Democrats Draft an 'Internet Bill of Rights' To Regulate Big Tech (geekwire.com) 140
An anonymous reader quotes a report from GeekWire: Democrats in the House of Representatives are promising to push for federal regulation of tech companies if they retake the House in November. Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, has drafted an Internet Bill of Rights and shared it with influential tech journalist Kara Swisher. It includes liberties like the right to access and transport personal data collected about you, an opt-in framework for data collection, and net neutrality protections. Rep. Nancy Pelosi charged Khanna with drafting the principles, according to an essay by Swisher published in the New York Times.
The list includes the right to obtain, correct, or delete personal data "where context appropriate and with a fair process." That's not nearly as sweeping as the "right to be forgotten" included in Europe's landmark General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect earlier this year. The Bill of Rights would also require companies that collect personal data to notify users of breaches in "a timely manner" and mandate "reasonable business practices and accountability to protect your privacy." Swisher calls it "an admirable list" but is concerned that codifying the principles "will be like pushing back the ocean." Many big tech companies have business models built entirely on collecting as much user data as possible.
The list includes the right to obtain, correct, or delete personal data "where context appropriate and with a fair process." That's not nearly as sweeping as the "right to be forgotten" included in Europe's landmark General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect earlier this year. The Bill of Rights would also require companies that collect personal data to notify users of breaches in "a timely manner" and mandate "reasonable business practices and accountability to protect your privacy." Swisher calls it "an admirable list" but is concerned that codifying the principles "will be like pushing back the ocean." Many big tech companies have business models built entirely on collecting as much user data as possible.
Do you want Big Tech to support Republicans? (Score:2)
...because this is how you get Big Tech to support Republicans. Great Job(tm)!
Big Tech supports Big Tech (Score:4)
Re:Big Tech supports Big Tech (Score:4, Interesting)
Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley
Ro Khanna is the real deal. An actual populist who refuses corporate PAC money. He doesn't fear Big Tech because he doesn't take their money.
But his job depends on Big Tech employees voting for him. Money means nothing if you don't have the votes to win. A lot of his constituents work at companies whose business model includes massive data collection, are married to people who work at those companies, or sell stuff to people who do.
Yes and no (Score:5, Interesting)
At the end of the day the only thing big enough to stand up to a Mega corp is a central government. Yeah, it's a risk, but without organization we just get picked off by robber barons.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, it's worse than a risk. Over time it's a certainty.
OTOH, it could be helpful right now...I just don't expect it to be. And the devil is in the details. Those promises are so vague that they could mean anything from real protection to "the business, as usual". Who decides what's reasonable?
We don't know that (Score:2)
as for who decides what is reasonable, there's only one answer to that: Democracy with mandatory voting and literally all citizens have a vote. And I mean _all_ citizens. I don't care if you're a mass murderer on death row, you get a vote. The only way to have Democracy is to end voter suppression, and the only way to do that is to make voting the one right we never compromise on.
Re: Big Tech supports Big Tech (Score:3)
"Ro Khanna is the real deal. An actual populist"
Get real, bro. He's an Intellectual Monopoly lawyer from Yale. He has argued in court in support of institutional racism. He was selected by Nancy "Death to the Working Class" Pelosi to write this bogus privacy bill.
There's no such thing as a populist Democrat. This guy doesn't seem to be the worst - he does support a few good positions. But I definitely wouldn't trust any of them.
Re:Do you want Big Tech to support Republicans? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, Democrats would be great for regulating Big Tech and enforcing free speech. /s
With a photo: "Google’s Eric Schmidt Wore ‘Staff’ Badge at Hillary Clinton Election Night Party":
https://freebeacon.com/politic... [freebeacon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how they got their big boy Ajit (The Agitator) Pai as the head of the FCC actively trying to tear down Network Neutrality? Because those bribes seem to be paying off in spades.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see anything there about requiring free speech on major platforms that form the de facto public space today. The Democrats not enforcing free speech. I wonder why that might be?
Easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a platform people can post to that has those protections it needs to be government run. Make a gov't competitor to Facebook & Youtube if you want that. But generally people who deride Democrats for something they have no control over are opposed to "Big G'vmt" doing public works projects...
Re: (Score:1)
If you want a platform people can post to that has those protections it needs to be government run.
No it doesn't. There are many privately run forums on the Internet that do not censor anyone.
For example: Slashdot
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Post the source code to MS Windows. See how long your post stays up. Post links to videos showing decapitation and praising ISIS. See how long your post stays up. Find a vulnerability in Slashdot's servers, post a how-to guide in the comments, and see how long your post stays up.
