7 ms·

Senator Warren proposes sweeping ban on location and health data sales

• swayvil 4y ago
  Does anybody fall for this bunkum anymore? She's pandering to the fearflavor of the day for media attention. --- Re the gender obsessives - sorry, dropped an s.
  • tomrod 4y ago
    She.
  • Geeek 4y ago
    Does anyone else feel like op did not read the article and is just taking a stance for the sake of taking a stance?
  • pc86 4y ago
    To what male Senator Warren are you referring?
  • JasserInicide 4y ago
    Yeah, Warren hasn't done anything of substance since the CFPB. And even that has been of questionable value. She's just doing the typical saber-rattling to get her already-liberal base to keep voting for her.
• PeterisP 4y ago
  What's needed is a ban on usage of location and health data unless very specific conditions are met, targeting the purchasers of data not only the middlemen and ensuring that it's illegal to use personal data which "fell off of a truck". Data brokers can go underground to circumvent a ban on sales, but the end users funding that industry are legitimate businesses who (hopefully) would have to follow the laws, so it's important to target them.
  • duxup 4y ago
    Interesting idea. I kinda would go with both. I'd rather see the sales banned to some extent as well even if it was underground anyway.
  • tmp_anon_22 4y ago
    Isn't that a war on billionaires using drugs? Where "information usage being criminalized" is "drug consumption being criminalized" and the "billionaire doing drugs" is the "multi-billion dollar corporation using the data"?
    • robonerd 4y ago
      "War on drugs" and alcohol prohibition are frequently used by libertarians to suggest that all forms of prohibition are doomed to cause more damage than that which they prohibit. But this is a sleight of hand, drawing attention to two specific prohibitions which generally failed, away from the myraid of prohibitions that work just fine. Such as the prohibition against selling cars without airbags, or the regulation of CFCs, or asbestos in new construction, or selling live frag grenades to the unlicensed public, or a thousand other things governments around the world successfully regulate and prohibit every day.
    • mindslight 4y ago
      A corporation (or LLC) is not equivalent to a singular person or a small informal group, but rather a bureaucracy that operates according to openly promulgated rules and goals. Operating outside of those rules exposes one to individual liability, regardless of specific individuals often being judgement proof or otherwise impractical to assign blame to. One of the practical problems with the "war on drugs" was its bumping up against individual privacy. Corporations have no such privacy nor right to privacy - being chartered under government authority means they need to continually file compliance reports and are essentially closer to being organs of the state rather than individual humans. So no, if a company does decide to illicitly process personal information for nonconsensual purposes, that most certainly can be enforced upon.
  • robonerd 4y ago
• anm89 4y ago
  • micromacrofoot 4y ago
    If you're not going to include supporting evidence, then why make the comment at all?
    • anm89 4y ago
      Evidence of what? I'm saying I like her decision. How do I provide evidence of an opinion? > If you're not going to include supporting evidence, then why make the comment at all? Can you provide evidence of this?
      • wolverine876 4y ago
        > How do I provide evidence of an opinion? That seems fundamental to reasoned discussion?
      • nh23423fefe 4y ago
        You are saying, "she says the same shit all the time, she was right this one time" Your comment is a zero value snipe at Warren and not about data collection. You literally were just triggered by a name in the headline and had to comment. I assume "AOC" probably causes you to do the same.
        • anm89 4y ago
      • micromacrofoot 4y ago
        This is just bad faith after bad faith. If you say something bad about someone either back it up or don’t say it. I want to hear why Elizabeth Warren is bad so I can decide for myself, otherwise your comment is the equivalent of saying nothing. It contains zero information.
• gumby 4y ago
  OK sounds great to me so what are the downsides? For example a navigation app itself could still collect and use the data itself, but couldn’t sell that to a third-party. A geofenced application could be woken up by the system when I entered the region (say OmniFocus reminding me that I could stop in and pick up a prescription that is ready — I would be explicitly asking for this to happen). So what great functionality could I miss out on if this became law?
  • nickff 4y ago
    >"So what great functionality could I miss out on if this became law?" We are just at the beginning of analyzing and using health and location data; if there are groundbreaking use cases for them, it's very likely that we haven't seen (or even thought) of them yet.
    • jen20 4y ago
      Great - in that case now is the best time to get ahead of the curve in making sure that such use cases are ethical and not used by scumbags to target advertising.
