Democrats Propose Sweeping Online Privacy Laws 118
mspohr quotes a report from The Guardian: Top Democrats on Tuesday proposed tough new privacy laws to rein in the U.S.'s tech companies after a series of scandals that have shaken confidence in the companies and exposed the personal data of millions of consumers. The effort, led by Senator Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate commerce, science and transportation committee, aims to "provide consumers with foundational data privacy rights, create strong oversight mechanisms, and establish meaningful enforcement." The Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (Copra) comes after a series of failed attempts to rein in the tech giants in the U.S.
The act resembles Europe's sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation, passed in 2016. It would force tech companies to disclose the personal information they have collected, delete or correct inaccurate or incomplete information and allow consumers to block the sale of their information. The bill's sponsors are all Democrats and include presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar. "Companies continue to profit off of the personal data they collect from Americans, but they leave consumers completely in the dark about how their personal information is being used," she said. "It's time for Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation."
The act resembles Europe's sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation, passed in 2016. It would force tech companies to disclose the personal information they have collected, delete or correct inaccurate or incomplete information and allow consumers to block the sale of their information. The bill's sponsors are all Democrats and include presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar. "Companies continue to profit off of the personal data they collect from Americans, but they leave consumers completely in the dark about how their personal information is being used," she said. "It's time for Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation."
The end result has made the world worse (Score:1, Interesting)
Look I am all for consumer privacy as well.
But so far the controls all put in place, have made the world a VASTLY worse place, by having every damn website now have cookie acceptance forms appearing at the bottom of web pages you have to agree to.
So much annoyance for every human dwelling on the planet Earth, that we'll all have to deal with forever. Even when we evolve to beings of pure energy we'll have to be like "emit a one second tight beam at this frequency in order to agree that we may record your sp
Re:The end result has made the world worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The end result has made the world worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Cookies are not the problem.
Trying to have PERSISTENCE of cookies--- THAT is the problem.
You need the session cookies to keep track of the state/sanity of the session, and keep user A's session from getting bunged up with user B's. However, when the user closes their browser, that cookie should be invalidated. You should not try to use that cookie to identify that user at some other site. You should not try to use that cookie again when the user connects a second time. You should not try to use that cookie to cross-reference an anonymous user session with a registered user's session. etc.
Those other things are all things big corporations (and fucking asshole web-devs) seem to joygasm themselves over, and insist on implementing.
No. Just say no to that shit. Dont use cookies in such ways. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You know there's at least two other common ways to do session tracking, right? You don't need cookies to track sessions between page loads.
Re: (Score:3)
This has also turned out to be a handy guide for low bandwidth and visually or digitally impaired people. Slashdot is quite good about this. Many highly graphical and over-designed webpages are not usable by people who need text-speech assistance or have difficulty handling a mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
And you can configure your browser that way, why do I need a popup affirming that the website does it anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all old school ideas.
The current edge is using your IP as the key, then pattern matching your surfing behavior thumbprint to re-associate you with a new IP.
Cookies? Jfc, do you drive a model T as well?
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The stupid cookie alerts are not at all what GDPR is about. GDPR says a LOT of things but the key points are: your data is your data, not theirs; you have the right to know what they have on you; to have it deleted, to have it corrected if wrong; to keep them from sharing it with others; and generally fuck you to the corporate data thieves. The cookie thing was part of a much earlier and failed attempt to reign in the mega corps stealing our info and reselling us for profit. GDPR is not perfect but as an American I am envious of the protections and rights it provides to Europeans. The moment similar passes here, I'm hitting up FB on a TOS violation they ignored and said was ok even when I quoted their own TOS at them. Fuckers.
A-fucking-men. This is something we should all be behind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The stupid cookie alerts are not at all what GDPR is about.
I know that but the end result is that literally an infinity of people shall suffer until the end of time, so that a handful of people may make data delete requests which probably will not really work anyway.
I would argue that any real benefit is slight indeed compared to the vast agony it has inflicted on the human race.
GDPR is not perfect but as an American I am envious of the protections and rights it provides to Europeans.
Like the right to be ar
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
GDPR is not about knives or tweets. That's an entirely different set of laws I am definitely not envious of. I'm pretty sure I was clear I envy their GDPR rights but not everything they've got going on. If I was unclear then that's what I intended.
