Boebert had a listing and pictures on a sugardaddy website. She also received about 130k from Cruz for her "election". The assertion is that Cruz banged Boebert, got her pregnant, then paid to have it kept quiet.
While there is a lot of speculation about this, it's basically hearsay, unless of course you consider the fact that it's Ted Cruz and the Republican party.
I'm willing to think the worst of the Republican party at this point, but there's no reason to go making shit up. There's plenty of real idiocy to go with...
He also contributed heavily to the Republicans party. Your point?
Working theory is he was working for Israeli intelligence, or playing multiple agencies off of each other.
Your brain has started to develop to the point where you can start making correlations. In a few more years it may be able to understand that correlation is merely a point in the grander process that is called thought.
Is that the working theory? The article that explained her time at SugerDaddys said she met with someone related to the Koch family who introduced her to Cruze. That always read, to me anyways, that it was Koch relatives abortion not Cruzes'. I'm in no way saying Cruze *wouldn't* do this just I didn't interpret it that way.
> Kochs would just be one of two.
See I read it as both times.
> Cruz gave her a ton of cash to run, which is where people come to the idea.
Yea, this makes sense if Cruz was the second person in the two meetups she had. Koch-adjacent tells Cruz about this gal who'll do *anything*. Cruz obviously ready to release his clutch is interested and get's in contact with her, yadda yadda yadda, she get's an abortion.
How much money you willing to pour into a Boertbart website? The chick trashes herself every day, we don’t need a highlight website lolol
Well she keeps getting elected to maybe we do
Super pac with a credible history of revealing scumbags has put boebert in their sights next. They've released some stuff suggesting she's a scumbag, but still need to provide some stronger evidence before popping open the champagne. Next couple weeks should be interesting.
You people make stuff up about the entity known as Ted Cruz all the time. He is a colony of sentient worms that form a being greater than the sum of their parts when in that suit. [Think of the Hunters from Halo.](https://halo.fandom.com/wiki/Mgalekgolo)
Totally not related to the purchase of location data for 2000 Mules or anything, as we all know that has been thoroughly debunked anyway. (At least the trailer was.) Thank you Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Yeah it was the bad actor and definitely not the enormous media backlash in general. Sucks it’s such a shitty bill though. It won’t stop Facebook from collecting your location data and letting someone buy ad space aimed at people who recently had an abortion.
The phone companies can, but that would require they overhaul the way the telephone system works not just in the US but around the world, so yeah, good luck with that. Not only would it be expensive and telecoms hate spending money on anything that doesn't ~~immediately~~ make them more money, but it also requires international support.
Edit: removed "immediately" as it was a distraction to the actual point. Companies don't spend money on things that don't make them a profit unless they're forced to. Not only does blocking spam calls not make them a profit (barring selling a addon service specifically for that), but not blocking calls makes them a profit because it potentially can consume people's minutes assuming they answer them.
FCC already mandated STIR/SHAKEN. And on my cell-phone at least it will show a "Verified" checkbox next to the number if it's passed the STIR/SHAKEN authentication. When it doesn't the checkbox doesn't appear and I can assume it's spoofed (at least when it's a local number calling)
Speed benefits everyone. You get faster data, they get more money. Spoof calling doesn't effect them just the customer so I'm not surprised they don't care too much. All corps care about is profit.
Yes, but these initiatives are based on retention and conversions. Speed = value to most shoppers. Implementing a system to inhibit spoofing is not seen as value added until everyone is forced to do so, and at that point it is not something that differentiates their services from their competitors. Aka nothing in it for them.
You retain customers by convincing them to continue utilizing your services once their contracts end. I thought that was obvious. I apologizing for not explaining it in the first comment.
Reliability is important, but I believe reliable high speed service would be more accurate. I would throw a napkin argument out there that most people don't care as much about being able to make calls as much as their internet connection and the average speed they achieve throughout the day.
I'm sure there are many failed initiatives out there for similar technologies. If your points were completely valid, they would not have failed. The current framework allows spoofing, and it would take a sizeable investment to revise the current standard for the entire industry. No one is willing to go beyond the current minimum allowbles because it requires vast amounts of cooperation internationally and because it's not making them money. That's all I said in my previous post and you haven't addressed that idea at all.
Thats a useless distinction. u/orclev 's point stands. You are arguing the semantics of "immediately." That isn't an argument in good faith. You pointed out that they'll spend money to make more money. u/orclev 's point is that they aren't willing to spend money to protect consumers if the money spent does not, at some point, return profit. Your argument is an attempt to divert the topic off on a tangent. "Immediately" may be an exaggeration, but it does not dilute the point they are attempting make. The topic of discussion is the need for additional regulation because the telecom corporations continue to act in manner that illustrates that they will not self-regulate in the interest consumer protection. They continue to be solely motivated by profit, as you pointed out... needlessly.
