18 ms·

Amazon lobbyists who kill U.S. consumer privacy protections

445 points by conductor 5y ago

mrtweetyhack 5y ago
We'll just reward with with more Amazon buying
tuyguntn 5y ago
This is crazy. Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. How many laws are created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary because of lobbying? Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda?
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Rational people talk about it enough that eventually all their friends beg them to stop talking about it. Perhaps you meant to ask why this is never mentioned on popular commercial news media? Or perhaps you meant to ask why no politician affiliated with Democrat or Republican ever mention it? Those would have been perceptive questions.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    And the people who run for office who talk about it generally lose in the primaries, when we have the chance to support more honest and genuine representatives.
- avmich 5y ago
  I think Lawrence Lessig was trying to focus on this before 2016 presidential elections.
  - tuyguntn 5y ago
    yeah I think this must be solved before any other secondary problems. If taxpayers need President, then let their campaign funded only by taxpayer money. Same applies to Senate and everyone who is elected. Limited and equal amount to all sides and let them be as creative as possible. But never take corporation money
    - pstuart 5y ago
      Indeed. The problem is not lobbying, but campaign finance reform. Conceptually simple, politically impossible.
  - chefandy 5y ago
    Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I mean, how rare is that among folks with political aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support for his ideas seemed plausible.
- ZetaZero 5y ago
  It's nearly impossible to get your name on a state-wide ballot without taking corporate lobbying.
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    No it isn't. Since the internet became commonly available it is easier and less expensive than ever. It is however very difficult to get people to vote for you. There is very little voter engagement in the primaries when it is most important and effective.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  What's wrong with lobbying? If you have a viewpoint that you feel isn't being heard, you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you. Remember that laws are hard to create and usually incredibly complex. Even something as simple as Net Neutrality isn't black and white in terms of winners and losers. What you perceive as "laws created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary people" may not be as numerous as you may think.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby which means its usually corporation that does it. And if corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them are not going to be billion dollar corporation. "you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you" This is a common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to happen. Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We should always complain about wrong law that is created for skulduggery. Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation so we are clear its mostly good.
  - Lich 5y ago
    Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. That's why it's almost always a corporate lobbyist. Why do you think it's a good system to have concerns heard only for those who have financial wealth? That skews government policy towards elites and the wealthy, and favors corporate benefit and health. Do you really believe the government is in service to corporations or to the American people? Even when it is an individual, it's almost always a billionaire like Bezos or Bloomberg who is trying to STEAL American taxpayer money so that they can go on their stupid space trips.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      That sounds like you agree with the current state of things though. You agree that citizens should form groups to lobby to counter corporation lobbying. You agree that the government should (and does) give these groups money to lobby via tax statuses and tax incentives. The only disagreement is that you believe these groups should be given more money.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Because the people making laws benefit from it. It’s the people that are hurt. It’s also not clear what would happen if you somehow were able to make all campaign spending derived from public funds and make lobbying illegal. It would likely just increase direct corruption, but perhaps it would be less than you see now. On the other hand, while only available to the wealthy, lobbying allows for a kind of direct democracy.
  - moritonal 5y ago
    I'm fairly sure what you described is the UK system?
- s5300 5y ago
  ? Citizens United was a long time ago Nobody has started killing any of the ultra rich involved in it yet so nothing is going to happen.
- dfxm12 5y ago
  Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Some politicians do (especially progressives, like Sanders, the Squad, etc.), but they are in the political minority compared to politicians who are swayed by corporate money. The fact is, your average voter singularly cares more about other things (2A, abortion, taxes) than their own privacy. The average media outlet is also very pro-corporation, which, in turn leads to your average voter being pro-corporation as well.
  - user3939382 5y ago
    > progressives, like Sanders, the Squad As far as I can tell: Bernie doesn't want to be run out of town like Ralph Nader -- he will do nothing to actually buck the establishment DNC. The squad feigns protest to the establishment DNC (Pelosi et al) only when it's already certain that their voice/vote won't actually effect the outcome of the issue in the direction the establishment wants. It's a scam to keep people voting for Democrats even when they can see the party is corrupt.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
    Someone could be bribed to do "good" stuff too. I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules. I didn't intend to say "well it could also be used for good so we should keep it legal", but yeah this is probably the better take. A better analogy might be: it's totally legal to persuade a judge of your case (ie. what the prosecution/plaintiff/defense does), and totally part of the legal process, but persuading a judge via bribes is illegal.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process. That's the pretty way to present it. In practice, "Citizens, or groups of citizens" is true but unfortunately vague, sort of similar to "Mammals, or groups of mammals, are known to sometimes build buildings out of prefabricated concrete." Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the job.
    - nielsbot 5y ago
      Or "retired" government officials via the revolving door. This is also backdoor bribery: "help us out, you got a cushy job waiting for you in the future."
