6 ms·

You can also see which companies sent lobbyists to work on this bill. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/summary?cycle=2022&id=hr8152-117 https

You can also see which companies sent lobbyists to work on this bill. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/summary?cycle=2022&id=hr8152-117 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/summary?c...

guerrilla 4y ago
That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?
- noasaservice 4y ago
  So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies... which already likely do the bare minimum. I'm not sure of the term. It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    Regulatory capture.
    - tomatotomato37 4y ago
      It's almost like blindly calling for regulation without accounting for the political/monetary influence of those being regulated is a bad idea or something
      - ahtihn 4y ago
        > blindly calling for regulation [...] is a bad idea What do you expect people to do instead?
        water-your-self 4y ago
        Call for individual protections, possibly with a solvent soaked rag in a bottle, typically.
        tomatotomato37 4y ago
        It's like a genie wish. You have to be very specific in what you are asking for.
  - rabuse 4y ago
    Yep, always used to stifle competition. Regulate the hell out of it, so new companies can't even begin without millions up front.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Small companies are exempt from CCPA?
  - zeruch 4y ago
    The term is probably "regulatory capture"
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market. barriers to entry [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
  - root_axis 4y ago
    > So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies The bill outlines exemptions for business making less than 40 million annually. I haven't read the whole thing so it's possible I missed something, could you point out which sections you're referring to to draw that conclusion?
yumraj 4y ago
Great, we have the usual anti-privacy companies there as well as ByteDance .. what can go wrong.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature and even write language that eventually gets enshrined as law. It's even more insane we allow the state-affiliated entities of our adversaries to do this.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature Well, it would be rather pointless to elect to hire a representative to represent you and then not take time to make your position known with them. They certainly are not mind readers. And you can't realistically remove big businesses from citizenry as those who are stakeholders in big business are going to bias their position to what benefits their business. Business is people, after all. ByteDance certainly has stakeholders who are American citizens. So we make a best effort to register those biases for the sake of transparency. The only real alternative, short of abandoning democracy entirely, is to leave it a mystery who talked to their representatives.
    - vinay_ys 4y ago
      Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? Shouldn't such mechanisms be equally accessible to all constituents irrespective of their ability to spend $$? Also, don't the representatives have pre-election issues based manifesto when they are seeking votes to get elected? Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made?
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? The advantage big business has is scale. Big business, by definition, has many more stakeholders. This means that big business will be disproportionately represented by the constituents. If those biases weren't made clear, and each constituent's position was taken at face value, then the unified front would appear stronger than it would actually be if each actor were acting without those biases. > Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made? I'm not sure why you'd want them to. The state of the world is constantly changing and new information continues to flow in. You will be constantly reevaluating your position in the face of new information. A representative will respond to that. Representatives know that some segment of the population honestly believe that they are mind readers and will offer up some examples of how they might try to read the minds of those who buy into that witchcraft to attract their vote, but marketing and reality are quite different.