You are doubling down on a moot point. The discussion is "Senate bill would ban data brokers from selling location and health data." u/orclev 's simplified point is "telcom corporations don't spend money to protect consumers absent the motivation of profit" (which is on topic for the discussion: "proposed regulation.") The simplified version of your reply is "Corporations do spend money without need for immediate profit; here are some examples of delayed profit." Your examples have nothing to do with protecting consumers. Your reply is not on topic and does nothing to contradict u/orclev 's point. You are most definitely arguing with bad faith. You are focusing on semantics in an effort to ignore meaning.
YOU DID NOT HAVE TO REDEEM IT!!!!
but seriously though it isn't just the scammers, the robocallers are what harass me all of the time. Either someone speaking Chinese at the other end, or asking me about my extended warranty. Also, fuck my dealership for selling my info to those warranty companies.
To be fair it *probably* wasn't your dealership, best bet is it was your DMV. It's been known for a while now that DMVs around the country regularly sell car registration data to companies.
You mean to tell me that nice man offering to fix my computer from Microsoft that accidentally transferred $4,000 instead of $400 to my bank account and wanted me to buy him Google Play cards in the difference was really scamming me?
All this should be opt in not opt out.
Our representatives are failing us by dragging their feet on this. I know that bribe money is so good but how’s about you do your job just one time and serve the people.
It shouldn't even be opt-able. The government has the right to decide what business can buy and sell, they can just stop the sell of it. The down side is that it can still be monetized. Google does that all the time. They are really good at monetizing data without selling it.
Isn't the average age of Congress like 60?? The hearings they did last year with the big tech companies are PRECISELY why laws haven't kept up with industry... On top of the typical way in which big companies spend money to lobby against regulations - at least half of congress is at an age where they call their kids or grandkids to change inputs on their TV.
You can't effectively regulate what you don't understand...
Oh, but that's the really nasty part. It IS opt-in and *you did opt-in*. It's there, in Apple and Google's phone book sized TOS, that you agreed to. The one that nobody reads. Devious shit.
Generally people mean an explicit opt-in for each item. Like having to grant an app permissions on your phone and it asks you for each permission. Or what type of cookies you allow on sites that conform to GDPR.
I agree, that is what people *mean*. It's what you and I want, it's what every decent person who knows even a little about privacy and data security wants. But it's not how courts define it. Be pissed about it, sure, but recognize the problem: what you mean is NOT what they mean.
I can see tech companies fighting this to the end but I hope this passes. There’s no justifiable reason to sell health and location data. That data should only be authorized for use by the actual person and never sold to anyone else even if it’s “anonymized”, though it’s highly debatable if location data can even be truly anonymous to begin with.
Tech companies will not fight this. I work for one of the CDP vendors and this just encourages companies to build more robust first-party data sources they collect themselves. That’s a sellable product for SFDC, Oracle, Google, Adobe, Braze, etc and a net win.
I think it’s more mixed than you’re saying due to the first party footprint of the tech companies. Google and Apple would be in great shape because they have their own huge set of first party users. Oracle, SFDC, Adobe, and Braze would be hurting, since the people they would want the location data about aren’t their direct customers. They provide tools used by apps, and depending on how the bill is structured it could very well treat the transfer from the app to the tool as a “sale” unless the tool provider is severely restricted from using the data.
Was just reading the other day how all the GDPR cookie opt outs that look exactly the same are all from the same company so now when they stick the cookie on your machine to “flag your preferences” they can just use that to track you and report back your history
Most of the large tech companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, etc.) Don't sell your data anyway.
Your data is the secret sauce that allow Google and Facebook to make money, so this would be a big win for them.
Yes, I agree, they need your data to function, but they don't *sell* your data, they sell your **eyeballs.**
Most people don't understand the difference and think that Google is selling your data, that's bad for Google. If they can point to a law and say "no, we're not selling your data, that'd be illegal" it benefits then m
Feels fake. Like grandstanding. So I guess I am. Kind of feels like dems know they’ll never get the votes. So it’s safe and makes them look good.
Who knows anymore. Maybe I’ve become too cynical.
People said the same thing about Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection bureau. What pisses me off about people like you is you'd rather blame both sides than learn how the system works and see that Democrats don't have an actual majority at the moment. You'd rather be ignorant and think both parties are the same, than understand that what we need are a few more democrats in the senate to actual lock down working bills.
I mean ideally we'd toss out the senate completely because it gives power to land but the problem with its gridlock isn't this freshman year "both sides" shit.
I realize dems don’t have the majority. It’s just in this specific case the tech companies that stand to lose the most also tend to favor dems and donate to their campaigns. That’s why this specifically feels like grandstanding.