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  Nobody talks about it because Citizens United v FEC would need to be reversed to change anything in a meaningful way. Reversing that Supreme Court decision is about as likely as admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state, it won’t happen.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Because the term "lobbying" is overinclusive to the point of being useless. 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's necessary to the functioning of a republic. It involves people likely to be affected by the law telling lawmakers their thoughts. These people can be companies. They are also, very frequently, interest groups, nonprofits and individual voters. This is why "let's ban lobbying" is a siren call. If you have representative democracy, you will have influence peddling, i.e. lobbying. "Let's ban corporate lobbying" becomes more tangible, but keep in mind this means you're basically banning every business that can't fly its employees to D.C. from being able to fully communicate with lawmakers. (It also leaves untouched the community organizing side of lobbying, arguably its most potent part, and would probably fall afoul of the First Amendment.) The unfortunate effect of this overinclusiveness is it papers over the bad stuff. The lack of enforcement around campaigns coördinating with PACs. Board seats and cushy jobs offered to former lawmakers. Campaign donations from non-natural persons. This is the stuff I think people are actually offended by. But it's currently too technical for the base that wants to "ban lobbying." TL; DR If you want to push the needle on this issue, drop the idea that lobbying is bad. If you've donated to the EFF, you've hired a lobbyist. If you've called your Congressperson, you've lobbied.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then. All communication must be publicly available.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then Don't know if it's a felony to violate. But this sounds consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's reporting requirements [1]. > All communication must be publicly available This is a bad idea. It privileges those with physical access to lawmakers. It will also crowd out a good amount of honest communication in favor of theatre for public consumption. That said, there might be a way to thread the needle such that substantial communications around actual legislation get captured. Mark-ups on drafts, suggested language, official policy memos, et cetera. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure
- jedimastert 5y ago
  > Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal What do you think "lobbying" actually means?
- mmazing 5y ago
  This. All of these other topics you see on either side of the political spectrum are convenient distractions for things like the Panama Papers, lobbying, and corporate welfare. How do we keep topics that matter across the political spectrum at the forefront of public view?
- openasocket 5y ago
  I'm in the DC area, have friends in the lobbying space. Lobbying generally doesn't involve money changing hands, or campaign contributions, or anything like that. Lobbying congresspeople generally consists of contacting them and convincing them the value of certain positions. Realistically, lobbying is essential for Congress to function. You can't possibly expect every single member of Congress to be an expert on everything they could ever possibly legislate about. They require someone to provide them with background information so that they can make an informed decision. To some extent they can use their staff, or the Congressional Research Service, or do some research on their own, but generally speaking that's not enough. Legislators often maintain active relationships with lobbying groups that they agree with, and can use them as a source on input on legislation. This is no different than a citizen choosing to support a particular bill because a group they trust and respect supports it. A significant amount of lobbying is done simply because a legislator values that group's opinions. When we're talking about more coercive lobbying, it's often done on influence rather than money. A good example is the NRA. There are a significant number of voters for whom gun rights are very important, and will vote for or against a particular candidate based entirely on what the NRA says to do. The NRA thus has a lot of power, and I'd argue more so than could be achieved simply with money. Businesses can lobby based on influence too. If a particular company or industry employs a significant number of your constituents, as a congressperson it is in your best interests to cater to that company or industry. If legislation is passed that helps that industry, they may expand and you can come back to your voters at election time showing you created jobs. If you pass legislation that hurts that industry and people are laid off, on the other hand, people may blame you for it. Even the thought that you might pass a law that might help or hurt an industry can change votes. Don't get me wrong, we need to reform campaign financing. But lobbying in general is a perfectly reasonable and necessary function.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
5300 words and I'm still left wondering, "Who are they?" People have names.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  Lobbyists are just messengers, from interested groups (corporations, non-profits, individuals) to law-makers. Doesn't matter who they are, another will just pop up.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  Second paragraph of the article: "The architect of this under-the-radar campaign to smother privacy protections has been Jay Carney, who previously served as communications director for Joe Biden, when Biden was vice president, and as press secretary for President Barack Obama. Hired by Amazon in 2015, Carney reported to founder Jeff Bezos and built a lobbying and public-policy juggernaut that has grown from two dozen employees to about 250, according to Amazon documents and two former employees with knowledge of recent staffing."
oriettaxx 5y ago
I always say to my out of Europe friends: just state you are from EU in all your app settings, so you get all the benefits of our privacy legislation (GDPR) at no cost!
1cvmask 5y ago
Amazon is a rational company and acts in its own interest. The politicians we elect act in Amazons interest. So we are to fault for this. No hiding the truth. If we to change (a big if) we have to not vote for the corporate politicians. Till then it is just whining and dining. From the article: The architect of this under-the-radar campaign to smother privacy protections has been Jay Carney, who previously served as communications director for Joe Biden, when Biden was vice president, and as press secretary for President Barack Obama. Hired by Amazon in 2015, Carney reported to founder Jeff Bezos and built a lobbying and public-policy juggernaut that has grown from two dozen employees to about 250, according to Amazon documents and two former employees with knowledge of recent staffing.
- xbar 5y ago
  We have to not vote for the corporate politicians. Which ones are those?
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    The ones running in the primary elections that almost no one pays attention to or votes in. Places in Maine and Vermont managed to keep out big box stores. Because they cared and cared enough to be informed and vote. It can be more difficult in areas with more people but I think democracy can scale.