  • MBCook 4y ago
    The one big downside I see is Google (and the cell phone carriers, and a few others). They already HAVE this data. It’s part of running Maps or a cell network. So this further entrenches them in some ways because they can make decisions and products off data no one else has. You know that thing when you search a place and it tells you how busy it is at certain hours? Bing could never replicate that. They have no way of knowing.
    • GauntletWizard 4y ago
      The way to deal with that is to enshrine into law that Google are not the owners of this data, but merely stewards. My maps location data should not be available to other divisions within Google, and should only be available to the maps team to serve my interests. There are effective rules that your bank is not allowed to sell your account information. Your location information should be subject to much the same.
• Overtonwindow 4y ago
  What about the health and location data that is already out there? How would that be handled, can it be sold, exchanged, or does it have to be destroyed?
• nostromo 4y ago
  It's unexpected that they're coming at this from an abortion angle... but I'm all for it. Just last month it was reported that the CDC was buying troves of this data (from the same vendor Warren is calling out) to monitor millions of us without our permission. Similarly DHS, ICE, and the FBI have all been found to be buying this data -- which is a legal loophole to get around actually getting a warrant. I hope lawmakers don't carve out any exceptions for government in any such ban.
  • kelnos 4y ago
    > It's unexpected that they're coming at this from an abortion angle Even if there was a chance that the GOP would let this through the Senate on its own merits, tying this to abortion-related issues all but guarantees this bill is dead.
    • robonerd 4y ago
      I fear you're right. There are some privacy issues GOP voters care about though; privacy regulations could also be framed in terms of protecting private gun sales for instance. Or to prohibit stores from keeping track of who the preppers are (those that care probably pay with cash already, but what about facial recognition in the stores? Frame that as a threat, and prohibit it.)
      • throwaway894345 4y ago
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      I have to think that she knows as much too. It's a bad bill (it would be ruinous for healthcare research), and I think it's more about scoring points with pro-choice and pro-privacy voters than it is about actually passing policy (at least I hope she wouldn't seriously try to upend healthcare research).
  • throwaway894345 4y ago
    Based on TFA, this bill sounds disastrous for healthcare research which depends on access to this sort of data to find treatments and cures for diseases like cancer, HIV, COVID, etc. I'm all for preventing advertisers from sweeping up our data, but a blanket ban on the sale of healthcare data would be lethally short-sighted (note that "personally identifiable" healthcare data is already protected by HIPAA, so I'm pretty sure this bill aims to eliminate the sale of "de-identified" healthcare data).
• chasil 4y ago
• edko 4y ago
  What about banning the postal service from selling customer's data, and funding it some other way? What about changing the "do not call me register" to a "please call me register" and making do not call me the default, and penalizing those who break the rules? How about banning all those websites that aggregate and sell personal information from social media and public records?
  • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    > What about banning the postal service from selling customer's data, and funding it some other way? If you actually read the article, you'd see that this is in response to the upcoming Roe v. Wade vote and how health app data could be used against citizens in the future. More broadly though, if we always chose to reject legislation based on the fact that we believe it could go further in some way, nothing would ever get done. It's never good enough for somebody. We're OK with businesses shipping half-baked MVPs but we always expect elegant and complete waterfall legislation from our government.
    • RobertRoberts 4y ago
      The problem is that because this move is partisan it won't be effective accept as political ploy.
      • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
        Well I got bad news, everything that happens in US Federal politics today is partisan. That's not an excuse not to try.
  • Johnny555 4y ago
    What data does the USPS sell other than change of address (which I'm a fan of since it means I rarely have to update my address when I move, the businesses I care about find out from the USPS). I know they scan incoming mail, do they sell any of that information?
    • 4y ago
• etchalon 4y ago
  A very solid start. Personally, I believe it should be illegal to sell, or buy, personal data for the purposes of marketing or monetization. Companies can use the data they've acquired through direct integration, and companies can provide services which utilize that data to other companies, but the actual data should never change hands or be exposed to a third-party. I'd also like to see a ban on politicians sharing, renting or selling donor lists but I have absolutely no faith that bill would pass.
• pyronik19 4y ago
  Right after they used location data to expose election fraud lol... plugging that hole in their fraud.
• ars 4y ago
  They could link it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act and just broaden what's illegal. Add all media data, library book records, and location data.