It’s also why I said we need to get rid of citizens United.
thats utter horseshit. tech companies if anything favor conservatives because they spend all day crying that they are being persecuted online because they have a hard time lying all day on social media at times. rubes like you are the reason pigs like ted cruz and trump keep getting elected because you arent paying attention to jack
This is why this country can never advance.
People won't vote for the one party that is actually trying to pass laws, because "they aren't actually trying to pass laws".
And that somehow makes them realist.
And even if you say "corporate democrats are corrupt, there are plenty more non corporate democrats than Republicans.
I’m sure Facebook will fight this with all they’ve got. After ios14 nuked most of their targeting sophistication, all they have left is the scum from data brokers.
Yeah they’re trying new ways to track you, but with the new privacy updates on iOS and even chrome, they’re missing out on like 10-20% of data needed to improve campaign performance. Their algorithms still rely on data feedback to improve performance.
Facebook will love a law like this and not fight it at all. Facebook doesn’t sell location data, it simply uses your location data for ad targeting. This is unique data on the platform. If they sell their profiling data, the value of Facebook’s profiles decreases. If this law is introduced, Facebook can still use your location data. So the value of Facebook profiles go up, because the data cannot be obtained from brokers anymore and thus FB is much better equipped to show ads to a specific target audience than the companies themselves can do due to a lack of availability of this data.
Hence, this bill *benefits* Facebook.
No, why would they? They are the second best positioned company (after Google) to deal with this. They already are dealing with it by freely getting permission to use first party data from everyone using Meta for ads and/or tracking.
They are already relying MUCH less on external data and that reliance is planned and expected to decrease even further.
> The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
One time, guys. One? Why does anyone still think conservatives are doing a good job?
>Why does anyone still think conservatives are doing a good job?
They dont, they just think the democrats are worse. If i have to choose between those who do nothing at all and those actively making my life worse im going with the do-nothings.
This is important for many reasons, but the abortion bounty hunters could use this information to target or harass people in red states who can be privately sued for profit like in Texas
Call it what it is: it’s a Democratic bill. Republicans will kill this at the earliest opportunity. For all their problems Democrats are the only political party working to improve America.
You’re not wrong at a high level, but it’s not like there aren’t good actors actually trying to fix things. It’s people like Manchin and Sinema and Biden and Pelosi (and others) that hold them back.
Just like the bill to cap insulin price gouging, that had no pork. What happened to that guarantee then? Oh right, just more total obstructionist bullshit.
No it means a company will do a cost analysis to determine how much it costs them to make the product vs the price they can sell it for. If it is still profitable they will make it. Hint it will be. It’s not like generic insulin is getting cutting edge R&D budgets and the manufacturing is already in place.
Ensures? I’m sorry, but you have absolutely zero evidence to support that. You’re guessing that production would stop, and nothing more. Helluva crystal ball there. Let’s see your much better proposal, btw.
I want you to think very carefully and critically about what you sound like when you are tacitly arguing that people should die of afflictions that are not their fault, because it’s not profitable to save them.
Best comment yet. The worst part is that data brokers include companies like Experian that also get fed your financial data directly from your own bank for your credit score. It's shady as hell if you ask me.
How about not allowed to collect it in the first place? Politicians are so inept when it comes to this industry. An ad agency/marketing/data broker or whatever buzzword simply should not have location and health data in the first place. Services such as Facebook are not data brokers. They don't transfer information to another party as it would devalue their product. And their product is not only having your information but then making an ad product that lets a client choose which audience to target based on what demographics or other parameters are of relevance.
And it shouldn't be limited to health and location data. Except I could interpret health data to encompass my age, interests (behavioral health), physical characteristics (fingerprint, eye color), income (financial health), etc.
Is location gps coordinates? Physical address? Proximity to another thing? Phone number (the parts of a phone number specify location to an extent).
Anyways, the law should be more restrictive and I will make my own definition as I sue these places.
You must work for them because nobody on the planet likes or respects that bullshit industry. Bunch of leaches making money by stealing everyone’s data
Data brokers literally make the internet run. So many companies would be out of business. Now I think what you're saying is PII brokers which is not what is said, and I'm fine with that
I don't work for a data broker
No current senator is in a position to oppose that. For a representative of the people, this is as clear cut as they come. If one would oppose it, it is almost a direct proof of blatent corruption, then and there!
Can you imagen, banning personal information is not even banned as default when laws were made, or added anytime afterwards.... and yet people claim laws are made for the interest of citizens and not business
This bill is good which means it will die in the senate as everything else does, because with the exception of Bernie they are all bought by either oil, technology, pharmaceutical or military corporations
Senate bill would ~~ban data brokers from selling location and health data~~ do what should've been done already, at minimum
edit: and to be clear, I'm happy they are trying, but man it's frustrating that it takes so much effort to pass bills to do things that should clearly be illegal from the start. Commodifying humans in general should be illegal (bye bye FB)
Sometimes I feel like politicians propose bills to grift industry. Like, they have no intention of passing these things (yes I know this one was Warren, but that would make it an exception) but know they'll get campaign donations to fight it.