  - avmich 5y ago
    We have to look at them and find out. We have to _constantly_ look at them, politics isn't a single transaction - you can't have democracy running by itself, you have to always practically support it with attention and resources.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Corporate isn't a useful term of division nor a guide to policy. If say Maine lost their mind and decided to try to autarkize their state government they would wind up just running things far less efficiently from effectively a neurotic a fear of companies as HP Lovecraft had of the ocean. The entire framing of "the people vs. corporations" is a massively overreductive us-vs-them clichè used in service of demagoguery. It is divorced from the reality of not only how the system works but even how any theoretical system could and would work. Instead it is about emotional flattery. The whole dichotomy is worse than useless. Like trying to divide politicians between who is a grey and who is a snakeperson, a nonsensical distraction. There are always conflicting interests in complex arrangements. Just look at the dynamics and all of the interests for and against the proposed "US made union manufactured electric vehicle subsidy".
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
I am already swamped every year in California with annual privacy notices which seem to have to be mailed in paper format. We also seem to have these cookie alert pop-ups in California - also very annoying. Is anyone tired of this stuff rather than enjoying it? We keep on being told this is all to help us. I find these cookie pop-ups stupid and annoying, just require a policy on the site, if I care I can go look. I'd be far FAR more impressed if we actually BANNED these damn things and switched to a basic enforcement model where even 1% of the crap on the net got cleaned up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- emodendroket 5y ago
  California, I've noticed since I've moved here, is in love with giving you a million notices nobody ever reads and that have no effect on anybody's behavior (the way every second thing you buy "contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer" is just the most obvious example). If they want to regulate something they should actually do it instead of wasting everybody's time with that stuff, imo.
  - DavidPeiffer 5y ago
    California causes a large annoyance to supply chains and manufacturing. Their strict environmental standards mean as a trucker, you either service California or not. It's not something you just decide to do starting next week. From memory, the truck engine has to be under 10 years old and meet really strict emissions standards, costing a significant premium. For manufacturers, ensuring those stickers are in anything sold in California is a pain, and when you make millions of units, it often doesn't make sense to just apply the sticker, labeling, and documentation to everything you make.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      The environmental standards have a more tangible benefit and can have a pseudo-national effect given the size of California's market, so I'm not critical of that aspect. Slapping warning labels on everything without changing it feels like a waste of time, at least if you're not selective enough to make them useful to consumers.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
> One 2018 document reviewing executives’ goals for the prior year listed privacy regulation as a primary target for Carney. One objective: “Change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for Alexa-powered devices” It's one thing to assume that corporations will act in their own self-interests, but this is like they said the quiet part loud. How do you write or even read that document and believe you're acting in a moral or ethical manner?
- tqi 5y ago
  If you reject the notion that Alexa-powered devices are bad, would this be immoral or unethical? ie medical marijuana lobbyists would probably say that they are looking to "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for medical marijuana."
  - roystonvassey 5y ago
    Not sure about morality but yes it’s unethical and borderline illegal. If an elected body is planning legislations, actively blocking it means you’re suppressing the voice of the public and the voters.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > If an elected body is planning legislations, actively blocking it means you’re suppressing the voice of the public and the voters This is reductive. When the Congress was writing cryptocurrency reporting rules, the crypto industry asking for clarifying amendments (to avoid classifying miners as exchanges) wasn't suppressing anyone's voice. It was supplementing it with specialist knowledge.
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        When we write laws about speeding should we ask sports car owners to supplement the legislative record with their specialist knowledge?
fhood 5y ago
So, not to play devil's advocate, and I'm sure they would push against a federal law just as hard, but I can understand a reluctance to allow state specific privacy laws. That sucks, and compliance would be very expensive and complicated.
- nr2x 5y ago
  Ultimately they are fighting the tide with a broom: most people - most voters - want stricter tech regulation. Per Pew: "Some 56% of Americans think major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now, and 68% believe these firms have too much power and influence in the economy" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-americans-support-more-regulation-of-major-technology-companies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...
  - Sebguer 5y ago
    A majority of the country has wanted legal weed for ~12 years now, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the American government representing the actual desires and interests of the population.
    - nr2x 5y ago
      A majority of the country now lives in places where weed is legal.
  - tqi 5y ago
    "56% of Americans think major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now" I think while the majority want more regulation, they are totally split on the direction. Do you think a majority of Americans could agree on something even as basic as "should social media companies be required to censor/moderate content on their platforms more or less?"
kodah 5y ago
