5 ms·

Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell upended privacy bills for years

83 points by Terretta 3y ago

notamy 3y ago
https://archive.is/2024.04.14-205049/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/13/congress-maria-cantwell-online-privacy/ https://archive.is/2024.04.14-205049/https://www.washingtonp...
neglesaks 3y ago
Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a landmark agreement from three key lawmakers, a first-of-its kind bipartisan deal. Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate." Ahhh, the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  Yeah. It's her pet issue. Much like term limits and many other things for other elected representatives, if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more This isn't how politics works. Issues can bring someone into office. They rarely remove them from them. Cantwell is kept in office by the machine she built. If she delivered to that machine, she'd gain from it, not lose. The only thing she would be doing by "saving" an issue is telegraphing to a primary competitor that there are chips on the table.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers Do we know why she bombed those bills? She could be two faced. Or she could be a case of perfect being the enemy of the good.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
      - freddie_mercury 3y ago
        "Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  Uh, I just want to point that the sentence you quote gives the reader zero information concerning the substance of the questions being debated. It could be summarized as "she didn't accept undescribed things that key unnamed people wanted". Not to put too fine a point on it but the main thing it illustrates is the opaqueness of journalist political commentary, something Debord liken to a "tedious series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels [having] all the dramatic interest of a realistically staged fight between blacks, at night, in a tunnel." [1] [1] https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_Society_of_the_Spectacle_1990.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_...
  - xbar 3y ago
    We should demand good journalism. The remainder of this article quotes more than a dozen sources. It seems to rise above pure political commentary by a fair chunk. There is no surprise to me that the chair of a tech privacy panel is opposed to privacy. That seems to be the kind of person that would get such an appointment.
walterbell 3y ago
Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or weaker than state privacy legislation?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or weaker than state privacy legislation? Probably weaker, because that's how compromises work.
  - _factor 3y ago
    In fact, that’s how US laws were intended to work. Federal gives guidelines that apply to all states. The states narrow the scope for any issues that arise.
    - walterbell 3y ago
      Can federal laws prevent state laws from providing privacy protections?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 3y ago
        Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption#
    - D13Fd 3y ago
      That's not necessarily true in the US. Federal law can either preempt state law, meaning that states are not permitted to pass stricter or less strict laws in an area (e.g., copyright and patent law), or not, meaning that states are free to pass stricter laws.
- howard941 3y ago
  > The two sides remained apart on key sticking points — whether a federal law should override state privacy measures, as Republicans wanted, and whether consumers should be able to sue companies directly, as Democrats desired. The disputes have long befuddled negotiators. Looks like the proposal she favored left state privacy measures in place. And didn't preempt consumer actions.
Blackstrat 3y ago
Remember where she is from. Nuff said.
- seadan83 3y ago
  No, there is more to the story: > On Sunday, Cantwell heralded a breakthrough privacy measure with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), marking the first time the leaders of the two critical committees had agreed on a plan to establish a federal baseline for what data companies can collect online and to give consumers new privacy rights > In recent years, Senate Commerce has twice advanced a bill to expand federal privacy laws for children and another sweeping measure led by Blumenthal and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to force tech companies to take greater steps to protect children from harm. Both lawmakers expressed gratitude for Cantwell’s support in written statements. Beyond this, overall I believe the article is actually implying that Cantwell is working against Democratic party interests. Kinda seems like the WaPo wants to say something, but is not really willing to just say it.
  - carso 3y ago
    It's not the WaPo, it’s the anonymous sources trying to send a message. Or maybe Amazon, which is really good at killing strong privacy bills. There was very little about what she was holding out for, so it’s hard to say if it is unreasonable. Cantwell could very well be listening to her constituents - there has been a privacy and tech equity coalition watching her over the years. Privacy bills come down to: 1. What data is covered? 2. Opt-in vs opt-out: is the default assumption my data will not be collected and shared, or that it will be unless I opt-out? 3. Enforcement - only the attorney general or can someone file a lawsuit? The article states that she wanted protection against forced arbitration which as her constituent I would agree with her on that. 4. Whether states can pass stronger laws at their level. California has a large delegation and a strong state law which is a consideration in the House.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      McMorris Rodgers is also certifiable, not to put too fine a point on it
staminade 3y ago
I went into this expecting to think she was corrupt or insincere, but instead it seems like she's just...not very good at her job?
akira2501 3y ago
> and to give consumers new privacy rights I either have rights or I don't. These are not things "given" to us. You just updated the legislation to enforce those who would encroach on them. Also it means you were incredibly late to good jurisprudence so it's odd to take a victory lap on it. Perhaps committee chairs should be selected by the population.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I either have rights or I don't. These are not things "given" to us. Rights are a social construct. It's fair to describe their delineation as creation. (Natural rights don't really work without a deity bestowing and defending them, despite our collective furious attempts to pretend otherwise [1].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > Rights are a social construct. I strongly doubt this. You might make a case that our conception of them is tied to our biology and evolution, but that also means these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history. > It's fair to describe their delineation as creation. I strictly disagree. What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this. > Natural rights don't really work without a deity bestowing and defending them Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason.'
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history So have most social constructs. From marriage to slavery. > What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this Sure. Fine. Kant said the same about mathematics. Like undiscovered math, unrecognised rights do jack shit until they're codified. At this standard of evidence we might as well start debating ghosts. (Which is fun and fine. But not the business of a lawmaker.) > Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason Yes, that is what someone who believes in natural rights believes. I am disagreeing with it. (I believe it's quoting Aquinas, a famous philosopher and priest.)
AlbertCory 3y ago
> Staffers from Microsoft and Amazon — both headquartered in her state — have been among Cantwell’s biggest political contributors over the past five years, according to OpenSecrets, an organization that tracks campaign donations. The elephant in the room. Without imputing evil motives (not that they might not be present): lawyers and politicians don't want to solve problems. They want to make a career of them. So if there WAS a bipartisan bill passed and she didn't get the credit, then she'd lose all those campaign contributions. Some politician said, "It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." The converse is also true.

