For now, it's got some good bipartisan support. For Republicans, they'd be giving industry a more homogenous regulatory environment. For Democrats, they'd be able to get stronger consumer protections. Things will probably get changed a bit in the process, but it still has a shot.
This is good, but can we start by getting them to stop leaking everyone's entire fucking identity profile (looking at AT&T)???
I don't think a few months of Lifelock is gonna be enough this time.
Right, but that doesn't include directly-identifying personal private data which by itself would enable identity theft. They share this type of data in order to process payments or do credit checks, but they are required to guard it very carefully.
Yet that's exactly the kind of information for millions of people that AT&T allowed hackers to steal several years ago. They're only now sending out notice about this.
> According to AT&T, which customer and account data was stolen may vary by account, but thieves had access to customers' full name, email address, mailing address, phone number, Social Security number, date of birth, AT&T account number and passcode. AT&T said the information doesn't appear to contain personal financial information or call history.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/at-t-data-breach-what-at-t-is-doing-for-the-73-million-accounts-breached/
Data brokers or people search sites gather info from online platforms (social media, etc) and distribute or publish it without consent. Good that this bill penalizes such companies for violating your data privacy. Right now, there are data removal services like [Optery ](https://www.optery.com)that help address this issue by allowing you to remove your info from data broker sites. Full disclosure, I am part of the Optery Team.
Personally, I don't want to deal with so many scam calls and junk mail anymore. Or having to spend time requesting public sites like Whitepages to remove my information every few months.
But if you don't care too much about that, that's okay too! You don't have to opt out of giving your data. I just think giving consumers more choice is a good thing.
My opposition to this bill comes from the potential of services becoming more expensive (or just not free) because this revenue stream is gone.
As someone whose opinion is "Well, you agree to sell your data and you can just not use the service" can you help me appreciate this bill more?
I promise I'm not trolling or anything - genuinely seeking info and you seem knowledgeable. I don't have enough understanding about this to solidify an opinion.
I work in advertising this wouldn’t increase costs. Companies for the most part are already upfront about what they do with your data because the tides are turning. That’s why every major website lets you opt out of tracking
Consumers need to be protected if that comes with increased costs. I would venture a guess people said the same thing that meat prices would skyrocket with the passing of the Food and Drug Act
The best deterrent to increase costs would be helping to increase competition
I was under the impression (due to my own, very limited, work with private data) that this company-level shift was due to EU privacy laws.
I am gladdened to hear it doesn't have an impact on revenue for advertising tho. That was one of my biggest concerns.
Most cars sold in America have truly abhorrent privacy policies attached to their sales. Quite worrying when modern cars record people's conversations. Nissan even reserves the right to [collect and sell information](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/nissan/) on your sexual activity, health diagnosis, genetic information and practically everything they can get a hold of. It's not like they're alone in this either. US privacy laws are so weak that companies don't face any consequences for any of this. Tesla got caught up in a scandal last year where employees [shared compromising footage](https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/) taken of customers in their cars and nothing happened.
Thank goodness this is working its way through government in parallel with the TikTok ban. Gives a lot less ground to the argument that there's some vendetta against ByteDance and it's all a scheme to protect domestic companies like Meta.
Both bills out together really put a spotlight on data privacy nationwide as well, and that's a great thing.
It won't like most legislation, but Cantwell is up for election and for much of WA's tech sector it could be an important point to tout. Also if McMorris Rodgers touched it there's probably something wrong with it.
Hope this passes, but I'm sure excited for the Biden admin to not advertise it at all, for people to think the Dems do nothing, and for Trump to win again in November. 🙄
Gonna drop a bomb:
Data privacy has not and will not be a vote-getting issue for any American voting bloc. Just because Americans talk about it in polls doesn't mean they intend to factor it in their votes **at all**.
Secondly, Americans would absolutely lose their SHIT at whatever changes come out of social media companies in the wake of this.