> As executives edited the draft, Herdener summed up a central goal in a margin note: “We want policymakers and press to fear us,” he wrote. He described this desire as a “mantra” that had united department leaders in a Washington strategy session. The chairman of Amazon owns a newspaper and nearly every person mentioned in this story works or has worked for a prominent political party. Obviously there's some standouts and they deserve some accolades: > Cunningham has tried unsuccessfully since 2019 to require companies to get consumer consent before storing or sharing smart-speaker recordings. When Cunningham re-introduced the measure this year, Amazon took a novel lobbying approach: It argued the privacy protections would hurt disabled people. > Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and the ranking member of the judiciary committee, was among Amazon’s top-tier VIPs, the 2014 watering-the-flowers document shows. Last month, Grassley co-authored a bill with Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar that would prohibit companies including Amazon from favoring their own products on their e-commerce platforms. then... > Amazon recently has widened its lobbying strategy to focus less on killing or neutering legislation it opposed and more on drafting favorable bills and getting them passed in friendly legislatures, a former public-policy employee said. That tack paid off in a big way this year in Virginia, where Amazon convinced Sen. David Marsden, a business-friendly Democrat, to introduce privacy legislation that the company had drafted. Sounds conspicuously like the mission of ALEC. Anyone defending Amazon's recording collection practices should pay particular attention to this feature: > Some recordings involved conversations between family members using Alexa devices to communicate across different parts of the house. Several recordings captured children apologizing to their parents after being disciplined. Others picked up the children, ages 7, 9 and 12, asking Alexa questions about terms like “pansexual.” You can use Alexa as an intercom. It's recording that too, which does not fit into explanation of why they record regular Alexa prompts. > Florian Schaub, a privacy researcher at the University of Michigan, said businesses are not always transparent about what they’re doing with users’ data. “We have to rely on Amazon doing the right thing,” he said, “rather than being confident the data can’t be misused.” There are no easy answers to privacy. Regulations can only be a first step, because this is the paradigm and I'm not going to argue that it shouldn't be. There has to be something better than these outcomes though. Maybe I'm biased and just see all the darkness woven into this story.
- GordonS 5y ago
tmaly 5y ago
I wonder what would happen if the alexa recordings captured some HIPPA protected medical information that a customer spoke verbally in the privacy of their own home.
- andjd 5y ago
  HIPAA generally only limits what information healthcare providers (e.g. doctors and hospitals) can disclose ... so nothing.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  HIPAA (two a's, not two p's) is a regulation of communications from and by medical providers. This is the same false information people spit about vaccine cards.
  - tmaly 5y ago
    I think the scope is beyond that. My friend works for a startup that makes a medical platform for ordering things like wheelchairs. He and the company are bound by the law. The distinction is if you are working with protected health information, not that you are a medical provider.
    - jedimastert 5y ago
      I think at that point they count as a "healthcare provider"
specialist 5y ago
If politics was a game of rock, paper, scissors: What is the counter to Amazon's lobbying? I've done some DIY lobbying myself. Fought city hall, won some (very) minor battles, lost the war. Burned out after a few years. Still foraging for role models, case studies, examples of effective policy organizations. Some kind of playbook. Keep hoping some one, some where has some ideas -- actionable, reproducible, sustainable -- for bottom up organizing to effectively counter the boa constrictor squishing the life force out of civil society.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Boycott.
  - gaze 5y ago
    Boycotts don’t work unless they’re organized on a massive scale. Otherwise it’s just a blip, or a relatively constant background. People are boycotting Amazon right now and this is incorporated into their decisions.
- jdp23 5y ago
  It's only one data point, but here in Washington state grassroots organizers have stopped Amazon (and Microsoft) from passing the Bad Washington Privacy Act three years in a row now. The key has been the Tech Equity Coalition, a loose coalition group of organizations and individuals (including civil rights, labor, immigrant rights groups). Local progressive activists have also gotten deeply involved, and of course we've gotten help from national groups like EPIC, Consumer Federation of America, and EFF. We also got the King County Council to pass a ban on government use of facial recognition -- and that's Amazon and Microsoft's home turf! Of course, we still haven't passed strong privacy legislation yet. In the 2021 session Amazon and Microsoft's lobbying was enough to prevent the bill we brought from even getting a hearing. So, we'll see what happens in 2022. But it feels like momentum is on our side.
  - PicassoCTs 5y ago
    This - is not it. He who plays in the defense has to be eternally vigilant and can not loose once. Best approach in my eye is to form a "one" cause party, whos only "cause" is to power-bust and promptly dissolve afterwards, and not touch on partisan issue. "Block Buster"Party might sound strange, but if the only purpose is to disrupt power imbalances and then self-dissolve to trigger the next election - that could get a majority.
olliej 5y ago
Amazon, google, Facebook, telcos The only realistic way to do anything in America is to make something cost money. How about a law saying that the statutory minimum fine for any data leak is $1 per person, for each individual piece of data that is does not have legally mandated collection?
schleck8 5y ago
Each time I visit Amazon I am now reminded of Bezos' yacht and space trip, which is great because I now tend to look around elsewhere. Geizhals and Idealo are helpful for finding alternative dealerships. Usually Amazon isn't the cheapest anyways.
landonxjames 5y ago
There was a long article in Wired yesterday about Amazon's retail side privacy failures https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-failed-to-protect-your-data-investigation https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-failed-to-protect-your-da...
thecleaner 5y ago
Arent they worried that if stories like these get out it is going to hurt their brand ? Also whats the point of doing all this if the profit comes from AWS ?
black_13 5y ago
Is it ok to hate Amazon.
datavirtue 5y ago
Business needs barred from politics. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Separation of business and state. They should not be able to lobby. This amounts to enabling corporations to curtail unionization efforts and other counter productive pursuits with collective public resources...turning the people's will against themselves. Power robbed. It is a fundamental, regressive flaw of our society. If they want to weild political power then they should start a union that negotiates for the workers. The collective will of those workers would influence the political realm with their individual votes. Both in company matters and those of society. I don't trust a secretive group of managers incentivized by short term gain making decisions for all of society. I don't think anyone does, yet here we are. We purport to have a democratic society and then walk into a company that's organized like a bronze age city state and yield most of our freedoms and power to a cadre that does nothing but feed us shit and loot the company while trashing the environment and poisoning people. By all means...keep it up.