You were crystal clear .. our friend is attempting to introduce a heaping tablespoon of FUD
Re: (Score:2)
literally an infinity of people shall suffer until the end of time,
Figuratively
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:4, Interesting)
But why blame GDPR? It's the fault of the websites. They don't have to get permissions for non-essential non-tracking cookies, so what they are saying is "can we please abuse you?"
It's also their choice to make the request annoying so that you click "yes".
The problem is not GDPR, it's websites that want to track your every move.
Re: (Score:2)
"literally an infinity of people shall suffer until the end of time"
Exaggeration much? Sorry that our attempt to avoid having companies take over our lives and milk us like cattle is making you click a button.
Boo fucking hoo you spoiled little shit.
/agreed This dude sure seems like he has a dog in the fight. And that dog's name isn't "Privacy"
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:4, Insightful)
So... and lemme see if I understand this right... you want to give corporations absolute power over our lives, in order to avoid governments having absolute power over our lives.
What did I miss?
GDPR also says "never mind, you don't have to" (Score:3)
> The stupid cookie alerts are not at all what GDPR is about. GDPR says a LOT of things but the key points are
Indeed it does say alot. In the preamble it mentions the ideas you stated. In the actual effective text, rhe law itself, there are a dozen exceptions for each of those principles. For example, you can't store data and people - unless you do so for a "legitimate purpose".
The actual effect of GDPR is to scare companies who don't know what it says. If you actually read it, you find that your sti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: GDPR also says "never mind, you don't have to" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The stupid cookie alerts are not at all what GDPR is about. GDPR says a LOT of things but the key points are
Indeed it does say alot. In the preamble it mentions the ideas you stated. In the actual effective text, rhe law itself, there are a dozen exceptions for each of those principles. For example, you can't store data and people - unless you do so for a "legitimate purpose".
The actual effect of GDPR is to scare companies who don't know what it says. If you actually read it, you find that your still allowed to do whatever you want. You do, however, need a written policy saying "we do whatever we want" - except for when you don't need one.
Sounds a lot like these other laws I was discussing earlier today on a different thread :
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
For example, you can't store data and people - unless you do so for a "legitimate purpose".
The actual effect of GDPR is to scare companies who don't know what it says. If you actually read it, you find that your still allowed to do whatever you want. You do, however, need a written policy saying "we do whatever we want" - except for when you don't need one.
One of the reasons companies (especially in marketing) were scared, is that this "legitimate purpose" does NOT include making a profit. As a company, you need to prove that a) what you're doing is in the interest of the consumer ("better ads" doesn't count), b) that you cannot do this in a less privacy damaging way, and c) that between the privacy invasion and going without your service, the privacy invasion is the lesser evil for almost anyone (i.e. for the consumer it's worth it).
If you cannot do that, yo
Re: (Score:2)
The legitimate purpose exemption just means that if your business absolutely has to process data to provide the service it offers, e.g. a bank must legally know your address, then some of the rules don't apply. Specifically the need to ask for opt-in freely given permission and in some cases the right to have data about you removed, e.g. so you can't ask the bank you owe money to to forget where you live.
If you actually read it, you find that your still allowed to do whatever you want.
Absolutely not. There are some things which are simply not allowed under any circumstances, and everythi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't suppose you've read the GDPR, have you?
You're going off what someone told you that some else said bases on an article they read?
> The legitimate purpose exemption just means that if your business absolutely has to process data to provide the service it offers
Which clause do you see that? Because that's not what my copy says. My copy of the GDPR even includes examples of legitimate purposes that are definitely not "absolutely has to".
> There are some things which are simply not allowed under
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could link to the specific article you are referring to? Since they went to the trouble of making them easy to link to.
Chapter 9 is the relevant part. It has examples of all the exemptions:
https://gdpr-info.eu/chapter-9... [gdpr-info.eu]
- Journalism and freedom of expression (the latter doesn't apply to companies, only individuals)
- Public access to official documents
- National ID number but only in the precise ways specified by member states
- Employment
- Archival for public/scientific/historic interest, alrea
You're asking me which article you're talking abou (Score:2)
Are you asking me which article you are talking about?
You stated:
"The legitimate purpose exemption just means that if your business absolutely has to process data to provide the service it offers"
I asked you where you see that definition.