nixass 4y ago
*briberies
laweijfmvo 4y ago
The first thing to know about US Laws/Bills is that whatever they name it, it typically achieves the opposite
- classified 4y ago
  I assume "Data Privacy" means privacy for the company that collected the data and "Protection" means protection from the people they collected it from.
  - water-your-self 4y ago
    The U.S. government makes often use of the data that many companies keep about us. Android geofencing is my clasic example for non tech.
- paparush 4y ago
  Sadly true.
- mdip 4y ago
  Completely, especially if it has the words "Digital", "Online" or "Data". I haven't read the bill or read about the bill but I'd wager a coffee there's also some form of entertainment/copyright industry hostility in there. I'm really trying not to be cynical here, but I started so I might as well finish. Step #2 is if it does happen to pass, the parts of the bill that are actually consumer protections will be unenforceable, be ruled unconstitutional or have unintended negative consequences. The bad parts of the law will have no issues in the courts or with enforcement. They, too, will have unintended added negative consequences.
  - roamerz 4y ago
    You forgot the words “Inflation“, “Equality“, “Infrastructure”, “Dream”, “People”, “Save”, “Health”, Budget” or “Climate”.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
water-your-self 4y ago
Alphabet and amazon are on the last page, alphabet having spent ~3mil and amazon ~5mil
- hot_gril 4y ago
  I think the theme is just that they're big companies.
jdp23 4y ago
There's been some good reporting on the lobbying on ADPPA What Microsoft, IBM and others won as the privacy bill evolved - https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/cloud-enterprise-privacy https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/cloud-enterprise... Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers - Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers
- rt4mn 4y ago
  Microsoft has been a particularly bad actor in this space. They have been hiring lobbyists to advocate at the state level for shitty "consumer privacy bills", specifically because they want to forestall and kneecap federal legislation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pushing-bad-privacy-bills-washington-state-can-and-must-do https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pus...
  - vinay_ys 4y ago
    What's Microsoft's interest in this? They don't have a big search or ads business. What are they doing with Consumer data?
    - rt4mn 4y ago
      Their interest is in their bottom line and avoiding regulation. Pretty much any company that has a lot of users creating accounts will be impacted by even the most milquetoast privacy regulation to some degree or another, and I guess microsoft sees the cost of hiring a bunch of lobyists as cheaper then having to deal with the regulation that might come about if they dont.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
      "They don't have a big search or ads business." $11.5 billion is not small. From 10K Revenue, classified by significant product and service offerings, was as follows: (In millions) Year Ended June 30, 2022 2021 2020 Server products and cloud services $ 67,321 $ 52,589 $ 41,379 Office products and cloud services 44,862 39,872 35,316 Windows 24,761 22,488 21,510 Gaming 16,230 15,370 11,575 LinkedIn 13,816 10,289 8,077 Search and news advertising 11,591 9,267 8,524 Enterprise Services 7,407 6,943 6,409 Devices 6,991 6,791 6,457 Other 5,291 4,479 3,768 Total $ 198,270 $ 168,088 $ 143,015
ece 4y ago
The real co-sponsors. Or at least, cosponsors-lite.