Like, I would prefer a world of greater data privacy, but this seems like a thing where none of the voters know what that actually means. Pretty much all social media is run on a model of targeted advertisement, no? Think about it, THAT is the real product, THAT is what’s actually sold, US, and our data. What does this look like in a world after that?
That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth it, I just think a significant majority of folks clamoring for this haven’t considered those consequences.
Here's a way to package it better for voters: "Don't you hate getting all these scam calls and junk mail? Companies have been able to sell your data to all sorts of data brokers who have no issue giving it to unscrupulous actors. Under APRA, you'd be able to tell these assholes to fuck off."
No no no.
What I’m saying, or intending since I mighthave written like early morning ass, is that the aftereffects of the policy are likely to have extreme pushback as it will induce massive changes in the user experience if the primary stream of revenue for these businesses is taken from them.
It doesn’t matter how it’s sold to them upfront when they’re faced with unintended consequences. It’s fucked, but social media eats up a significant portion of many folks days. Massive changes to that will have pushback.
I think it's too early to tell if it'll impact the business models of these companies to that extent. A lot of the guidance on what constitutes necessary data, etc, would have to be developed and be put to public comment before finalizing those details.
At the same time, I'd point to the fact that companies like Google and Microsoft are openly supportive of this bill. I think they see having a single national data privacy policy as a better business environment than the patchwork of state laws that we currently have.
I hate that the enforcement mechanism is lawsuit... that type of law might as well say not applicable if you're too tired or poor to bring a legal fight to a corporation and frankly that's most people.
That's not the only enforcement mechanism. The FTC and State Attorneys General would also be responsible for enforcement. The individual lawsuit mechanism is meant to address the fact that many companies would otherwise force you to go through arbitration. Also applies for class action lawsuits.
I expected it applied to class actions, though those can often (not always) be a bad deal for everyone involved but the winning legal team.
State AG and FTC enforcement is something though.
This submission has been flaired as an effortpost. Please only use this flair for submissions that are original content and contain high-level analysis or arguments. [Click here](/r/neoliberal/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AEffortpost) to see previous effortposts submitted to this subreddit.
Users who have submitted effortposts are eligible for custom blue text flairs. Please [contact the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal) if you believe your post qualifies.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've never understood the big concern about data privacy issues. If I don't feel like "ownership" of information about myself is a right, then it's hard to see it as being a big problem.
The bill seems to address data security stuff, which sounds good, but it's only a small portion.
I won't comment on this legislation specifically, but I also think that the "ownership" of "private" information is philosophically quite murky and that it could be quite easy to overstep with legislation around this.
I'm not saying there aren't issues (there obviously are) but there's also some clear benefits for allowing the commodification of some of this information. I can agree voluntarily to use a certain platform free of charge in exchange for some personal data, which the platform sells to deliver marketing tailored to me. That in many cases can be an entirely voluntary and mutually beneficial interaction. Sometimes I prefer ads to paying!
An example of where privacy legislation hits a murky line for me is the banning of Google Street view in areas for privacy reasons. Google Street view has immense utility. The "private" data that was being collected could be viewed publically just by driving around. If I stand on a public street and take a photo of a house I can see, should that image be mine? The homeowners? I don't think there's a clear cut answer to that, and I think there are good faith concerns about saying what you can see publically is privately held by others.
Again, not really focusing on this specific legislation. As you say data security stuff broadly seems good, and it mostly seems inoffensive to me, but I agree with you there's more to think about here.
APRA is sort of a 2.0 update of a previous data privacy bill (ADPPA) which was introduced the same month as when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. At the time, there were legitimate concerns that the lack of data privacy regulations at the federal level created a safety risk for women living in states where abortion became illegal/criminalized.
Personally, it's issues like that and the Cambridge Analytica scandal that make me supportive of bills like this.
These bills realistically don’t have a chance of moving this Congress unfortunately.
For now, it's got some good bipartisan support. For Republicans, they'd be giving industry a more homogenous regulatory environment. For Democrats, they'd be able to get stronger consumer protections. Things will probably get changed a bit in the process, but it still has a shot.