445 points by conductor 5y ago

We'll just reward with with more Amazon buying

This is crazy. Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. How many laws are created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary because of lobbying? Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda?

jessaustin 5y ago
Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Rational people talk about it enough that eventually all their friends beg them to stop talking about it. Perhaps you meant to ask why this is never mentioned on popular commercial news media? Or perhaps you meant to ask why no politician affiliated with Democrat or Republican ever mention it? Those would have been perceptive questions.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  And the people who run for office who talk about it generally lose in the primaries, when we have the chance to support more honest and genuine representatives.
avmich 5y ago
I think Lawrence Lessig was trying to focus on this before 2016 presidential elections.
- tuyguntn 5y ago
  yeah I think this must be solved before any other secondary problems. If taxpayers need President, then let their campaign funded only by taxpayer money. Same applies to Senate and everyone who is elected. Limited and equal amount to all sides and let them be as creative as possible. But never take corporation money
  - pstuart 5y ago
    Indeed. The problem is not lobbying, but campaign finance reform. Conceptually simple, politically impossible.
- chefandy 5y ago
  Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I mean, how rare is that among folks with political aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support for his ideas seemed plausible.
ZetaZero 5y ago
It's nearly impossible to get your name on a state-wide ballot without taking corporate lobbying.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  No it isn't. Since the internet became commonly available it is easier and less expensive than ever. It is however very difficult to get people to vote for you. There is very little voter engagement in the primaries when it is most important and effective.
jimbob45 5y ago
What's wrong with lobbying? If you have a viewpoint that you feel isn't being heard, you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you. Remember that laws are hard to create and usually incredibly complex. Even something as simple as Net Neutrality isn't black and white in terms of winners and losers. What you perceive as "laws created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary people" may not be as numerous as you may think.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby which means its usually corporation that does it. And if corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them are not going to be billion dollar corporation. "you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you" This is a common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to happen. Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We should always complain about wrong law that is created for skulduggery. Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation so we are clear its mostly good.
- Lich 5y ago
  Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. That's why it's almost always a corporate lobbyist. Why do you think it's a good system to have concerns heard only for those who have financial wealth? That skews government policy towards elites and the wealthy, and favors corporate benefit and health. Do you really believe the government is in service to corporations or to the American people? Even when it is an individual, it's almost always a billionaire like Bezos or Bloomberg who is trying to STEAL American taxpayer money so that they can go on their stupid space trips.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    That sounds like you agree with the current state of things though. You agree that citizens should form groups to lobby to counter corporation lobbying. You agree that the government should (and does) give these groups money to lobby via tax statuses and tax incentives. The only disagreement is that you believe these groups should be given more money.
azinman2 5y ago
Because the people making laws benefit from it. It’s the people that are hurt. It’s also not clear what would happen if you somehow were able to make all campaign spending derived from public funds and make lobbying illegal. It would likely just increase direct corruption, but perhaps it would be less than you see now. On the other hand, while only available to the wealthy, lobbying allows for a kind of direct democracy.
- moritonal 5y ago
  I'm fairly sure what you described is the UK system?
s5300 5y ago
? Citizens United was a long time ago Nobody has started killing any of the ultra rich involved in it yet so nothing is going to happen.
dfxm12 5y ago
Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Some politicians do (especially progressives, like Sanders, the Squad, etc.), but they are in the political minority compared to politicians who are swayed by corporate money. The fact is, your average voter singularly cares more about other things (2A, abortion, taxes) than their own privacy. The average media outlet is also very pro-corporation, which, in turn leads to your average voter being pro-corporation as well.
- user3939382 5y ago
  > progressives, like Sanders, the Squad As far as I can tell: Bernie doesn't want to be run out of town like Ralph Nader -- he will do nothing to actually buck the establishment DNC. The squad feigns protest to the establishment DNC (Pelosi et al) only when it's already certain that their voice/vote won't actually effect the outcome of the issue in the direction the establishment wants. It's a scam to keep people voting for Democrats even when they can see the party is corrupt.
gruez 5y ago
>Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process.
- omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
  Someone could be bribed to do "good" stuff too. I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules. I didn't intend to say "well it could also be used for good so we should keep it legal", but yeah this is probably the better take. A better analogy might be: it's totally legal to persuade a judge of your case (ie. what the prosecution/plaintiff/defense does), and totally part of the legal process, but persuading a judge via bribes is illegal.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process. That's the pretty way to present it. In practice, "Citizens, or groups of citizens" is true but unfortunately vague, sort of similar to "Mammals, or groups of mammals, are known to sometimes build buildings out of prefabricated concrete." Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the job.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    Or "retired" government officials via the revolving door. This is also backdoor bribery: "help us out, you got a cushy job waiting for you in the future."
quickthrowman 5y ago
Nobody talks about it because Citizens United v FEC would need to be reversed to change anything in a meaningful way. Reversing that Supreme Court decision is about as likely as admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state, it won’t happen.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Because the term "lobbying" is overinclusive to the point of being useless. 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's necessary to the functioning of a republic. It involves people likely to be affected by the law telling lawmakers their thoughts. These people can be companies. They are also, very frequently, interest groups, nonprofits and individual voters. This is why "let's ban lobbying" is a siren call. If you have representative democracy, you will have influence peddling, i.e. lobbying. "Let's ban corporate lobbying" becomes more tangible, but keep in mind this means you're basically banning every business that can't fly its employees to D.C. from being able to fully communicate with lawmakers. (It also leaves untouched the community organizing side of lobbying, arguably its most potent part, and would probably fall afoul of the First Amendment.) The unfortunate effect of this overinclusiveness is it papers over the bad stuff. The lack of enforcement around campaigns coördinating with PACs. Board seats and cushy jobs offered to former lawmakers. Campaign donations from non-natural persons. This is the stuff I think people are actually offended by. But it's currently too technical for the base that wants to "ban lobbying." TL; DR If you want to push the needle on this issue, drop the idea that lobbying is bad. If you've donated to the EFF, you've hired a lobbyist. If you've called your Congressperson, you've lobbied.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then. All communication must be publicly available.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then Don't know if it's a felony to violate. But this sounds consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's reporting requirements [1]. > All communication must be publicly available This is a bad idea. It privileges those with physical access to lawmakers. It will also crowd out a good amount of honest communication in favor of theatre for public consumption. That said, there might be a way to thread the needle such that substantial communications around actual legislation get captured. Mark-ups on drafts, suggested language, official policy memos, et cetera. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure
jedimastert 5y ago
> Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal What do you think "lobbying" actually means?
mmazing 5y ago
This. All of these other topics you see on either side of the political spectrum are convenient distractions for things like the Panama Papers, lobbying, and corporate welfare. How do we keep topics that matter across the political spectrum at the forefront of public view?
openasocket 5y ago
I'm in the DC area, have friends in the lobbying space. Lobbying generally doesn't involve money changing hands, or campaign contributions, or anything like that. Lobbying congresspeople generally consists of contacting them and convincing them the value of certain positions. Realistically, lobbying is essential for Congress to function. You can't possibly expect every single member of Congress to be an expert on everything they could ever possibly legislate about. They require someone to provide them with background information so that they can make an informed decision. To some extent they can use their staff, or the Congressional Research Service, or do some research on their own, but generally speaking that's not enough. Legislators often maintain active relationships with lobbying groups that they agree with, and can use them as a source on input on legislation. This is no different than a citizen choosing to support a particular bill because a group they trust and respect supports it. A significant amount of lobbying is done simply because a legislator values that group's opinions. When we're talking about more coercive lobbying, it's often done on influence rather than money. A good example is the NRA. There are a significant number of voters for whom gun rights are very important, and will vote for or against a particular candidate based entirely on what the NRA says to do. The NRA thus has a lot of power, and I'd argue more so than could be achieved simply with money. Businesses can lobby based on influence too. If a particular company or industry employs a significant number of your constituents, as a congressperson it is in your best interests to cater to that company or industry. If legislation is passed that helps that industry, they may expand and you can come back to your voters at election time showing you created jobs. If you pass legislation that hurts that industry and people are laid off, on the other hand, people may blame you for it. Even the thought that you might pass a law that might help or hurt an industry can change votes. Don't get me wrong, we need to reform campaign financing. But lobbying in general is a perfectly reasonable and necessary function.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