guerrilla 4y ago

That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?

noasaservice 4y ago
So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies... which already likely do the bare minimum. I'm not sure of the term. It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.
- jedberg 4y ago
  Regulatory capture.
  - tomatotomato37 4y ago
    It's almost like blindly calling for regulation without accounting for the political/monetary influence of those being regulated is a bad idea or something
    - ahtihn 4y ago
      > blindly calling for regulation [...] is a bad idea What do you expect people to do instead?
      - water-your-self 4y ago
        Call for individual protections, possibly with a solvent soaked rag in a bottle, typically.
      - tomatotomato37 4y ago
        It's like a genie wish. You have to be very specific in what you are asking for.
- rabuse 4y ago
  Yep, always used to stifle competition. Regulate the hell out of it, so new companies can't even begin without millions up front.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Small companies are exempt from CCPA?
- zeruch 4y ago
  The term is probably "regulatory capture"
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market. barriers to entry [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
- root_axis 4y ago
  > So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies The bill outlines exemptions for business making less than 40 million annually. I haven't read the whole thing so it's possible I missed something, could you point out which sections you're referring to to draw that conclusion?

yumraj 4y ago

Great, we have the usual anti-privacy companies there as well as ByteDance .. what can go wrong.

chitowneats 4y ago
It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature and even write language that eventually gets enshrined as law. It's even more insane we allow the state-affiliated entities of our adversaries to do this.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature Well, it would be rather pointless to elect to hire a representative to represent you and then not take time to make your position known with them. They certainly are not mind readers. And you can't realistically remove big businesses from citizenry as those who are stakeholders in big business are going to bias their position to what benefits their business. Business is people, after all. ByteDance certainly has stakeholders who are American citizens. So we make a best effort to register those biases for the sake of transparency. The only real alternative, short of abandoning democracy entirely, is to leave it a mystery who talked to their representatives.
  - vinay_ys 4y ago
    Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? Shouldn't such mechanisms be equally accessible to all constituents irrespective of their ability to spend $$? Also, don't the representatives have pre-election issues based manifesto when they are seeking votes to get elected? Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made?
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? The advantage big business has is scale. Big business, by definition, has many more stakeholders. This means that big business will be disproportionately represented by the constituents. If those biases weren't made clear, and each constituent's position was taken at face value, then the unified front would appear stronger than it would actually be if each actor were acting without those biases. > Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made? I'm not sure why you'd want them to. The state of the world is constantly changing and new information continues to flow in. You will be constantly reevaluating your position in the face of new information. A representative will respond to that. Representatives know that some segment of the population honestly believe that they are mind readers and will offer up some examples of how they might try to read the minds of those who buy into that witchcraft to attract their vote, but marketing and reality are quite different.

nixass 4y ago

*briberies

laweijfmvo 4y ago

The first thing to know about US Laws/Bills is that whatever they name it, it typically achieves the opposite

classified 4y ago
I assume "Data Privacy" means privacy for the company that collected the data and "Protection" means protection from the people they collected it from.
- water-your-self 4y ago
  The U.S. government makes often use of the data that many companies keep about us. Android geofencing is my clasic example for non tech.
paparush 4y ago
Sadly true.
mdip 4y ago
Completely, especially if it has the words "Digital", "Online" or "Data". I haven't read the bill or read about the bill but I'd wager a coffee there's also some form of entertainment/copyright industry hostility in there. I'm really trying not to be cynical here, but I started so I might as well finish. Step #2 is if it does happen to pass, the parts of the bill that are actually consumer protections will be unenforceable, be ruled unconstitutional or have unintended negative consequences. The bad parts of the law will have no issues in the courts or with enforcement. They, too, will have unintended added negative consequences.
- roamerz 4y ago
  You forgot the words “Inflation“, “Equality“, “Infrastructure”, “Dream”, “People”, “Save”, “Health”, Budget” or “Climate”.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago

water-your-self 4y ago

Alphabet and amazon are on the last page, alphabet having spent ~3mil and amazon ~5mil

hot_gril 4y ago
I think the theme is just that they're big companies.

jdp23 4y ago

There's been some good reporting on the lobbying on ADPPA What Microsoft, IBM and others won as the privacy bill evolved - https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/cloud-enterprise-privacy https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/cloud-enterprise... Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers - Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers

rt4mn 4y ago
Microsoft has been a particularly bad actor in this space. They have been hiring lobbyists to advocate at the state level for shitty "consumer privacy bills", specifically because they want to forestall and kneecap federal legislation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pushing-bad-privacy-bills-washington-state-can-and-must-do https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pus...
- vinay_ys 4y ago
  What's Microsoft's interest in this? They don't have a big search or ads business. What are they doing with Consumer data?
  - rt4mn 4y ago
    Their interest is in their bottom line and avoiding regulation. Pretty much any company that has a lot of users creating accounts will be impacted by even the most milquetoast privacy regulation to some degree or another, and I guess microsoft sees the cost of hiring a bunch of lobyists as cheaper then having to deal with the regulation that might come about if they dont.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
    "They don't have a big search or ads business." $11.5 billion is not small. From 10K Revenue, classified by significant product and service offerings, was as follows: (In millions) Year Ended June 30, 2022 2021 2020 Server products and cloud services $ 67,321 $ 52,589 $ 41,379 Office products and cloud services 44,862 39,872 35,316 Windows 24,761 22,488 21,510 Gaming 16,230 15,370 11,575 LinkedIn 13,816 10,289 8,077 Search and news advertising 11,591 9,267 8,524 Enterprise Services 7,407 6,943 6,409 Devices 6,991 6,791 6,457 Other 5,291 4,479 3,768 Total $ 198,270 $ 168,088 $ 143,015

ece 4y ago

The real co-sponsors. Or at least, cosponsors-lite.