I see Recital 47 says "processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes" is a legitimate interest.
GDPR Article 6(1)(f) is the provision that says it's okay as long as it's used for a legitimate interest (such as marketing):
--
Processing shall be lawful only if and t
Re: (Score:2)
Right, this one: http://www.privacy-regulation.... [privacy-regulation.eu]
Note how it says where there is an appropriate relationship such as being a client of a service. Note that none of this removes the retirement to get permission first.
Certainly not a license to do whatever they want.
That's one example. Read the last example (Score:2)
You linked to recital 47. You pointed out the FIRST example from recital 47:
--
Such legitimate interest could exist for example where there is a relevant and appropriate relationship between the data subject and the controller in situations such as where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller.
--
On the same page you linked to, Recital 47, the last example is:
--
processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest.
--
Trackin
Re: (Score:2)
It's saying that if you get permission and create a client/service provider relationship you can ask permission to do direct marketing.
That doesn't sound like "do whatever you like".
We can actually read (Score:2)
Um, anyone who can read your comment can - read.
So we know what it says. It's kinda silly to claim it says something completely different. We're not kindergartners, we can read it. For instance, we can read the words "for example".
I TOTALLY understand it sucks to be wrong. I was wrong twice as work yesterday. It was embarrassing. But it doesn't make anyone think that you're correct when you link to something and then claim what you linked to says the opposite of what it says. It only makes us wonder
Re: (Score:2)
You know you have to interpret it in the context of the rest of the document, right? This kind of lawyering doesn't work, that's not how laws are interpreted by European courts.
We could keep arguing about it but it would be easier if you just proved your claim by citing an example where a company has used these rules to do whatever they like without consequence.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there is the problem. Who says it's bad or wrong and should be changed or deleted? You. But that also includes child molesters and Nazi's. Someone calls me a Nazi, delete everything about me and in reference to me please, the GDPR forces you.
The problem is not with corporations collecting data, its people giving it to them. You can live a perfectly anonymous, untraceable life on the Internet, simply don't have a Facebook or use any of the privacy-positive companies to exchange data. And now the governme
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:2)
TOS is not binding on them. They are the terms under which they are willing to provide service to you. They are free to ignore or reinterpret it as they see fit.
Like a posted dress code, the point is to provide notice to you, so you behave how they want.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's making your world a VASTLY worse place? You are indeed an entitled snowflake, aren't you? Your life becomes VASTLY worse because you have to accept a cookie (or not) when visiting a web site.
Jesus, man, don't you have any self-respect?
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO
Re: (Score:1)
That's the idea. Make privacy a pain in the ass for the user so they don't want it or even you to have it.
Re: (Score:1)
But so far the controls all put in place, have made the world a VASTLY worse place
These laws are always designed around corporate benefit. They are legal Trojan horses, where voters fall for the scam and (re-)elect incompetent and corrupt politicians that support the further expanse of corporate profiteering.
I can only imagine sweeping privacy laws will make everyone's lives even worse in some as yet un-identified way.
This law will probably limit the scope where consumers have prior restraint against data collection, but it will likely openly legalize data collection practices that are controversial or rejected by the public at large. For example, I highly doubt this law will do anything about Ama
Re: The end result has made the world worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> every damn website now have cookie acceptance forms
There's a browser extension for that: https://www.i-dont-care-about-... [i-dont-car...cookies.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
I am out of mod-points and wholeheartedly agree that laws, by their very nature in today's USA, Only Make Things Worse!
It's all horsecrap for the sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, etc. to day that they "care" for the average taxpayer and citizen.
They DO know what that means in Latin right? (Score:4, Informative)
Copra is latin for shit.
As in, copraphagia-- "Shit eating"
Or (the butchered hybrid of latin and greek) Copralolia "Shit talking"
and of course, "Copralite", which is fossilized shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Chevy No Va
Re: (Score:3)
Copra is latin for shit.
As in, copraphagia-- "Shit eating"
Or (the butchered hybrid of latin and greek) Copralolia "Shit talking"
and of course, "Copralite", which is fossilized shit.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent informative.
Copra does not mean, uh, "number two" in Latin. In fact, I'm not sure it's even latin.
If you really want to say puckey in Latin, here you go. [wordhippo.com]
Know your shit, or know you're shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you are thinking of the greek word "kopros"?
