7 ms·

A National Privacy Law Is Nowhere in Sight

105 points by tysone 7y ago

journalctl 7y ago
Well, yeah. Functional legislation requires a functional government. This hasn’t been news for a long time.
bryanmgreen 7y ago
I believe one of the biggest blockers for ~right now~ is Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman. Anything around privacy will need the support of the FCC and, under the current administration, they have clearly set a standard of favoring a hands-off approach. In fact, avoiding regulation is the number one philosophy bullet point on his profile - https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai. While I am generally and very-broadly-speaking against regulation, I believe privacy and personal-data issues are definitely an exception for me. Edit: Really not trying to be partisan here, folks. Privacy laws are regulatory and it's not an opinion that the FCC doesn't want regulations - that's why I provided the link to the .Gov website for proof.
- Despegar 7y ago
  Why would it need the "support of the FCC"? Congress can pass a law anytime it wants and most likely they'll task the FTC in enforcing it. They could also create a brand new agency if they wanted to.
  - bryanmgreen 7y ago
    Obviously FCC has no direct play into the legislative process, but government agencies always have high-levels of lobbying power. Not mention in this case there are overlapping levels of jurisdiction and philosophical differences between the FTC and FCC. Significant and impactful legislation needs the support of more than just the House and Senate.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      Big stretch. Nice rationalization, but big stretch regardless.
- Accujack 7y ago
  To be fair, this isn't solely a problem from the current administration. Privacy laws in the US have not ever been updated for the computer age. It's still safer to send secret info in a paper letter than in an e-mail, because the laws have never been re-written. This is not surprising given the generation that's been in power since the 1970s. They didn't grow up with computers, and they don't understand them.
  - bryanmgreen 7y ago
    You're 100% right that this isn't a problem that began or ends with the current administration. There's a lot of work to be done from every party and every age group! I was reflecting on what I what think is a ~current~ large obstacle and tried my best to keep my comment neutral, but thanks for clarifying.
brenden2 7y ago
Unfortunately, I don't think the government is going to come to the rescue anytime soon with regard to privacy. At this point I think the best option is for people passionate about privacy issues to start building products and platforms that address the problems by providing real solutions. That's what I'm doing with all my energy, and I know a lot of other talented people who are too (or, at the very least, they want to help).
- Despegar 7y ago
  Actually this is as much a waste of time as telling people who are concerned about climate change that they should stop using plastic straws rather than pushing for systemic changes that only governments can address with laws. Tech folk always seem to think more or new tech is the answer, and it absolutely isn't the case of privacy. If you really want to help, do that in your 20% time and focus all your energy on advocating for a GDPR clone.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Reedx 7y ago
  Maybe if Andrew Yang makes it through we'll see something happen, since his overall approach has a chance of reducing gridlock. And on this issue is proposing data as a property right: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/
  - danShumway 7y ago
    For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, we probably should probably be more careful with the phrasing around "your" data. What a lot of us meant was, "data that is generated by actions you take, or that applies to your life." What (increasingly), people interpret it as meaning is "your data" in the same way that you would say, "your boots." The EU often falls back to referring to this stuff as Personally Identifying Information, which is at least a more logically coherent term -- it focuses more on de-anonymization and the risk to the individual, rather than on this idea that I somehow have a morally granted monopoly over a fact. I'm trying to be more careful about how I phrase stuff like this in the future (PII, or 'facts about you' instead of 'your data'), to try and make it more obvious that the privacy community isn't monolithic and that there is no singular view even among privacy advocates about what data is or how it can be controlled.
bedhead 7y ago
That would require congress to actually do something.
client4 7y ago
In Montana I've been working on privacy legistlation with my friend and State Representative Daniel Zolnikov for almost 10 years now. Initially we tried to pass too much (something like 40 pages in a state where most bills are 1-2), then Dan decided to break out individual ideas from the initial bill and pass smaller chunks or create specific bills targeting abuses. The Montana state constitution provides citizens with a right to privacy but attempting to enumerate it in law is an uphill battle. At the last legislative session the national Charter public policy guy flew in and spoke against the bill saying it would be an incredible burden on his company to allow customers the right to privacy (conveniently ignoring they're up to the task for collecting and storing DNS, usage history, a multi-billion dollar company etc.). They were able to spread enough FUD to get the bill killed. Corporations are stifling privacy at the national level and willing to spend the money quashing attempts by the states to take it back. Privacy will be a hard-fought battle most likely won with technology and user choices vs policy.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Do you have any docs or knowledge you could share? I'd be interested in working on this in several midwest states.
  - client4 7y ago
    Dan is a great resource to reach out to, he's on Keybase Chat https://keybase.io/drz https://keybase.io/drz and more than happy to help people in the policy realm. Our naive first bill is well organized with some of the things we felt necessary to enable an individuals right to privacy and can be found here https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0400.htm https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0400.htm
- ary 7y ago
  Do you (or anyone reading) know of any web forums dedicated to U.S. privacy legislation that have a critical mass of members?
noarchy 7y ago
The US couldn't even stop its own intelligence services from breaking the law with regard to spying on citizens. Do people expect it can or will enforce this on private companies? I'd expect such measures to be equally toothless.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
Also, what about a right to cognitive liberty? Privacy is one thing, but does it give me the right to take drugs or implant, because I have a right to my own mind?
- LocalH 7y ago
  Sad to see this downvoted, probably due to the mention of drugs tbh. I feel cognitive liberty is underdiscussed. Not just in the context of consumption, but also in the context of mental autonomy. One of these days, if we don't have a strong cognitive liberty protection, they'll end up developing technology to "read" people's minds (which of course will be unreliable at first), and if we're not careful then the idea of having privacy in our own minds will be a thing of the past. If that happens, I fear we'll slip into a dystopia within a quarter century.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    If that's so clear, how come no one seems to care about cognitive liberty?
    - LocalH 7y ago
      Probably because they're worried (somewhat legitimately) about more currently pressing issues. I have no hard evidence to back up my assertion. It's just my feeling after observing the path our societies are traveling. I really hope I'm dead wrong on that.
comex 7y ago
Good. With the current partisan makeup of Congress, even if they could agree on a national privacy law, it would be drastically watered down and toothless compared to California’s law, while preempting it (i.e. preventing California and other states from legislating in that area). There’s a reason that it’s industry groups, not consumer groups, who are currently pushing for such a law. Without one, at least California residents will get the benefits of the stricter version, and perhaps other blue states will pass similar laws in coming years. Meanwhile, residents of other states will at least get indirect benefits – for instance, the ability to bring class action lawsuits over data breaches will hopefully encourage companies to invest more in security.