5300 words and I'm still left wondering, "Who are they?" People have names.

jedimastert 5y ago
Lobbyists are just messengers, from interested groups (corporations, non-profits, individuals) to law-makers. Doesn't matter who they are, another will just pop up.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
Second paragraph of the article: "The architect of this under-the-radar campaign to smother privacy protections has been Jay Carney, who previously served as communications director for Joe Biden, when Biden was vice president, and as press secretary for President Barack Obama. Hired by Amazon in 2015, Carney reported to founder Jeff Bezos and built a lobbying and public-policy juggernaut that has grown from two dozen employees to about 250, according to Amazon documents and two former employees with knowledge of recent staffing."

oriettaxx 5y ago

I always say to my out of Europe friends: just state you are from EU in all your app settings, so you get all the benefits of our privacy legislation (GDPR) at no cost!

1cvmask 5y ago

Amazon is a rational company and acts in its own interest. The politicians we elect act in Amazons interest. So we are to fault for this. No hiding the truth. If we to change (a big if) we have to not vote for the corporate politicians. Till then it is just whining and dining. From the article: The architect of this under-the-radar campaign to smother privacy protections has been Jay Carney, who previously served as communications director for Joe Biden, when Biden was vice president, and as press secretary for President Barack Obama. Hired by Amazon in 2015, Carney reported to founder Jeff Bezos and built a lobbying and public-policy juggernaut that has grown from two dozen employees to about 250, according to Amazon documents and two former employees with knowledge of recent staffing.

xbar 5y ago
We have to not vote for the corporate politicians. Which ones are those?
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  The ones running in the primary elections that almost no one pays attention to or votes in. Places in Maine and Vermont managed to keep out big box stores. Because they cared and cared enough to be informed and vote. It can be more difficult in areas with more people but I think democracy can scale.
- avmich 5y ago
  We have to look at them and find out. We have to _constantly_ look at them, politics isn't a single transaction - you can't have democracy running by itself, you have to always practically support it with attention and resources.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Corporate isn't a useful term of division nor a guide to policy. If say Maine lost their mind and decided to try to autarkize their state government they would wind up just running things far less efficiently from effectively a neurotic a fear of companies as HP Lovecraft had of the ocean. The entire framing of "the people vs. corporations" is a massively overreductive us-vs-them clichè used in service of demagoguery. It is divorced from the reality of not only how the system works but even how any theoretical system could and would work. Instead it is about emotional flattery. The whole dichotomy is worse than useless. Like trying to divide politicians between who is a grey and who is a snakeperson, a nonsensical distraction. There are always conflicting interests in complex arrangements. Just look at the dynamics and all of the interests for and against the proposed "US made union manufactured electric vehicle subsidy".