Re: (Score:2)
I was; Yes.
Note to self, stop posting when you first wake up and have not had coffee yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Copra is latin for shit.
No, it isn't.
The rest of your post is equally wrong.
Forced to vote Democrat (Score:1)
The problem with getting rid of Republicans is that voting for Democrats is the only reasonably-possible way to do it. So if you don't want your federal government to be completely dominated by criminals who are being blackmailed by foreign governments (resulting in America getting fucked every which way), then things like this may end up passing into law.
If you're fine with that (GDPR happened for a reason) then, ok, fine. Vote Democrat without holding your nose. I don't know how you people do it, but I'm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
OK Boomer.
Re: (Score:1)
For a Democrat to call a republican a criminal is pot calling the kettle black.
Really, man! [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sad how you think Democrat's are any different But what should we expect when you are end product of a system of schooling that indoctrinates students from 5 years old all way through college. For a Democrat to call a republican a criminal is pot calling the kettle black.
Or it's like calling a spade a spade. Either way.
There is a reason they try to teach facts in schools.
(save the bullshit exceptions posts that are inevitable)
You're wrong.
You do not own your own data (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, data is owned by whoever provides it, not by the person it's about. If your mom installs Facebook on her phone, and it breaks into her address book and harvests your phone number, that phone number belongs to your MOM, not to you. That means that no matter how much you complain to Facebook, they will never delete your phone number, because as far as they're concerned, you never owned it to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose for the sake of argument that you and I enter into some agreement and I back out of it. Feeling slighted you post the details of this agreement and recount my breach of said arrangements. Should I be able to ask some website to which you've published this accounting to events to take it down on the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually thinking that a better first law is that companies have to actively make an annual disclosure to you about what they know about you and who they've shared that data with.
After a few years of that, then we could have an informed meaningful conversation about what limitations should be placed on things.
That's a real problem. 1st amendment conflicts (Score:2)
There is indeed a real problem for which you mentioned one small example. Europe doesn't have the first amendment and the same tradition of freedom of speech that the United States does, it it's even been a problem there. Federal legislation is big hammer, it always works I ham-fisted ways. Any effective data privacy legislation is going to have first amendment problems.
Re: (Score:2)
With TSRs they have to let you review it and correct or at least offer responses so they cannot get away with carelessly speaking false things about you, to your financial detriment.
Trump is a jackass and AOC is a moron (Score:2)
Hunter Biden was selling access to his father, to a well-known-corrupt oligarch.
Here in the US, I CAN say things about people that they don't agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
When a photographer makes a photograph, he/she isn't the only one owning rights to it. If you look at the copyright laws, all recognizable subjects on that picture, for as far as rights can be had on those, have rights tot the picture as well. Persons that can be recognized, branded / uniquely owned products, etcetera. Hell, if a masonry worker has specifically bricked a wall depicted on that picture, he has rights to it, as well as the producer of the bricks. Such a picture can't be publicized unless every
Re: (Score:2)
When a photographer makes a photograph, he/she isn't the only one owning rights to it. If you look at the copyright laws, all recognizable subjects on that picture, for as far as rights can be had on those, have rights tot the picture as well.
There would be no such thing as wedding photography.
Re: (Score:2)
It does raise an interesting argument and it's not entirely clear that a person should necessarily get to own any and all data pertaining to them even if it might sound like a good idea at first glance.
Suppose for the sake of argument that you and I enter into some agreement and I back out of it. Feeling slighted you post the details of this agreement and recount my breach of said arrangements. Should I be able to ask some website to which you've published this accounting to events to take it down on the basis that it's data that belongs to me? Perhaps not a perfect example since I'd assume if we're being honest it's data that belongs to both of us, but that's some murky territory in and of itself.
Let's take it a bit further and assume this has been taken to court and I've lost. Can I ask websites to remove that information or even claim ownership over it at all? Normally I'd argue that the public at large owns that information which is about the same as saying that no one actually owns it, but how does that stack up against a supposed right to be forgotten?
Ownership of anything that's intangible is going to be tricky as hell because I don't think there are any really good answers, only opposed interests. Even if we could all sit down and agree on a set of rules, it's almost certain to be rife with inconsistencies and a product of the current social climate and mores as opposed to an objective set of rules that could hope to stand the test of time.