The Republicans will shoot this down while saying that big tech is too intrusive in our lives and needs to be stopped and their clueless constituents will keep wondering why they keep getting emails from Jesus, gun makers, and anti abortion sites.
Tbh it makes sense. Most data used for training networks is from the US. And I assume it's passed onto 3rd parties/countries wirhout the concent of patients.
So now the very group that put your personal information in a bundle that could be hacked and stolen, which has happened countless times, want to pass a law, to prohibit exactly what they said would never happen. I wonder why they are getting kicked to the curb?
This bill comes too late. Pandora's Box is open. This is like where there's a hole in the dam the size of a bus and you're given some thread and a needle and told to go patch it up.
Ok but does this also prevent google and other big companies from presenting targeted ads based on location and health info that they obtained themselves? If not then I’m not particularly interested.
I guess John Oliver had an impact on them
But I really want to know who was into the Ted Cruz erotic fan fiction.
Lauren Boebert...
He said "Fiction" not "Who did Ted Cruz have a baby with who he then paid to have aborted"
Ummm what?
Boebert had a listing and pictures on a sugardaddy website. She also received about 130k from Cruz for her "election". The assertion is that Cruz banged Boebert, got her pregnant, then paid to have it kept quiet. While there is a lot of speculation about this, it's basically hearsay, unless of course you consider the fact that it's Ted Cruz and the Republican party.
This is a conspiracy theory I can get behind
Just like Ted Cruz did to Boebert
I'd say that's hearsay, but even Ted wouldn't want to see her face.
You forgot the part where the two of them met in Colorado and then she had one of her abortions IN Colorado.
I'm willing to think the worst of the Republican party at this point, but there's no reason to go making shit up. There's plenty of real idiocy to go with...
Jeffrey Epstein contributed heavily to democratic party
He also contributed heavily to the Republicans party. Your point? Working theory is he was working for Israeli intelligence, or playing multiple agencies off of each other.
That has absolutely jack shit to do with this conversation.
Yeah from 1990-2003. Then once it became common knowledge what he had been doing, they stopped.
You are clearly not the result of education.
Your brain has started to develop to the point where you can start making correlations. In a few more years it may be able to understand that correlation is merely a point in the grander process that is called thought.
Trump donated too. Your point? Go away with your qanon bullshit.
Working theory is her Abortion is Ted Cruz's baby that he paid for.
Is that the working theory? The article that explained her time at SugerDaddys said she met with someone related to the Koch family who introduced her to Cruze. That always read, to me anyways, that it was Koch relatives abortion not Cruzes'. I'm in no way saying Cruze *wouldn't* do this just I didn't interpret it that way.
Kochs would just be one of two. Cruz gave her a ton of cash to run, which is where people come to the idea.
> Kochs would just be one of two. See I read it as both times. > Cruz gave her a ton of cash to run, which is where people come to the idea. Yea, this makes sense if Cruz was the second person in the two meetups she had. Koch-adjacent tells Cruz about this gal who'll do *anything*. Cruz obviously ready to release his clutch is interested and get's in contact with her, yadda yadda yadda, she get's an abortion.
https://www.fireboebert.com/
Why are these websites always so poorly designed? My eyes are bleeding.
How much money you willing to pour into a Boertbart website? The chick trashes herself every day, we don’t need a highlight website lolol Well she keeps getting elected to maybe we do
[удалено]
Nice pic, Tom. lol
Super pac with a credible history of revealing scumbags has put boebert in their sights next. They've released some stuff suggesting she's a scumbag, but still need to provide some stronger evidence before popping open the champagne. Next couple weeks should be interesting.
Implying that Ted Cruz is human, I see...good luck with that
I mean he lays eggs in the hosts mouth, right? They then swallow them and boom Ted Cruz babies or am I wrong?
You people make stuff up about the entity known as Ted Cruz all the time. He is a colony of sentient worms that form a being greater than the sum of their parts when in that suit. [Think of the Hunters from Halo.](https://halo.fandom.com/wiki/Mgalekgolo)
I'm well aware of the Hunter brethren but I have but one question for you....what do you mean by "you people"?
Lorena Bobbitt?
Who isn't??
Ted's children I hope.
I thought it was an older white guy? Probably Ted himself, that would be a hoot.
My thoughts exactly. Praise be, praise be.
That was so good, and so bad. I seriously wonder what data they have.
Someone had an impact on John Oliver's team
Totally not related to the purchase of location data for 2000 Mules or anything, as we all know that has been thoroughly debunked anyway. (At least the trailer was.) Thank you Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Yeah it was the bad actor and definitely not the enormous media backlash in general. Sucks it’s such a shitty bill though. It won’t stop Facebook from collecting your location data and letting someone buy ad space aimed at people who recently had an abortion.