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

I am already swamped every year in California with annual privacy notices which seem to have to be mailed in paper format. We also seem to have these cookie alert pop-ups in California - also very annoying. Is anyone tired of this stuff rather than enjoying it? We keep on being told this is all to help us. I find these cookie pop-ups stupid and annoying, just require a policy on the site, if I care I can go look. I'd be far FAR more impressed if we actually BANNED these damn things and switched to a basic enforcement model where even 1% of the crap on the net got cleaned up.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 5y ago
California, I've noticed since I've moved here, is in love with giving you a million notices nobody ever reads and that have no effect on anybody's behavior (the way every second thing you buy "contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer" is just the most obvious example). If they want to regulate something they should actually do it instead of wasting everybody's time with that stuff, imo.
- DavidPeiffer 5y ago
  California causes a large annoyance to supply chains and manufacturing. Their strict environmental standards mean as a trucker, you either service California or not. It's not something you just decide to do starting next week. From memory, the truck engine has to be under 10 years old and meet really strict emissions standards, costing a significant premium. For manufacturers, ensuring those stickers are in anything sold in California is a pain, and when you make millions of units, it often doesn't make sense to just apply the sticker, labeling, and documentation to everything you make.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    The environmental standards have a more tangible benefit and can have a pseudo-national effect given the size of California's market, so I'm not critical of that aspect. Slapping warning labels on everything without changing it feels like a waste of time, at least if you're not selective enough to make them useful to consumers.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

> One 2018 document reviewing executives’ goals for the prior year listed privacy regulation as a primary target for Carney. One objective: “Change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for Alexa-powered devices” It's one thing to assume that corporations will act in their own self-interests, but this is like they said the quiet part loud. How do you write or even read that document and believe you're acting in a moral or ethical manner?

tqi 5y ago
If you reject the notion that Alexa-powered devices are bad, would this be immoral or unethical? ie medical marijuana lobbyists would probably say that they are looking to "change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for medical marijuana."
- roystonvassey 5y ago
  Not sure about morality but yes it’s unethical and borderline illegal. If an elected body is planning legislations, actively blocking it means you’re suppressing the voice of the public and the voters.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > If an elected body is planning legislations, actively blocking it means you’re suppressing the voice of the public and the voters This is reductive. When the Congress was writing cryptocurrency reporting rules, the crypto industry asking for clarifying amendments (to avoid classifying miners as exchanges) wasn't suppressing anyone's voice. It was supplementing it with specialist knowledge.
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      When we write laws about speeding should we ask sports car owners to supplement the legislative record with their specialist knowledge?

fhood 5y ago

So, not to play devil's advocate, and I'm sure they would push against a federal law just as hard, but I can understand a reluctance to allow state specific privacy laws. That sucks, and compliance would be very expensive and complicated.

nr2x 5y ago
Ultimately they are fighting the tide with a broom: most people - most voters - want stricter tech regulation. Per Pew: "Some 56% of Americans think major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now, and 68% believe these firms have too much power and influence in the economy" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-americans-support-more-regulation-of-major-technology-companies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...
- Sebguer 5y ago
  A majority of the country has wanted legal weed for ~12 years now, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the American government representing the actual desires and interests of the population.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    A majority of the country now lives in places where weed is legal.
- tqi 5y ago
  "56% of Americans think major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now" I think while the majority want more regulation, they are totally split on the direction. Do you think a majority of Americans could agree on something even as basic as "should social media companies be required to censor/moderate content on their platforms more or less?"

kodah 5y ago

> As executives edited the draft, Herdener summed up a central goal in a margin note: “We want policymakers and press to fear us,” he wrote. He described this desire as a “mantra” that had united department leaders in a Washington strategy session. The chairman of Amazon owns a newspaper and nearly every person mentioned in this story works or has worked for a prominent political party. Obviously there's some standouts and they deserve some accolades: > Cunningham has tried unsuccessfully since 2019 to require companies to get consumer consent before storing or sharing smart-speaker recordings. When Cunningham re-introduced the measure this year, Amazon took a novel lobbying approach: It argued the privacy protections would hurt disabled people. > Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and the ranking member of the judiciary committee, was among Amazon’s top-tier VIPs, the 2014 watering-the-flowers document shows. Last month, Grassley co-authored a bill with Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar that would prohibit companies including Amazon from favoring their own products on their e-commerce platforms. then... > Amazon recently has widened its lobbying strategy to focus less on killing or neutering legislation it opposed and more on drafting favorable bills and getting them passed in friendly legislatures, a former public-policy employee said. That tack paid off in a big way this year in Virginia, where Amazon convinced Sen. David Marsden, a business-friendly Democrat, to introduce privacy legislation that the company had drafted. Sounds conspicuously like the mission of ALEC. Anyone defending Amazon's recording collection practices should pay particular attention to this feature: > Some recordings involved conversations between family members using Alexa devices to communicate across different parts of the house. Several recordings captured children apologizing to their parents after being disciplined. Others picked up the children, ages 7, 9 and 12, asking Alexa questions about terms like “pansexual.” You can use Alexa as an intercom. It's recording that too, which does not fit into explanation of why they record regular Alexa prompts. > Florian Schaub, a privacy researcher at the University of Michigan, said businesses are not always transparent about what they’re doing with users’ data. “We have to rely on Amazon doing the right thing,” he said, “rather than being confident the data can’t be misused.” There are no easy answers to privacy. Regulations can only be a first step, because this is the paradigm and I'm not going to argue that it shouldn't be. There has to be something better than these outcomes though. Maybe I'm biased and just see all the darkness woven into this story.