Your current phone number is every bit as much of a fact about you as is your current height. Should you be able to erase that from the internet? What about my personal estimate of your current height that might be remarkably good, and if you can't take that down, then what about my remarkably good guess as to your current phone number?
If my dog farts and your dog smells it should the vet be able to ask your dog about my dogs fart smells?
are you done?
Re: (Score:2)
It is indeed a violation of free speech to allow anyone to delete anything they've expressed in public. It's supported by all-Democrats, so it doesn't surprise me it doesn't account for free speech, but you'd think they at least think about the children.
But yes, your argument is correct, this would allow anyone to delete anything they don't like about themselves. Biden can simply delete all the gaffes off the Internet, but it doesn't stop there, Twitter will be used to gaslight anyone by deleting negative s
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR handles this with clear exceptions for things like journalism and individuals posting data online.
The Right to be Forgotten is a bit more complex. It hinges on if information is still "relevant". So for example a credit reference agency can only report your bankruptcy for 7 years, and then it's off your file. So while a newspaper doesn't have to delete that information from its archive, it does mean that companies which let people research individuals, such as Google Search, probably need to stop repor
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, data is owned by whoever provides it, not by the person it's about. If your mom installs Facebook on her phone, and it breaks into her address book and harvests your phone number, that phone number belongs to your MOM, not to you. That means that no matter how much you complain to Facebook, they will never delete your phone number, because as far as they're concerned, you never owned it to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
No thank you, hands off the Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let it self regulate. Let people decide. Gov has no business touching the Internet.
No
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Answer (Score:2)
Hopefully the legislation will look something like :
Nothing gets shared ever unless you explicitly choose otherwise(period)
A lot of people will still likely exchange some data in order to use certain features of websites.
When people do share data there should be restrictions on what can be done with that data.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this means for a lot of websites you will probably get a splash screen with terms you must accept in order to proceed.
But at least you will have a choice, it could be a good balance, don't ask for too much or bye bye traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
When people do share data there should be restrictions on what can be done with that data.
Too late. Anyone with ill intents has the data (whether acquired legally or otherwise) and doesn't care about the laws. At best you've constructed an extra hoop to jump through but you haven't solved the problem. Now some shell company that scrapes data from another country in which it is perfectly legal to do so just sells information back to companies that are interested in using it. If there's a competitive advantage to having that information, any companies that fail to utilize it will go out of busines
Re: (Score:2)
When people do share data there should be restrictions on what can be done with that data.
Too late. Anyone with ill intents has the data (whether acquired legally or otherwise) and doesn't care about the laws. At best you've constructed an extra hoop to jump through but you haven't solved the problem. Now some shell company that scrapes data from another country in which it is perfectly legal to do so just sells information back to companies that are interested in using it. If there's a competitive advantage to having that information, any companies that fail to utilize it will go out of business given sufficient time.
Wrong. If that was true then you would be able to get me some data from the NSA severs if i asked for it. You can't and neither can they. If that were true i'd be able to see trump's tax returns, I can't and neither can you.
Whats that you say? That's a different level of security? Yeah I know and that's what we need protecting our data. So fix it.
That's the fucking point of this discussion. Oh we can't it's too expensive we won't be profitable? Then you are in the wrong business and it was never a sustain
Re: (Score:2)
There are other laws that contradict this. And they do so for good reasons.
For example, HIPAA requires the sharing of Private Health Information to the Center for Disease Control. They mostly use this for doing things like trying to limit outbreaks of highly infectious diseases.
In the age of big data where there are databases with every SSN, voter id, Drivers License number, name, and date of birth of almost everyone in the United States maybe we need more laws about what can be done with the data and few
Re: (Score:2)
There are other laws that contradict this. And they do so for good reasons.
For example, HIPAA requires the sharing of Private Health Information to the Center for Disease Control. They mostly use this for doing things like trying to limit outbreaks of highly infectious diseases.
In the age of big data where there are databases with every SSN, voter id, Drivers License number, name, and date of birth of almost everyone in the United States maybe we need more laws about what can be done with the data and fewer laws about collecting the data.
HIPPAA has absolutely nothing to do with online privacy , and everything to do with patient privacy and confidentiality.
And the provision that pertains to sharing data with public health authorities such as the CDC specifically states that it ONLY applies to data that is pertinent to public health safety and NOTHING else.