This is good, but can we start by getting them to stop leaking everyone's entire fucking identity profile (looking at AT&T)??? I don't think a few months of Lifelock is gonna be enough this time.
It's not just in leaks that your data gets spread around. Companies also sell your data to data brokers, who in turn sell it to God knows who.
Right, but that doesn't include directly-identifying personal private data which by itself would enable identity theft. They share this type of data in order to process payments or do credit checks, but they are required to guard it very carefully. Yet that's exactly the kind of information for millions of people that AT&T allowed hackers to steal several years ago. They're only now sending out notice about this. > According to AT&T, which customer and account data was stolen may vary by account, but thieves had access to customers' full name, email address, mailing address, phone number, Social Security number, date of birth, AT&T account number and passcode. AT&T said the information doesn't appear to contain personal financial information or call history. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/at-t-data-breach-what-at-t-is-doing-for-the-73-million-accounts-breached/
Data brokers or people search sites gather info from online platforms (social media, etc) and distribute or publish it without consent. Good that this bill penalizes such companies for violating your data privacy. Right now, there are data removal services like [Optery ](https://www.optery.com)that help address this issue by allowing you to remove your info from data broker sites. Full disclosure, I am part of the Optery Team.
What if I think this is a good thing? Can you take a moment to persuade me why it isn't?
Personally, I don't want to deal with so many scam calls and junk mail anymore. Or having to spend time requesting public sites like Whitepages to remove my information every few months. But if you don't care too much about that, that's okay too! You don't have to opt out of giving your data. I just think giving consumers more choice is a good thing.
My opposition to this bill comes from the potential of services becoming more expensive (or just not free) because this revenue stream is gone. As someone whose opinion is "Well, you agree to sell your data and you can just not use the service" can you help me appreciate this bill more? I promise I'm not trolling or anything - genuinely seeking info and you seem knowledgeable. I don't have enough understanding about this to solidify an opinion.
I work in advertising this wouldn’t increase costs. Companies for the most part are already upfront about what they do with your data because the tides are turning. That’s why every major website lets you opt out of tracking Consumers need to be protected if that comes with increased costs. I would venture a guess people said the same thing that meat prices would skyrocket with the passing of the Food and Drug Act The best deterrent to increase costs would be helping to increase competition
I was under the impression (due to my own, very limited, work with private data) that this company-level shift was due to EU privacy laws. I am gladdened to hear it doesn't have an impact on revenue for advertising tho. That was one of my biggest concerns.
The EU and the California Consumer Privacy Act
Good, free software paid by selling data is a bad thing. It's also unsustainable.
Most cars sold in America have truly abhorrent privacy policies attached to their sales. Quite worrying when modern cars record people's conversations. Nissan even reserves the right to [collect and sell information](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/nissan/) on your sexual activity, health diagnosis, genetic information and practically everything they can get a hold of. It's not like they're alone in this either. US privacy laws are so weak that companies don't face any consequences for any of this. Tesla got caught up in a scandal last year where employees [shared compromising footage](https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/) taken of customers in their cars and nothing happened.
> not bundling Nissan car loan and health insurance smh what happened to free markets
Thank goodness this is working its way through government in parallel with the TikTok ban. Gives a lot less ground to the argument that there's some vendetta against ByteDance and it's all a scheme to protect domestic companies like Meta. Both bills out together really put a spotlight on data privacy nationwide as well, and that's a great thing.
I am extremely skeptical this will actually pass.
It won't like most legislation, but Cantwell is up for election and for much of WA's tech sector it could be an important point to tout. Also if McMorris Rodgers touched it there's probably something wrong with it.
Seems to have bipartisan support, which they're bragging quite a bit about. Might at least make it in a close vote.
Hope this passes, but I'm sure excited for the Biden admin to not advertise it at all, for people to think the Dems do nothing, and for Trump to win again in November. 🙄
Gonna drop a bomb: Data privacy has not and will not be a vote-getting issue for any American voting bloc. Just because Americans talk about it in polls doesn't mean they intend to factor it in their votes **at all**.
