actions have caused damage to another party then compensation may be appropriate, but otherwise constructive engagement is likely to work best. On the other hand, if you have a business that is knowingly and deliberately acting in bad faith, there may be little point in being constructive, and the penalties need to be significant enough to force them to change (or their business to fail).
anigbrowl 9y ago
You're screwed either way. If a government agency enforces it, opposition politicians attack it. If courts enforce it, courts are attacked instead and opposition politicians push for changes int eh law. the regulated industry will cheerfully spend shareholder money to drive public sentiment in a favorable direction. In US politics, money dominates everything else.
astrobe_ 9y ago
I'm not knowledgeable about how the US administration works, but I think it's a universal principle that when you write laws and regulations, it generally has to come with means to inspect and check that the rules are not violated. It's especially difficult with anything digital. Do you really want to rely just on whistleblowers?
ISL 9y ago
> I wouldn't trust a governmental agency to aggressively fulfill it's mission. My impression is that in general they're too much at the mercy of politicians. It is good when a governmental agency is at the mercy of politicians. As the electorate, we are responsible for the politicians we elect.
wang_li 9y ago
>I suspect a more effective strategy is to enact legislation that makes companies liable under civil law, with private citizens empowered to sue. There's no chance that will happen. It should, but it won't. By taking away the ability of individual citizens to sue, and vesting that power in a government agency, it protects the companies while empowering the regulators. The end result is fair toothless regulation and more donations/lobbying dollars flowing from the private sector to the public sector/politicians. A number of anti-spam laws ended up this way.

pavlov 9y ago

> regulation hampers growth Is there proof of this? Some countries like Germany and Sweden are both highly regulated and have fastest economic growth in the West.

deltron3030 9y ago
Who's growing is the more important question. Regulation benefits the already big.
- fnord123 9y ago
  Some regulation is bad, but there are plenty of good examples. Regulation on the standards like GSM and use of SIM cards helped new entrants into the European markets. Net Neutrality, standardized electrical systems, etc have benefited everyone large and small. And of course, anti-trust regulations in the EU has not benefited Microsoft or Google.
  - davidw 9y ago
    > standardized electrical systems Except for the damn plugs!
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That's truism that I don't think is accurate. You're assuming all regulation is complex and that this can directly drive administrative costs in linear fashion.
- smt88 9y ago
  > Regulation benefits the already big "Regulation" isn't guaranteed to do anything. Some regulations benefit already-big, some harm them. Some have no effect at all. Lack of regulation is guaranteed to benefit already-big, though. Unchecked corporations become oligopolies or monopolies. Free markets (meaning free movement, not free of regulation) and consumer protection are impossible without regulations, though.
  - 9y ago

bowlofpetunias 9y ago

This shouldn't be in the hands of a regulatory agency. Serious privacy violations should be legislated and treated as outright crimes, not just regulation infringements. Violating basic civil rights should not just result in the off chance of having to pay a fine. People like Zuckerberg belong in jail way more than the average drug dealer.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This shouldn't be in the hands of a regulatory agency. Serious privacy violations should be legislated and treated as outright crimes, not just regulation infringements. IHIPAA is largely in the hands of HHS as a regulatory body, and yet violation of its privacy mandates (including those HHS is empowered to detail by regulation) are “outright crimes” as well as also potential civil offenses, not some distinct and lesser category of “regulatory violations”. Your argument seems deeply grounded in an incorrect assumption about what it means to involve a regulatory agency.

agumonkey 9y ago

I wonder how these things were before. Maybe there was a bit of data sharing but at such small scale and speed that it didn't really matter.