If you think Slashdot doesn't censor, you're an idiot.
Your 1st 2 examples are crimes (Score:2)
Go right ahead and post your how-to guide on
Re: (Score:1)
"For example: Slashdot"
That's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Re: (Score:2)
This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.
Re: Easy answer (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't owned by Dice anymore. It was bought by a set of hooligan profiteers about a year ago. Haven't you noticed little changes? It's still 'user moderated ' but there's a little flag icon to the right of each comment. The advertising is slicker and more pervasive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're seeing advertising, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed, but the joke's still relevant regardless of who owns the site.
Um... /. censorse the heck out of people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is in no way censorship.
First, censorship is by definition only done by the government. You can have no expectation that a private party will host, display, and promote your speech. That would actually be unconstitutional if they were required to.
Second, very few /. posts are deleted, and very few people are banned from posting here. Modding down is not the same as censorship. The content is still there for everyone to see if they want to see it. All that's been done is tag the content, with end user
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/... [fcc.gov]
Lets see how the org that runs it sees it.
This same argument has been going on for a long time. Right now these platforms are playing 'cop' because of advertising and some very vocal people. However, eventually they will be brought under the umbrella of the FCC and its rules. The FCC has taken a 'light touch' on the internet to let it thrive. But both data providers and ISPs are poking holes in the very fabric of what built the internet. Freedom of speech and light cost
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Obligatory response to shitty XKCD comic [imgur.com]. Which fails to understand the basic functioning of these platforms, their use as a "public square" and "political soap box."
Remember, those platforms you've listed have billed themselves as the NEW public square. Guess what happens when you do that? It means the constitution starts applying. Rights and freedoms apply. Protection of speech applies.
Re: (Score:1)
If we can't find out when we're wrong because not every minority has the "access to the same infrastructure and audience", then how did we find out the things listed in the last panel were ever wrong in the first place? During the Japanese Internment Camps, McCarthyism, Trail of Tears, first and second wave feminism, the civil rights movement all happened when there was not only a lot fewer types of media, but while they had more owners, they certainly didn't cater to minority opinions anymore than a newsle
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's assualt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if no one wants to sell you a VPS or let have your own dedicated server in their datacenter. Is that not a violation of free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
What if no one wants to sell you advertising space or give you a column in their newspaper?
What if you have been barred from every karaoke place in the country?
What if the FCC won't grant you a HAM or broadcast licence?
None of it is a violation of your free speech.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt the FCC can refuse it on political grounds being they're a government agency.
It's hilarious we've come full circle with socialists defending individual right of association out of desperation. I suppose it's ok now for that bakery to refuse a gay couple? How about a doctor refusing to perform an abortion? You can nitpick all you like but it all comes down to that same right of free association.
Lefties are such hypocrites these days. They're as bad as the religious right loons from the 70s. They got
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not, per se. However, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [cornell.edu] provides a "safe harbor" against people who run web sites from being treated as the "publisher or speaker of any information provided by another."
This sort of provision is directly at odds with the notion of editorial control. Being able to say "we didn't say that" is effectively a lie when spoken by someone who gets to control exactly what got said.
There's lots of grey area and middle ground
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory counterpoint: "Free Speech is an ideal that's older than our government and is a super-set of the first amendment." First amendment issues are legal ones. Free Speech issues are moral ones. As in "You're a bad person/company/platform due to your unreasonable censorship".
Any evidence of unreasonable censorship or bias means the platform should lose trust and you should start looking elsewhere. I can't legally force your to host any content, but nothing is forcing me to partake.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course modding anyone who disagrees with you as -1 troll isn't an attack on free speech at all.
In Their Back Pocket (Score:2, Insightful)
The big tech companies have the Democrats in their back pocket. This stuff is perfectly fine to bluster about before the elections. In fact it's good politics to make promises like this.
Re:In Their Back Pocket (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I hate government regulation and big government (something always goes wrong and power gets abused), this is one of those instances where the actors (tech companies) have proved over and over again that they cannot act like grown ups. It is clearly time to risk government intrusion here because there is apparently no other way to fix the train wreck that privacy (or lack of) has become in the US.
That said, you are 100%, without a doubt spot on:
This stuff is perfectly fine to bluster about before the elections. In fact it's good politics to make promises like this.
Look for lots of noise now, but no real action after the election.