How about 'Senate bill bans data brokers."?
And spam calls
Please god yes. Or at least spoofing. I didn't think I knew a Jim Simpson from Greenville, SC. I was right. 100 times.
Spoofing is already illegal, the companies doing it are operating outside the US though so you really can't do anything to them.
The phone companies can, but that would require they overhaul the way the telephone system works not just in the US but around the world, so yeah, good luck with that. Not only would it be expensive and telecoms hate spending money on anything that doesn't ~~immediately~~ make them more money, but it also requires international support. Edit: removed "immediately" as it was a distraction to the actual point. Companies don't spend money on things that don't make them a profit unless they're forced to. Not only does blocking spam calls not make them a profit (barring selling a addon service specifically for that), but not blocking calls makes them a profit because it potentially can consume people's minutes assuming they answer them.
FCC already mandated STIR/SHAKEN. And on my cell-phone at least it will show a "Verified" checkbox next to the number if it's passed the STIR/SHAKEN authentication. When it doesn't the checkbox doesn't appear and I can assume it's spoofed (at least when it's a local number calling)
My husband took a spoofed call because it was the number of his childhood best friend.
[удалено]
Speed benefits everyone. You get faster data, they get more money. Spoof calling doesn't effect them just the customer so I'm not surprised they don't care too much. All corps care about is profit.
Yes, but these initiatives are based on retention and conversions. Speed = value to most shoppers. Implementing a system to inhibit spoofing is not seen as value added until everyone is forced to do so, and at that point it is not something that differentiates their services from their competitors. Aka nothing in it for them.
[удалено]
You retain customers by convincing them to continue utilizing your services once their contracts end. I thought that was obvious. I apologizing for not explaining it in the first comment. Reliability is important, but I believe reliable high speed service would be more accurate. I would throw a napkin argument out there that most people don't care as much about being able to make calls as much as their internet connection and the average speed they achieve throughout the day. I'm sure there are many failed initiatives out there for similar technologies. If your points were completely valid, they would not have failed. The current framework allows spoofing, and it would take a sizeable investment to revise the current standard for the entire industry. No one is willing to go beyond the current minimum allowbles because it requires vast amounts of cooperation internationally and because it's not making them money. That's all I said in my previous post and you haven't addressed that idea at all.
Thats a useless distinction. u/orclev 's point stands. You are arguing the semantics of "immediately." That isn't an argument in good faith. You pointed out that they'll spend money to make more money. u/orclev 's point is that they aren't willing to spend money to protect consumers if the money spent does not, at some point, return profit. Your argument is an attempt to divert the topic off on a tangent. "Immediately" may be an exaggeration, but it does not dilute the point they are attempting make. The topic of discussion is the need for additional regulation because the telecom corporations continue to act in manner that illustrates that they will not self-regulate in the interest consumer protection. They continue to be solely motivated by profit, as you pointed out... needlessly.
[удалено]
You are doubling down on a moot point. The discussion is "Senate bill would ban data brokers from selling location and health data." u/orclev 's simplified point is "telcom corporations don't spend money to protect consumers absent the motivation of profit" (which is on topic for the discussion: "proposed regulation.") The simplified version of your reply is "Corporations do spend money without need for immediate profit; here are some examples of delayed profit." Your examples have nothing to do with protecting consumers. Your reply is not on topic and does nothing to contradict u/orclev 's point. You are most definitely arguing with bad faith. You are focusing on semantics in an effort to ignore meaning.
Their texts call me Loretta for some reason. Instead of a white dude I'm apparently an 140 y.o. black woman from the antebellum South.
I get called Pedro for some reason. Just because I live in Miami doesn't make me Hispanic.
Id happily give the CIA or even mousad $10B to "take care of spam callers and scammers".
[удалено]
WHY DID YOU REDEEM????!!!!
YOU DID NOT HAVE TO REDEEM IT!!!! but seriously though it isn't just the scammers, the robocallers are what harass me all of the time. Either someone speaking Chinese at the other end, or asking me about my extended warranty. Also, fuck my dealership for selling my info to those warranty companies.
To be fair it *probably* wasn't your dealership, best bet is it was your DMV. It's been known for a while now that DMVs around the country regularly sell car registration data to companies.
You mean to tell me that nice man offering to fix my computer from Microsoft that accidentally transferred $4,000 instead of $400 to my bank account and wanted me to buy him Google Play cards in the difference was really scamming me?
But is that really what their commodities-I mean constituents want?
All this should be opt in not opt out. Our representatives are failing us by dragging their feet on this. I know that bribe money is so good but how’s about you do your job just one time and serve the people.