105 points by tysone 7y ago

Well, yeah. Functional legislation requires a functional government. This hasn’t been news for a long time.

I believe one of the biggest blockers for ~right now~ is Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman. Anything around privacy will need the support of the FCC and, under the current administration, they have clearly set a standard of favoring a hands-off approach. In fact, avoiding regulation is the number one philosophy bullet point on his profile - https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai. While I am generally and very-broadly-speaking against regulation, I believe privacy and personal-data issues are definitely an exception for me. Edit: Really not trying to be partisan here, folks. Privacy laws are regulatory and it's not an opinion that the FCC doesn't want regulations - that's why I provided the link to the .Gov website for proof.

Despegar 7y ago
Why would it need the "support of the FCC"? Congress can pass a law anytime it wants and most likely they'll task the FTC in enforcing it. They could also create a brand new agency if they wanted to.
- bryanmgreen 7y ago
  Obviously FCC has no direct play into the legislative process, but government agencies always have high-levels of lobbying power. Not mention in this case there are overlapping levels of jurisdiction and philosophical differences between the FTC and FCC. Significant and impactful legislation needs the support of more than just the House and Senate.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Big stretch. Nice rationalization, but big stretch regardless.
Accujack 7y ago
To be fair, this isn't solely a problem from the current administration. Privacy laws in the US have not ever been updated for the computer age. It's still safer to send secret info in a paper letter than in an e-mail, because the laws have never been re-written. This is not surprising given the generation that's been in power since the 1970s. They didn't grow up with computers, and they don't understand them.
- bryanmgreen 7y ago
  You're 100% right that this isn't a problem that began or ends with the current administration. There's a lot of work to be done from every party and every age group! I was reflecting on what I what think is a ~current~ large obstacle and tried my best to keep my comment neutral, but thanks for clarifying.

brenden2 7y ago

Unfortunately, I don't think the government is going to come to the rescue anytime soon with regard to privacy. At this point I think the best option is for people passionate about privacy issues to start building products and platforms that address the problems by providing real solutions. That's what I'm doing with all my energy, and I know a lot of other talented people who are too (or, at the very least, they want to help).

