7 ms·

The default in the U.S. is that actions are legal unless they're made illegal by some law. There's no law against this, therefore it's legal.

dannyw 8y ago
We need a GPDR for biometrics.
- mtgx 8y ago
  That's the problem right there. It seems the best the U.S. political system can come up with right now is "GDPR for X" where X represents only a few specific industries, because of strong entrenched special interests, lobbying and legalized bribery, which means strong gridlock and disagreement for a more "universal" law. Because the more industries the law would affect, the more billion-dollar corporations would fight against it with TV ads, lobbying and vote buying (sorry, I mean "campaign donations"). GDPR generally applies to all personal data of a citizen. The best I've seen from the U.S. government so far is the Consent Act, which applies only to online services only. It doesn't apply to ISPs, network providers, medical data, or a ton of other things it should apply to. The more people realize that this "single issue" of taking money out of politics and drastically reducing or eliminating a corporations' influence on political decisions affects every other issue they care about, the better.
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  How a European law would help with a situation in California ? You do realize that GPDR does not apply in the US, right ?
  - newfoundglory 8y ago
    Well, obviously they realize that, smarty pants. Because the existing GPDR already covers that in Europe...it’s like they’re saying the US needs one.
dragonwriter 8y ago
More specifically, in this case, state governments have general police powers, which means that anything not specifically prohibited to them by the federal Constitution (including by a federal law that is a valid exercise of federal power under the Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause) is within their power.
exabrial 8y ago
I would think this violates at minimum the 4th Amendment

dannyw 8y ago

We need a GPDR for biometrics.

mtgx 8y ago
That's the problem right there. It seems the best the U.S. political system can come up with right now is "GDPR for X" where X represents only a few specific industries, because of strong entrenched special interests, lobbying and legalized bribery, which means strong gridlock and disagreement for a more "universal" law. Because the more industries the law would affect, the more billion-dollar corporations would fight against it with TV ads, lobbying and vote buying (sorry, I mean "campaign donations"). GDPR generally applies to all personal data of a citizen. The best I've seen from the U.S. government so far is the Consent Act, which applies only to online services only. It doesn't apply to ISPs, network providers, medical data, or a ton of other things it should apply to. The more people realize that this "single issue" of taking money out of politics and drastically reducing or eliminating a corporations' influence on political decisions affects every other issue they care about, the better.
bigbugbag 8y ago
How a European law would help with a situation in California ? You do realize that GPDR does not apply in the US, right ?
- newfoundglory 8y ago
  Well, obviously they realize that, smarty pants. Because the existing GPDR already covers that in Europe...it’s like they’re saying the US needs one.

dragonwriter 8y ago

More specifically, in this case, state governments have general police powers, which means that anything not specifically prohibited to them by the federal Constitution (including by a federal law that is a valid exercise of federal power under the Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause) is within their power.

exabrial 8y ago

I would think this violates at minimum the 4th Amendment