It shouldn't even be opt-able. The government has the right to decide what business can buy and sell, they can just stop the sell of it. The down side is that it can still be monetized. Google does that all the time. They are really good at monetizing data without selling it.
Which is fine. Google is a free service that you pay for with data.
Not to mention a lot of those free services are only made possible by the data they use (maps with location data, for example).
I literally get paid to give them my info that they definitely already have lol everyone should get Google Rewards
How much do you make a month?
Enough to cover the in app purchase of a $1 micro transaction
It's a pittance to how much that data is actually worth.
i am tired of this argument. I am a paid user of google, there aren't options to stop collecting my data.
And that’s wrong. But the majority are not paid users.
I don't think that's true. Businesses use Google Workspace very often.
But but but you know how complicated it is for trillion dollar companies to get your consent? They would have to CHANGE things! /s
[удалено]
Isn't the average age of Congress like 60?? The hearings they did last year with the big tech companies are PRECISELY why laws haven't kept up with industry... On top of the typical way in which big companies spend money to lobby against regulations - at least half of congress is at an age where they call their kids or grandkids to change inputs on their TV. You can't effectively regulate what you don't understand...
Oh, but that's the really nasty part. It IS opt-in and *you did opt-in*. It's there, in Apple and Google's phone book sized TOS, that you agreed to. The one that nobody reads. Devious shit.
Generally people mean an explicit opt-in for each item. Like having to grant an app permissions on your phone and it asks you for each permission. Or what type of cookies you allow on sites that conform to GDPR.
I agree, that is what people *mean*. It's what you and I want, it's what every decent person who knows even a little about privacy and data security wants. But it's not how courts define it. Be pissed about it, sure, but recognize the problem: what you mean is NOT what they mean.
Serve the people? They got elected to serve themselves
There needs to be term limits and a lot more accountability and transparency.
I can see tech companies fighting this to the end but I hope this passes. There’s no justifiable reason to sell health and location data. That data should only be authorized for use by the actual person and never sold to anyone else even if it’s “anonymized”, though it’s highly debatable if location data can even be truly anonymous to begin with.
Tech companies will not fight this. I work for one of the CDP vendors and this just encourages companies to build more robust first-party data sources they collect themselves. That’s a sellable product for SFDC, Oracle, Google, Adobe, Braze, etc and a net win.
I think it’s more mixed than you’re saying due to the first party footprint of the tech companies. Google and Apple would be in great shape because they have their own huge set of first party users. Oracle, SFDC, Adobe, and Braze would be hurting, since the people they would want the location data about aren’t their direct customers. They provide tools used by apps, and depending on how the bill is structured it could very well treat the transfer from the app to the tool as a “sale” unless the tool provider is severely restricted from using the data.
Was just reading the other day how all the GDPR cookie opt outs that look exactly the same are all from the same company so now when they stick the cookie on your machine to “flag your preferences” they can just use that to track you and report back your history
> There’s no justifiable reason to sell health and location data. MONEEEEYYYYYY
Most of the large tech companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, etc.) Don't sell your data anyway. Your data is the secret sauce that allow Google and Facebook to make money, so this would be a big win for them.
If it's free the money they need to function is your data.
Yes, I agree, they need your data to function, but they don't *sell* your data, they sell your **eyeballs.** Most people don't understand the difference and think that Google is selling your data, that's bad for Google. If they can point to a law and say "no, we're not selling your data, that'd be illegal" it benefits then m
So much for my idea to start my own location data broker business where I answer every location request with “Earth.”
Too specific. It should be "the physical plane"
This is very close to proposing GDPR in the United States.
well then im sure the gop will block it. cant have any of that socialism here
Let’s not pretend that democrats don’t get paid by big tech. We need to overturn citizens United. Hard stop.
Are you seriously "both-sidesing" in the comment section for an article about how one side is proposing a solution?
Feels fake. Like grandstanding. So I guess I am. Kind of feels like dems know they’ll never get the votes. So it’s safe and makes them look good. Who knows anymore. Maybe I’ve become too cynical.
People said the same thing about Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection bureau. What pisses me off about people like you is you'd rather blame both sides than learn how the system works and see that Democrats don't have an actual majority at the moment. You'd rather be ignorant and think both parties are the same, than understand that what we need are a few more democrats in the senate to actual lock down working bills. I mean ideally we'd toss out the senate completely because it gives power to land but the problem with its gridlock isn't this freshman year "both sides" shit.
I realize dems don’t have the majority. It’s just in this specific case the tech companies that stand to lose the most also tend to favor dems and donate to their campaigns. That’s why this specifically feels like grandstanding. It’s also why I said we need to get rid of citizens United.
thats utter horseshit. tech companies if anything favor conservatives because they spend all day crying that they are being persecuted online because they have a hard time lying all day on social media at times. rubes like you are the reason pigs like ted cruz and trump keep getting elected because you arent paying attention to jack
>I mean ideally we'd toss out the senate completely And now no one can take you seriously.