83 points by Terretta 3y ago

https://archive.is/2024.04.14-205049/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/13/congress-maria-cantwell-online-privacy/ https://archive.is/2024.04.14-205049/https://www.washingtonp...

neglesaks 3y ago

Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a landmark agreement from three key lawmakers, a first-of-its kind bipartisan deal. Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate." Ahhh, the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers.

D13Fd 3y ago
Yeah. It's her pet issue. Much like term limits and many other things for other elected representatives, if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more This isn't how politics works. Issues can bring someone into office. They rarely remove them from them. Cantwell is kept in office by the machine she built. If she delivered to that machine, she'd gain from it, not lose. The only thing she would be doing by "saving" an issue is telegraphing to a primary competitor that there are chips on the table.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers Do we know why she bombed those bills? She could be two faced. Or she could be a case of perfect being the enemy of the good.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
    - freddie_mercury 3y ago
      "Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
joe_the_user 3y ago
Uh, I just want to point that the sentence you quote gives the reader zero information concerning the substance of the questions being debated. It could be summarized as "she didn't accept undescribed things that key unnamed people wanted". Not to put too fine a point on it but the main thing it illustrates is the opaqueness of journalist political commentary, something Debord liken to a "tedious series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels [having] all the dramatic interest of a realistically staged fight between blacks, at night, in a tunnel." [1] [1] https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_Society_of_the_Spectacle_1990.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_...
- xbar 3y ago
  We should demand good journalism. The remainder of this article quotes more than a dozen sources. It seems to rise above pure political commentary by a fair chunk. There is no surprise to me that the chair of a tech privacy panel is opposed to privacy. That seems to be the kind of person that would get such an appointment.

walterbell 3y ago

Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or weaker than state privacy legislation?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or weaker than state privacy legislation? Probably weaker, because that's how compromises work.
- _factor 3y ago
  In fact, that’s how US laws were intended to work. Federal gives guidelines that apply to all states. The states narrow the scope for any issues that arise.
  - walterbell 3y ago
    Can federal laws prevent state laws from providing privacy protections?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 3y ago
      Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption#
  - D13Fd 3y ago
    That's not necessarily true in the US. Federal law can either preempt state law, meaning that states are not permitted to pass stricter or less strict laws in an area (e.g., copyright and patent law), or not, meaning that states are free to pass stricter laws.
howard941 3y ago
> The two sides remained apart on key sticking points — whether a federal law should override state privacy measures, as Republicans wanted, and whether consumers should be able to sue companies directly, as Democrats desired. The disputes have long befuddled negotiators. Looks like the proposal she favored left state privacy measures in place. And didn't preempt consumer actions.