For example, both of Obama's successful campaigns (and many successful Democrat campaigns during those years) had lots of big talk about immigration reform. Funny thing is that during the time the Democrats had the Congress and the White House, nothing was done. Of course, the Hispanic vote was (and still is) important to Democrats, so they have to make the "good politics" by promising to do something. But that didn't even result in a meaningful token gesture. It was just a whole bunch of nothing. (No, Obama's executive actions don't count because, as can be seen now with Trump, a previous president's executive actions can be undone by the next president; plus executive orders don't count as reform.)
Republicans did the exact same thing where they all campaigned on fiscal conservatism to get the Tea Party vote. Then Republicans had both houses of Congress during 6 of Obama's 8 years and not a spending cut in sight. In fact, every time the President wanted a debt ceiling increase, the Republicans obliged. Every time he wanted a larger budget deficit, the Republicans again obliged. Sure they made noise about "next time," but the "next time" they just did they same thing they had been doing all along. Even now with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the White House there still hasn't been a meaningful spending cut.
Conservative pundits love to point out that Obama accumulated more debt/deficit than every president before him combined. While it is a true statement and it is true that Obama bears the responsibility as the one who makes the budget requests, the Republicans were happy to stand by with gas cans and matches and help out.
Interestingly, if you go back to Obama's campaign speeches, especially from his first campaign, he actually talked quite a bit about "reigning in out of control spending in Washington." I don't think he actually even made an attempt in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Tell me about it! It just gets my goat every time I drive through Minneapolis without having one of the bridges collapse underneath me, that I can't buy cough syrup with formaldehyde anymore, toys with lead paint, a house where the wiring wont burn it all down within ten years after purchase - it's so unfair!
Same two party crap different day (Score:2)
The R's attack net neutrality directly, the major funding in opposition
If they retake the House... (Score:5, Insightful)
This tells me that this is a typical campaign promise which will be quickly forgotten once the D's and R's have maintained their duopoly. Can't have any of them outsiders messing things up now, can we?
Re: (Score:2)
Still in the post-truth era I see.
A politician telling you what they want to do if elected... There is simply no way it could be a genuine statement of intent, because all politicians lie all the time without exception.
I have a better idea. Vote for the policies you want, and then hold those who offered them to account.
That sort of depends on you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wish I had not commented to you above, and I had mod points to burn. This, 100%.
What's crazy is that the dems started to get so big that the republicans had to draw a hard line, and the only place they could think to do that was far to the right. 60 years ago that might have worked, but demographics have changed so much that they essentially painted themselves into a corner. It's crazy, but those you call the "Establishment Democrats" essentially stole the centrist republican platform, and the only place th
Yep, that's it exactly (Score:2)
One thing the left does need to deal with though is the fallout and backlash from #METOO. I'm not sure how either. On the one had we need to stop this crap where powerful men can can force themselves on vulnerable women. OTOH it's scary to think that an hitting on a girl awkwardly or making a dirty joke can cost you everything (Al Frankli
Re: (Score:3)
I think it will sort itself out, like many long ignored ills seem to do. In order to get society to change, you can't politely ask. There has to be upheaval, backlash, and casualties on all sides. People hate to change, and often, it's fear of consequences that forces them to finally do something different.
I think this Me Too overreach is temporary, as we redraw the boundaries of how to act with each other. While I didn't live through the 60s, I'm guessing that the civil rights movement was similarly not pl
if you can't ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many criminals have build a career of committing crime. If caught they are expected to be punished. Companies should expect the same - and the punishment should be served by the directors.
Re: (Score:3)
How about jail time for companies? They do it in Japan, the company isn't allowed to do any business for X days but has to keep paying staff etc.
Imagine what a one day shut-down would do to Facebook. Anyone visiting Facebook would get a message informing them that it's closed for the day because they lost 50M people's personal data.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd find a loophole, like shutting down their campus, but leaving the website operational because the website is owned by a holding company created yesterday.
That word... I don't think it means what you think (Score:2)
Net neutrality protections (Score:2)
Bill of Rights? Did you say Bill of Rights? (Score:1, Insightful)
We already have a Bill of Rights. Now, where is my right to keep and bear weapons, huh? No Democrat shall do much talking about "rights", unless they wholly and unequivocally support the Bill of Rights — especially, the first two Amendments.
Stallman... (Score:3)
Democrats might be mis-reading things (Score:3)
Republicans are as fed up with, if not more, with Big Tech as Democrats are. This isn't a "elect us and we'll do it" moment, and Republicans can (and, IMO, should) work with them and push it through in a bipartisan fashion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're fed up with different things. The right wants action against politically-motivated de-platforming. The left isn't going to draft any "bill of rights" that stops companies from engaging in such behaviour (at least where requested by the left), and sure enough, Khanna's list makes no mention of banning politically-motivated deplatforming.