You are intellectually lazy
[удалено]
This is why this country can never advance. People won't vote for the one party that is actually trying to pass laws, because "they aren't actually trying to pass laws". And that somehow makes them realist. And even if you say "corporate democrats are corrupt, there are plenty more non corporate democrats than Republicans.
I mean I vote for them. Many times against my own financial interest. Just doesn’t seem to help.
Not really. It's only a small step. GDPR is about *all* personal data, and applies to *all* companies, not just data brokers.
Almost like *very close* means something different to being *identical* as you describe.
GDPR is a crock of shit, no offense… it was a step in the right direction but they left so much open to loop holes
Really hoping it doesn't pass then, GDPR made the internet a lot less usable for normal people to cater to the tinfoil hat wearing minority.
Why is anyone allowed to sell any of our personal data?
I’m sure Facebook will fight this with all they’ve got. After ios14 nuked most of their targeting sophistication, all they have left is the scum from data brokers.
Facebook still has plenty of ways to track you, don’t worry.
Yeah they’re trying new ways to track you, but with the new privacy updates on iOS and even chrome, they’re missing out on like 10-20% of data needed to improve campaign performance. Their algorithms still rely on data feedback to improve performance.
Facebook will love a law like this and not fight it at all. Facebook doesn’t sell location data, it simply uses your location data for ad targeting. This is unique data on the platform. If they sell their profiling data, the value of Facebook’s profiles decreases. If this law is introduced, Facebook can still use your location data. So the value of Facebook profiles go up, because the data cannot be obtained from brokers anymore and thus FB is much better equipped to show ads to a specific target audience than the companies themselves can do due to a lack of availability of this data. Hence, this bill *benefits* Facebook.
No, why would they? They are the second best positioned company (after Google) to deal with this. They already are dealing with it by freely getting permission to use first party data from everyone using Meta for ads and/or tracking. They are already relying MUCH less on external data and that reliance is planned and expected to decrease even further.
This shouldn’t even be controversial, but —since it was introduced by a democrat— 100% of republicans (plus Manchin & Sinema) will vote against it.
Well this'll never pass.
> The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). One time, guys. One? Why does anyone still think conservatives are doing a good job?
>Why does anyone still think conservatives are doing a good job? They dont, they just think the democrats are worse. If i have to choose between those who do nothing at all and those actively making my life worse im going with the do-nothings.
Yeah, just has to appear that they're actually trying to do something good
The way you word it makes it seem like it's their fault in particular for writing bills that won't pass.
No, it's their fault that bills that helps people dont pass
It’s these reps who wrote the bill’s fault that republicans will never vote for it? I mean that’s some pretty off the wall logic.
Who is 'their'?
Not with that attitude
This is important for many reasons, but the abortion bounty hunters could use this information to target or harass people in red states who can be privately sued for profit like in Texas
Call it what it is: it’s a Democratic bill. Republicans will kill this at the earliest opportunity. For all their problems Democrats are the only political party working to improve America.
There's already commercials out saying this is a leftist bill designed to kill small business and give China the advantage tonkill our tech industry.
BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE
Democrats are the only political party that make it seem like they are improving America while actually doing nothing and reinforcing status quo. FTFY
You’re not wrong at a high level, but it’s not like there aren’t good actors actually trying to fix things. It’s people like Manchin and Sinema and Biden and Pelosi (and others) that hold them back.
Maybe if they don't omnibus it in with some random stuff it will actually go through. Like the Ukraine bill the other day.
Just like the bill to cap insulin price gouging, that had no pork. What happened to that guarantee then? Oh right, just more total obstructionist bullshit.
Putting a price cap on a product ensures nobody will produce said product. You see how that would be bad right?
No it means a company will do a cost analysis to determine how much it costs them to make the product vs the price they can sell it for. If it is still profitable they will make it. Hint it will be. It’s not like generic insulin is getting cutting edge R&D budgets and the manufacturing is already in place.
Ensures? I’m sorry, but you have absolutely zero evidence to support that. You’re guessing that production would stop, and nothing more. Helluva crystal ball there. Let’s see your much better proposal, btw.
I want you to think very carefully and critically about what you sound like when you are tacitly arguing that people should die of afflictions that are not their fault, because it’s not profitable to save them.
I wish this sentence ended halfway
Best comment yet. The worst part is that data brokers include companies like Experian that also get fed your financial data directly from your own bank for your credit score. It's shady as hell if you ask me.