Despegar 7y ago
Actually this is as much a waste of time as telling people who are concerned about climate change that they should stop using plastic straws rather than pushing for systemic changes that only governments can address with laws. Tech folk always seem to think more or new tech is the answer, and it absolutely isn't the case of privacy. If you really want to help, do that in your 20% time and focus all your energy on advocating for a GDPR clone.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Reedx 7y ago
Maybe if Andrew Yang makes it through we'll see something happen, since his overall approach has a chance of reducing gridlock. And on this issue is proposing data as a property right: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/
- danShumway 7y ago
  For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, we probably should probably be more careful with the phrasing around "your" data. What a lot of us meant was, "data that is generated by actions you take, or that applies to your life." What (increasingly), people interpret it as meaning is "your data" in the same way that you would say, "your boots." The EU often falls back to referring to this stuff as Personally Identifying Information, which is at least a more logically coherent term -- it focuses more on de-anonymization and the risk to the individual, rather than on this idea that I somehow have a morally granted monopoly over a fact. I'm trying to be more careful about how I phrase stuff like this in the future (PII, or 'facts about you' instead of 'your data'), to try and make it more obvious that the privacy community isn't monolithic and that there is no singular view even among privacy advocates about what data is or how it can be controlled.

bedhead 7y ago

That would require congress to actually do something.

client4 7y ago

In Montana I've been working on privacy legistlation with my friend and State Representative Daniel Zolnikov for almost 10 years now. Initially we tried to pass too much (something like 40 pages in a state where most bills are 1-2), then Dan decided to break out individual ideas from the initial bill and pass smaller chunks or create specific bills targeting abuses. The Montana state constitution provides citizens with a right to privacy but attempting to enumerate it in law is an uphill battle. At the last legislative session the national Charter public policy guy flew in and spoke against the bill saying it would be an incredible burden on his company to allow customers the right to privacy (conveniently ignoring they're up to the task for collecting and storing DNS, usage history, a multi-billion dollar company etc.). They were able to spread enough FUD to get the bill killed. Corporations are stifling privacy at the national level and willing to spend the money quashing attempts by the states to take it back. Privacy will be a hard-fought battle most likely won with technology and user choices vs policy.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Do you have any docs or knowledge you could share? I'd be interested in working on this in several midwest states.
- client4 7y ago
  Dan is a great resource to reach out to, he's on Keybase Chat https://keybase.io/drz https://keybase.io/drz and more than happy to help people in the policy realm. Our naive first bill is well organized with some of the things we felt necessary to enable an individuals right to privacy and can be found here https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0400.htm https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0400.htm
ary 7y ago
Do you (or anyone reading) know of any web forums dedicated to U.S. privacy legislation that have a critical mass of members?

noarchy 7y ago

The US couldn't even stop its own intelligence services from breaking the law with regard to spying on citizens. Do people expect it can or will enforce this on private companies? I'd expect such measures to be equally toothless.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Also, what about a right to cognitive liberty? Privacy is one thing, but does it give me the right to take drugs or implant, because I have a right to my own mind?

LocalH 7y ago
Sad to see this downvoted, probably due to the mention of drugs tbh. I feel cognitive liberty is underdiscussed. Not just in the context of consumption, but also in the context of mental autonomy. One of these days, if we don't have a strong cognitive liberty protection, they'll end up developing technology to "read" people's minds (which of course will be unreliable at first), and if we're not careful then the idea of having privacy in our own minds will be a thing of the past. If that happens, I fear we'll slip into a dystopia within a quarter century.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  If that's so clear, how come no one seems to care about cognitive liberty?
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Probably because they're worried (somewhat legitimately) about more currently pressing issues. I have no hard evidence to back up my assertion. It's just my feeling after observing the path our societies are traveling. I really hope I'm dead wrong on that.

comex 7y ago

Good. With the current partisan makeup of Congress, even if they could agree on a national privacy law, it would be drastically watered down and toothless compared to California’s law, while preempting it (i.e. preventing California and other states from legislating in that area). There’s a reason that it’s industry groups, not consumer groups, who are currently pushing for such a law. Without one, at least California residents will get the benefits of the stricter version, and perhaps other blue states will pass similar laws in coming years. Meanwhile, residents of other states will at least get indirect benefits – for instance, the ability to bring class action lawsuits over data breaches will hopefully encourage companies to invest more in security.