GordonS 5y ago

tmaly 5y ago

I wonder what would happen if the alexa recordings captured some HIPPA protected medical information that a customer spoke verbally in the privacy of their own home.

andjd 5y ago
HIPAA generally only limits what information healthcare providers (e.g. doctors and hospitals) can disclose ... so nothing.
jedimastert 5y ago
HIPAA (two a's, not two p's) is a regulation of communications from and by medical providers. This is the same false information people spit about vaccine cards.
- tmaly 5y ago
  I think the scope is beyond that. My friend works for a startup that makes a medical platform for ordering things like wheelchairs. He and the company are bound by the law. The distinction is if you are working with protected health information, not that you are a medical provider.
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    I think at that point they count as a "healthcare provider"

specialist 5y ago

If politics was a game of rock, paper, scissors: What is the counter to Amazon's lobbying? I've done some DIY lobbying myself. Fought city hall, won some (very) minor battles, lost the war. Burned out after a few years. Still foraging for role models, case studies, examples of effective policy organizations. Some kind of playbook. Keep hoping some one, some where has some ideas -- actionable, reproducible, sustainable -- for bottom up organizing to effectively counter the boa constrictor squishing the life force out of civil society.

jacquesm 5y ago
Boycott.
- gaze 5y ago
  Boycotts don’t work unless they’re organized on a massive scale. Otherwise it’s just a blip, or a relatively constant background. People are boycotting Amazon right now and this is incorporated into their decisions.
jdp23 5y ago
It's only one data point, but here in Washington state grassroots organizers have stopped Amazon (and Microsoft) from passing the Bad Washington Privacy Act three years in a row now. The key has been the Tech Equity Coalition, a loose coalition group of organizations and individuals (including civil rights, labor, immigrant rights groups). Local progressive activists have also gotten deeply involved, and of course we've gotten help from national groups like EPIC, Consumer Federation of America, and EFF. We also got the King County Council to pass a ban on government use of facial recognition -- and that's Amazon and Microsoft's home turf! Of course, we still haven't passed strong privacy legislation yet. In the 2021 session Amazon and Microsoft's lobbying was enough to prevent the bill we brought from even getting a hearing. So, we'll see what happens in 2022. But it feels like momentum is on our side.
- PicassoCTs 5y ago
  This - is not it. He who plays in the defense has to be eternally vigilant and can not loose once. Best approach in my eye is to form a "one" cause party, whos only "cause" is to power-bust and promptly dissolve afterwards, and not touch on partisan issue. "Block Buster"Party might sound strange, but if the only purpose is to disrupt power imbalances and then self-dissolve to trigger the next election - that could get a majority.

olliej 5y ago

Amazon, google, Facebook, telcos The only realistic way to do anything in America is to make something cost money. How about a law saying that the statutory minimum fine for any data leak is $1 per person, for each individual piece of data that is does not have legally mandated collection?

schleck8 5y ago

Each time I visit Amazon I am now reminded of Bezos' yacht and space trip, which is great because I now tend to look around elsewhere. Geizhals and Idealo are helpful for finding alternative dealerships. Usually Amazon isn't the cheapest anyways.

landonxjames 5y ago

There was a long article in Wired yesterday about Amazon's retail side privacy failures https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-failed-to-protect-your-data-investigation https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-failed-to-protect-your-da...

thecleaner 5y ago

Arent they worried that if stories like these get out it is going to hurt their brand ? Also whats the point of doing all this if the profit comes from AWS ?

black_13 5y ago

Is it ok to hate Amazon.

datavirtue 5y ago

Business needs barred from politics. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Separation of business and state. They should not be able to lobby. This amounts to enabling corporations to curtail unionization efforts and other counter productive pursuits with collective public resources...turning the people's will against themselves. Power robbed. It is a fundamental, regressive flaw of our society. If they want to weild political power then they should start a union that negotiates for the workers. The collective will of those workers would influence the political realm with their individual votes. Both in company matters and those of society. I don't trust a secretive group of managers incentivized by short term gain making decisions for all of society. I don't think anyone does, yet here we are. We purport to have a democratic society and then walk into a company that's organized like a bronze age city state and yield most of our freedoms and power to a cadre that does nothing but feed us shit and loot the company while trashing the environment and poisoning people. By all means...keep it up.