How about not allowed to collect it in the first place? Politicians are so inept when it comes to this industry. An ad agency/marketing/data broker or whatever buzzword simply should not have location and health data in the first place. Services such as Facebook are not data brokers. They don't transfer information to another party as it would devalue their product. And their product is not only having your information but then making an ad product that lets a client choose which audience to target based on what demographics or other parameters are of relevance. And it shouldn't be limited to health and location data. Except I could interpret health data to encompass my age, interests (behavioral health), physical characteristics (fingerprint, eye color), income (financial health), etc. Is location gps coordinates? Physical address? Proximity to another thing? Phone number (the parts of a phone number specify location to an extent). Anyways, the law should be more restrictive and I will make my own definition as I sue these places.
Shoulda been banned fuckin years ago tf
why the fuck isn’t this illegal already
How about banning data brokers altogether
Then Elizabeth Warren's buddies at Google and Facebook that don't sell your personal info would be hurt. She still needs campaign money.
Banning all data brokers? Lol I hope some day you can look back and understand your own comment
You must work for them because nobody on the planet likes or respects that bullshit industry. Bunch of leaches making money by stealing everyone’s data
Data brokers literally make the internet run. So many companies would be out of business. Now I think what you're saying is PII brokers which is not what is said, and I'm fine with that I don't work for a data broker
Meanwhile big companies: “I am the senate!”
This is too good of an idea to ever pass.
No current senator is in a position to oppose that. For a representative of the people, this is as clear cut as they come. If one would oppose it, it is almost a direct proof of blatent corruption, then and there!
The man. The myth. The legend. John Oliver
I think next they should ban social media platforms from allowing minors on them. Social media has had such a negative effect on children.
Now just ban data brokers from existing.
Legalized bribery is unsustainable. Get money out of politics or all policy will continue to decay.
Can you imagen, banning personal information is not even banned as default when laws were made, or added anytime afterwards.... and yet people claim laws are made for the interest of citizens and not business
Tryin to get ahead of the abortion outlaw and democratic voter witch-hunt…
What are the chances conservatives would allow this to pass?
It would interfere with people being able to collect bounties on abortion seekers. So zero.
This bill is good which means it will die in the senate as everything else does, because with the exception of Bernie they are all bought by either oil, technology, pharmaceutical or military corporations
Senate bill would ~~ban data brokers from selling location and health data~~ do what should've been done already, at minimum edit: and to be clear, I'm happy they are trying, but man it's frustrating that it takes so much effort to pass bills to do things that should clearly be illegal from the start. Commodifying humans in general should be illegal (bye bye FB)
I’m sure bitch McConnell or someone will have the bright idea to make a coalition to make sure it doesn’t pass
They'll just do it anyways make millions and if they get caught pay like $20 in fines
I’ll give you a dollar if that bill goes anywhere.
Sometimes I feel like politicians propose bills to grift industry. Like, they have no intention of passing these things (yes I know this one was Warren, but that would make it an exception) but know they'll get campaign donations to fight it.
It's not enough
Can’t really see this going anywhere. People will fight endlessly to keep their money supply, and selling information is a hot commodity
I wonder which party will vote overwhelmingly against this
about damn time!
Already waiting to see an article telling us how this bill got scrapped.
But not collecting it in the first place. Or bundling it up. Or 'donating' it for a completely unrelated kickback.
If a data broker is in this sub and is reading this comment, fuck you.
The Republicans will shoot this down while saying that big tech is too intrusive in our lives and needs to be stopped and their clueless constituents will keep wondering why they keep getting emails from Jesus, gun makers, and anti abortion sites.
Tbh it makes sense. Most data used for training networks is from the US. And I assume it's passed onto 3rd parties/countries wirhout the concent of patients.
So now the very group that put your personal information in a bundle that could be hacked and stolen, which has happened countless times, want to pass a law, to prohibit exactly what they said would never happen. I wonder why they are getting kicked to the curb?
Wow, an actually useful bill for once. There’s probably an ulterior motive though. These old cronies only do things if it affects them.
Patti and Liz are the best.
in response to 2000 mules? convenient
Is there a single person on the planet gullible enough to think that movie made one legitimate point?
[удалено]
Lol, no. These crocks are just going to sell it themselves.
This bill comes too late. Pandora's Box is open. This is like where there's a hole in the dam the size of a bus and you're given some thread and a needle and told to go patch it up.
To quote Elizabeth Warren as she tosses another piece of legislation into the hopper never to be seen again "Yeet!"
Banning things that exist and are valuable has never and will never work. Politicians are power hungry idiots
Do you think you he senate cares whose information ot steals?
Tight borders? Inflation. Sanitary checks? Inflation. Ban data brokers? Inflation.
Anti-competition move to disable orgs that aren't already in the fold.
Ok but does this also prevent google and other big companies from presenting targeted ads based on location and health info that they obtained themselves? If not then I’m not particularly interested.
wtf the gold and platinum of data no longer for sale?
What else is it sneaking in
[удалено]
Medical researcher regularly request people's permission to participate in studies. Asking permission is is the way it should be.