Re: Democrats might be mis-reading things (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Really? I bet if a poll was taken, you would find that a majority of Republicans would be elated if Trump's Twitter account was deleted. Dude does a lot of damage with that thing! Same for a lot of the other trash-groups who've been thrown off social media. It's a myth that normal real Republicans back the white-power trash and the nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't consumer protection run contrary to basic Republican ideals of personal responsibility? They seem to mostly push policies that companies can do what they like, and it's up to individuals to avoid getting screwed by them.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't consumer protection run contrary to basic Republican ideals of personal responsibility? They seem to mostly push policies that companies can do what they like, and it's up to individuals to avoid getting screwed by them.
Interesting. I see consumer protection as running contrary to basic Democratic ideals of personal choice. They seem to mostly push policies that individuals can do what they like, and it's up to those same individuals to avoid making bad choices.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Democrats were the ones pushing for social programmes like mandatory, low cost healthcare. Also greater regulation of companies to protect individuals, like this proposal.
Dems regulating the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
The list is a precursor to regulating the Internet. Read the thing, it's overly broad: "unfairly discriminated against based on your personal data" - what is 'fair' discrimination? What is personal data? Does that mean I can't call your unscientific viewpoints out?
Re:Dems regulating the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
Does that mean I can't call your unscientific viewpoints out?
No, it means that for example your insurance company can't sift through your Facebook profile looking for reasons to deny you coverage or jack up your premiums. It means that Facebook can't help landlords hide their properties from you because of the colour of your skin.
It's clearly modelled after the EU rules where we have things like algorithmic transparency. If the computer tells me I can't have a mortgage then I have a right to know why, and to challenge it if I think it's unfair. No black boxes when it comes to making decision about you.
Not everything is an attack on your freeze peach.
Just like with public domain... (Score:3)
... over the last 200 years. The Democrats and republicans are the enemies of the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Baby steps (Score:5, Interesting)
(I'm a small web developer, self employed for 25 years and counting, and obviously a general web consumer. )
I think there's a much simpler way to start this mayhem.
I'd be happy with two buttons:
1. show me everything you have on me, one big single-web-page human-readable/printable/migratable dump of information.
2. delete it all. please and thank you.
I think everything else can either be added much later, or will work itself out with market forces. Today, the trouble is that people don't know what's known about them, and can't do anything about it anyway. These two buttons solve the problem.
And with #2 being so readily available, you'd see just how quickly big companies apologize and make-things-right in the hopes of not losing huge swaths of their user data.
Compared to the GDPR (which is phenominal, but also a phenominally big step to take all at once), the above two are relatively easy for almost any company to implement.
(N.B. if you've read the GDPR thoroughly, and I mean the actual document, my #2 is the short-circuit way out of about 95% of the technical requirements that the GDPR puts on businesses.)
Re: (Score:2)
I should focus on the "push-button" part of my request then. I'm really thinking one button that dumps a few dozen megs of text, and another one button that just wipes it all from existence.
In any event, that's pretty close to how I've built my systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't they mention Facebook by name? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because laws can exist far longer than any one company and need to be fairly applied to all of society. Start naming your enemies and it's obvious you're just attacking them rather than trying to make the world a better place. I mean, fuck facebook and all that, but that's not how we want any law written. Unless it's a one-time event. Like busting up a monopoly.
First things first (Score:2)
Can we get a flyer's bill of rights [uspirg.org] first? Maybe with minimum legroom, seat width, seat pitch guarantees?
Re: (Score:2)
These newfangled 'aeroplanes' don't count as 'big tech'? They look pretty big to me...
Global/Tech/Financial Lack of Awareness (Score:3)
These "rights" don't make any sense in a global network. Your "rights" are going to end when the borders of the country proclaiming them end. What this will do is significantly drive up the costs of using these (formerly) free systems.
As examples:
(5) to move all personal data from one network to the next;
This would require both the source, and destination, networks (systems?) to have compatible data export, and import, APIs. Who is going to pay for this, and determine which networks are supported?
(9) not to be unfairly discriminated against or exploited based on your personal data; and
This makes no sense. Who is going to determine what is "fair" and what constitutes "personal data?" I am completely OK with being discriminated against, and/or exploited, because I want to watch a video Amazon decided to charge me to watch, as opposed to one of their free videos.
I can pretty much go through every single one of these "rights" and tell you exactly how they will infringe on someone else's rights, and require substantial development costs to implement.
If this list started with data that our own government collects on our citizens, and an foreigners, I would support it. I think that would be a much better place to start, and would immediately put an end to all of the Federal dragnet data collection that goes on "to fight terrorism." Instead of (1) to have access to and knowledge of all collection and uses of personal data by companies; why not replace companies with governments. That seems like a good starting point to me.