• wolverine876 4y ago
  What hope does this have of passing? The Democrats act as if they live in a psychotic delusion: as if the GOP won't disrupt this attempt and everything else the Dems do, and as if the Dems were not even aware of that problem - not only not confronting it, but not even naming it, like it doesn't exist! The issue with privacy (and many other problem) is politics. The US has a critical political problem. There is a political problem to solve. Why would the GOP stop doing it if they keep gaining at the ballot box, and if the Democratic Party doesn't make them pay a price for it? Who would ever vote for a party that advertises it's haplessness?
  • ejb999 4y ago
    Senator Warren loves to introduce bills, as far as she is concerned that is the only goal - very little of what she proposes ever goes anywhere, likely by design.
  • Gibbon1 4y ago
    Well Warren's pissing off her fellow Democrats by submitting bills like this.
  • danaris 4y ago
    No, the Democrats act as if they are there to govern, and force the GOP to admit over and over that they are there to prevent governance. The problem is that too much of the GOP base actually wants that obstructionism. Now, granted, the Democrats do have a big problem with admitting that the game has changed and changing how they do things to take that into account, but personally, I believe continuing to introduce bills to try to genuinely address some of the problems in our country, thus showing that they do have the will and the ideas to continue governing, is something they absolutely should be doing even in this situation. What, exactly, would you propose the Democrats do instead?
    • wolverine876 4y ago
      > No, the Democrats act as if they are there to govern, and force the GOP to admit over and over that they are there to prevent governance. That's what the Dems tell themselves, but everyone know it's BS - that's why everyone is so anxious and stressed, why it seems that the world is going crazy. We are in a crisis and our leaders are hiding their heads in the sand, telling us - against all reality - that they will proceed like everything is normal. It's just a way for the leaders to stay in their safe space (legislation) and not get into the political fight, which is all that matters at this point - nothing can happen until that problem is solved, and our society and freedom will continue to be destroyed. The Democratic leaders are cowards - just like military commanders who avoid engaging the enemy, with every rationalization in the book. The enemy is advancing, they are over the next hill, you need to fight (lawfully, politically, peacefully, with integrity) - and WIN. Is that too strong? That it seems strong shows how backward the Dems are. There is no doubt, they need to fight and must win, but they aren't even in the mindset of fighting. 'Trying' is for losers. The Dems are content to lose. > I believe continuing to introduce bills to try to genuinely address some of the problems in our country, thus showing that they do have the will and the ideas to continue governing, is something they absolutely should be doing even in this situation. Showing who? Who in the public knows what bills they've introduced (HN is a rarefied population)? Who even knows what they've passed? What effect does this have on the crisis? Legislation is their safe space. It's like the insurgency has broken into the Capitol and the Democratic leaders say, 'Let's introduce bills!' And don't forget, 'but only introduce bills that don't risk any conflict or confrontation - we don't want any of that!' (like the gun control bill). > What, exactly, would you propose the Democrats do instead? Here's what they could do: Don't compromise on the gun control bill, push for the really needed measures and hold it over the GOP all the way through November. Hammer on the GOP's inaction, their sociopathic response to these murders. Keep repeating it, keep challenging them publicly, make the GOP leaders piss in their pants fearing the next mass shooting. Then we might get real, sane gun regulations (no, not taking away everyone's guns), by voting out the obstructionists. Instead, the hapless Dems gave the GOP a major victory, making the GOP look reasonable and non-obstructionist, and demonstrating again to the public that the GOP holds the real power and must be appeased - and that the Dems are the appeasers. Unbelievable - and entirely expected.
• throwaway894345 4y ago
  This seems rife for catastrophic unintended consequences. Even given this one absurdly narrow use case: > When abortion is illegal, researching reproductive health care online, updating a period-tracking app, or bringing a phone to the doctor’s office all could be used to track and prosecute women across the U.S. It amounts to uterus surveillance The pro-abortion folks could use this to identify where abortion services are in the highest demand, so limiting access to the data isn't an unmitigated good (assuming you think abortions are "good"). Moreover, healthcare researchers buy a whole bunch of data from these brokerages--how are we supposed to advance healthcare research without access to good data (at least it seems from reading this article that this bill would prohibit this sort of access)? I'm all for making it harder for advertisers to track people, but I'm not willing to trade off prospective treatments and cures for serious diseases. There has to be a more selective approach.
• RickJWagner 4y ago
  Ironic, considering the Democratic party pioneered demographic data mining. Don't get me wrong-- I think stopping the exploitation of consumer data would be a good step-- but politicians (of all parties) are some of the most enthusiastic purchasers of such data.