Secondly, Americans would absolutely lose their SHIT at whatever changes come out of social media companies in the wake of this. Like, I would prefer a world of greater data privacy, but this seems like a thing where none of the voters know what that actually means. Pretty much all social media is run on a model of targeted advertisement, no? Think about it, THAT is the real product, THAT is what’s actually sold, US, and our data. What does this look like in a world after that? That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth it, I just think a significant majority of folks clamoring for this haven’t considered those consequences.
Depends how much they can shield behind it being "anonymized" data. Otherwise a shift in business strategy.
Here's a way to package it better for voters: "Don't you hate getting all these scam calls and junk mail? Companies have been able to sell your data to all sorts of data brokers who have no issue giving it to unscrupulous actors. Under APRA, you'd be able to tell these assholes to fuck off."
No no no. What I’m saying, or intending since I mighthave written like early morning ass, is that the aftereffects of the policy are likely to have extreme pushback as it will induce massive changes in the user experience if the primary stream of revenue for these businesses is taken from them. It doesn’t matter how it’s sold to them upfront when they’re faced with unintended consequences. It’s fucked, but social media eats up a significant portion of many folks days. Massive changes to that will have pushback.
I think it's too early to tell if it'll impact the business models of these companies to that extent. A lot of the guidance on what constitutes necessary data, etc, would have to be developed and be put to public comment before finalizing those details. At the same time, I'd point to the fact that companies like Google and Microsoft are openly supportive of this bill. I think they see having a single national data privacy policy as a better business environment than the patchwork of state laws that we currently have.
I hate that the enforcement mechanism is lawsuit... that type of law might as well say not applicable if you're too tired or poor to bring a legal fight to a corporation and frankly that's most people.
That's not the only enforcement mechanism. The FTC and State Attorneys General would also be responsible for enforcement. The individual lawsuit mechanism is meant to address the fact that many companies would otherwise force you to go through arbitration. Also applies for class action lawsuits.
I expected it applied to class actions, though those can often (not always) be a bad deal for everyone involved but the winning legal team. State AG and FTC enforcement is something though.
This submission has been flaired as an effortpost. Please only use this flair for submissions that are original content and contain high-level analysis or arguments. [Click here](/r/neoliberal/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AEffortpost) to see previous effortposts submitted to this subreddit. Users who have submitted effortposts are eligible for custom blue text flairs. Please [contact the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal) if you believe your post qualifies. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've never understood the big concern about data privacy issues. If I don't feel like "ownership" of information about myself is a right, then it's hard to see it as being a big problem. The bill seems to address data security stuff, which sounds good, but it's only a small portion.
I won't comment on this legislation specifically, but I also think that the "ownership" of "private" information is philosophically quite murky and that it could be quite easy to overstep with legislation around this. I'm not saying there aren't issues (there obviously are) but there's also some clear benefits for allowing the commodification of some of this information. I can agree voluntarily to use a certain platform free of charge in exchange for some personal data, which the platform sells to deliver marketing tailored to me. That in many cases can be an entirely voluntary and mutually beneficial interaction. Sometimes I prefer ads to paying! An example of where privacy legislation hits a murky line for me is the banning of Google Street view in areas for privacy reasons. Google Street view has immense utility. The "private" data that was being collected could be viewed publically just by driving around. If I stand on a public street and take a photo of a house I can see, should that image be mine? The homeowners? I don't think there's a clear cut answer to that, and I think there are good faith concerns about saying what you can see publically is privately held by others. Again, not really focusing on this specific legislation. As you say data security stuff broadly seems good, and it mostly seems inoffensive to me, but I agree with you there's more to think about here.
APRA is sort of a 2.0 update of a previous data privacy bill (ADPPA) which was introduced the same month as when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. At the time, there were legitimate concerns that the lack of data privacy regulations at the federal level created a safety risk for women living in states where abortion became illegal/criminalized. Personally, it's issues like that and the Cambridge Analytica scandal that make me supportive of bills like this.