These kind of rights will require a police force to enforce them, and judges to uphold other laws, as well as whatever legislative body is going to proclaim them. Those are three components of law. I do not want the Federal government to become the internet police. That sounds terrible to me.
What's the difference (Score:3)
an opt-in framework for data collection,
and the way it is now? You sign up for an account and it says, "Your use of this site constitutes your acceptance of our terms and conditions" and the T&C says "we will collect your data". That sounds like 'opt in' to me.
Funny how that's always done by those NOT in power (Score:2)
Could it be that they know that this makes them popular without ever having to fear that it could pass?
Desperation (Score:2)
Democrats had over eight years to reign in Big Tech and now all of a sudden they see a problem?
Mostly fluffy, with one important knockout blow (Score:2)
[everyone has the right to] (1) to have access to and knowledge of all collection and uses of personal data by companies;
"This isn't personal data, it's meta-data. Or it's public data. BOOM dodged.
(2) to opt-in consent to the collection of personal data by any party and to the sharing of personal data with a third party;
"We absolutely give them the right to opt-in. We also conveniently do it on their behalf as well. "
(3) where context appropriate and with a fair process, to obtain, correct or delete personal data controlled by any company and to have those requests honored by third parties;
"We don't feel that would be appropriate here."
(4) to have personal data secured and to be notified in a timely manner when a security breach or unauthorized access of personal data is discovered;
"Yes, it took our engineers 6 months to close the security hole. That's timely. You don't want to endanger users by making this vulnerability public, would you?"
(5) to move all personal data from one network to the next;
"Yep. There's the text box. Get to typing. Go for it."
(6) to access and use the internet without internet service providers blocking, throttling, engaging in paid prioritization or otherwise unfairly favoring content, applications, services or devices;
SOLID! This right here is the meaty content of the bill that warrants
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Indeed, I don't know how you could trust anyone who could travel back in time and mind-control you into sexually assaulting 3 different women and then both lying about it under oath and revealing extreme partisan bias in the process. He is a perfectly innocent man in an alternate timeline.
(But seriously, that's not even the worst of it. His laughably terrible and legally outright wrong executive power maximalist views are.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do know that the FBI cleared him? He's now easily the most investigated nominee in US history. The FBI has looked into these allegations - I think this last week was the fifth time - and found them not to be credible.
You know those anti-Kavanaugh protesters? Backed by Soros money. There's an actual paper trail. You can prove it. Apparently Soros couldn't risk not getting the tax write-off for giving money to protesters.
And if his views are legally wrong, you have nothing to worry about. There are eight
Re: (Score:2)
sexually assaulting 3 different women and then both lying about it under oath and revealing extreme partisan bias in the process
This is where Dems accuse Republicans of what they have done. They defend [dailycaller.com] domestic abuser Keith Ellison while propping up lies [slashdot.org] in highly partisan fashion.
Thankfully, the most liberal Republican, Susan Collins, was not bullied and saw through this smear campaign, and is casting a principled [nytimes.com] vote.
Maybe the Dems can run on something other than their Maoist struggle session [youtube.com] tactics.
Re: (Score:1)
Keith Ellison's being pushed out of the DNC already. Soon enough he'll be gone and you'll have no target for your whataboutism. The democrats are responding slowly but surely to this single allegation of domestic abuse. Afterwards you'll have to look back to the '90s to try to justify your false equivalences.
And how do the Republicans respond to the triple allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh? Well you've demonstrated it. Just a smear campaign and bullying, nobody cares, move along, put the shitt
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Keith Ellison's being pushed out of the DNC already.
Is that why the Dems defended him with their "independent" investigation? What Democrat has publicly disavowed Ellison and called for him to step down and withdraw from his current election contest?
And how do the Republicans respond to the triple allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh?
The evidence was examined and given a public hearing. How do Dems respond to the inconsistencies, refutations by supposed witnesses (including a lifelong friend), and proven lies? How do they respond to withheld evidence, such at the therapists notes? They scream and stamp their feet, and double down on their lun
Re: (Score:1)
Could you please keep it to yourself? Yes, I know, and it almost kept Goedel from becoming a US citizen that he actually presented this at his naturalization hearing, but would you PLEASE not give the annoying orange currently in office ideas?
Re: (Score:2)
What's more distressing is that with every election you get less and less of a choice. A while ago, you could actually vote for the person you think is the better one for the job. Now you're reduced to voting for the one you think could fuck up less.