Blackstrat 3y ago

Remember where she is from. Nuff said.

seadan83 3y ago
No, there is more to the story: > On Sunday, Cantwell heralded a breakthrough privacy measure with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), marking the first time the leaders of the two critical committees had agreed on a plan to establish a federal baseline for what data companies can collect online and to give consumers new privacy rights > In recent years, Senate Commerce has twice advanced a bill to expand federal privacy laws for children and another sweeping measure led by Blumenthal and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to force tech companies to take greater steps to protect children from harm. Both lawmakers expressed gratitude for Cantwell’s support in written statements. Beyond this, overall I believe the article is actually implying that Cantwell is working against Democratic party interests. Kinda seems like the WaPo wants to say something, but is not really willing to just say it.
- carso 3y ago
  It's not the WaPo, it’s the anonymous sources trying to send a message. Or maybe Amazon, which is really good at killing strong privacy bills. There was very little about what she was holding out for, so it’s hard to say if it is unreasonable. Cantwell could very well be listening to her constituents - there has been a privacy and tech equity coalition watching her over the years. Privacy bills come down to: 1. What data is covered? 2. Opt-in vs opt-out: is the default assumption my data will not be collected and shared, or that it will be unless I opt-out? 3. Enforcement - only the attorney general or can someone file a lawsuit? The article states that she wanted protection against forced arbitration which as her constituent I would agree with her on that. 4. Whether states can pass stronger laws at their level. California has a large delegation and a strong state law which is a consideration in the House.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    McMorris Rodgers is also certifiable, not to put too fine a point on it

staminade 3y ago

I went into this expecting to think she was corrupt or insincere, but instead it seems like she's just...not very good at her job?

akira2501 3y ago

> and to give consumers new privacy rights I either have rights or I don't. These are not things "given" to us. You just updated the legislation to enforce those who would encroach on them. Also it means you were incredibly late to good jurisprudence so it's odd to take a victory lap on it. Perhaps committee chairs should be selected by the population.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I either have rights or I don't. These are not things "given" to us. Rights are a social construct. It's fair to describe their delineation as creation. (Natural rights don't really work without a deity bestowing and defending them, despite our collective furious attempts to pretend otherwise [1].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
- akira2501 3y ago
  > Rights are a social construct. I strongly doubt this. You might make a case that our conception of them is tied to our biology and evolution, but that also means these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history. > It's fair to describe their delineation as creation. I strictly disagree. What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this. > Natural rights don't really work without a deity bestowing and defending them Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason.'
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > these ideas and concepts have obviously existed well outside and over society for much of history So have most social constructs. From marriage to slavery. > What gets created is a collective enforcement mechanism. The right, recognized or not, exists separately from this Sure. Fine. Kant said the same about mathematics. Like undiscovered math, unrecognised rights do jack shit until they're codified. At this standard of evidence we might as well start debating ghosts. (Which is fun and fine. But not the business of a lawmaker.) > Your reference, in the very first paragraph, contradicts you with `all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason Yes, that is what someone who believes in natural rights believes. I am disagreeing with it. (I believe it's quoting Aquinas, a famous philosopher and priest.)

AlbertCory 3y ago

> Staffers from Microsoft and Amazon — both headquartered in her state — have been among Cantwell’s biggest political contributors over the past five years, according to OpenSecrets, an organization that tracks campaign donations. The elephant in the room. Without imputing evil motives (not that they might not be present): lawyers and politicians don't want to solve problems. They want to make a career of them. So if there WAS a bipartisan bill passed and she didn't get the credit, then she'd lose all those campaign contributions. Some politician said, "It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." The converse is also true.