"The Privacy Rule allows for the existing practice of sharing PHI with public health authorities that are authorized by law to collect or receive such information to aid them in their missi
pffffft...yeah, okay (Score:2)
Google and Facebook are part of the Blue Team, and they have so much money on their hands that by time they finish their campaign contributions, the bill will be a husk of its former self whereby companies caught violating the bill will be mailed a sternly worded letter and be forced, under penalty of perjury, to pinky promise never to do it again.
Moreover, the companies this legislation is targeting are the ones who can be even more insidious: that data can be used to help pinpoint posts and ads to sway pu
Re: (Score:2)
What has all that bending of the knee and supplication bought them? Screaming politicians in "their" party threatening to hurt their companies if they don't censor their political opponents. "We might repeal section 230." Or Terry Jones as a gangster, "Things happen. Shame if something got broken...up as being too big."
Tbh Republicans make similar threats for similar reasons.
No need to stay vigilent over the First Amendment in this woke-once-and-for-all modern era.
Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can see it if you like, and make corrections, IIRC, and precisely so they aren't carelessly spreading financially damaging false info about you. Not really a first amendment violation.
Companies will still profit (Score:2)
X=10
Z=15
print "Do you consent to our utilization of your personal data ? ( y/n ) "
read answer
if [[ $answer = [Yy]* ]]
then
widget_price=$X
print "Discount applied !"
else
widget_price=$Z
print "Non-Consent fee applied."
fi
What about Credit Rating? (Score:2)
That is a huge violation of privacy that really bytes Americans that live in fear of someone reporting a late payment for something.
What About Credit Scores (Score:2)
What's with the idea that tech companies shouldn't be able to sell our data without our consent even though when that data is just relatively unimportant facts about what kind of products we like or basic demographic/political information but every financial institution we interact with is allowed to sell information that determines if I can buy a house or even if I get a job offer? First give me the right to tell a credit card company they can't report anything (including fact I'm a customer) to credit re
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see the Dems ... (Score:2)
Pointless and/or Awful Giveaway to FB/Google (Score:2)
If this bill lets companies deny me access to their services if I opt out of selling my data in which case it's not usefully different than the current system. I just now get a second 'suspend my account' feature at all my online services. I mean all companies now give me the option not to accept their TOS and if I don't I just don't get to use their service.
On the other hand if it forces companies to let me opt out of the sale of my data without any effect to the services I receive (and it's not allowed
Hillary can now use Gmail (Score:2)
So instead of having a private email server she can now use Gmail and doesn't have to bleach bit. Online privacy laws are tailor made for coverups of official corruption and preventing wikileaks from getting material.
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
LOL more fail from the Dems (Score:1)
I think the Dems have to lose badly this election and hopefully drain their own swamp.
Translation: (Score:2)
"We got hoist by our own petar during the last election and we want to be sure that only WE can mine your data."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole basis of laws and regulations with regard to privacy is too make it more expensive than it is worth to invade people's privacy. So the cost of proving why they should keep those records about you, of validating that data with you and informing you regularly of the data held. Some data should be banned, medical data, religious data, political data and where permissions are required they should be allowed to be withdrawn at any time for any reason.
This tied to data audits, where agents turn up to p
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't Google have a little GDPR widget and backend crap for you to paste in? They're the ones most motivated to help you run ads.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
This person obviously voted for trump. Just calling them out like a bos.
It's not really their fault though, they have been fed a whole bunch of misinformation.
If when you were growing up they taught you in school that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago and cavemen used to ride on them. Would you be wrong for believing it?
Re: (Score:1)
If when you were growing up they taught you in school that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago and cavemen used to ride on them. Would you be wrong for believing it?
Your question is not even wrong. That word there, wrong, has different meanings possible in the way you used it. Yes, factually incorrect. No, no intent to cause harm. There are others but I'll skip them. The answer to your question is neither yes nor no. Or both yes and no.
Re: (Score:2)
If when you were growing up they taught you in school that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago and cavemen used to ride on them. Would you be wrong for believing it?
Your question is not even wrong.
That word there, wrong, has different meanings possible in the way you used it. Yes, factually incorrect. No, no intent to cause harm. There are others but I'll skip them. The answer to your question is neither yes nor no. Or both yes and no.
wrong /rôNG/
adjective
1. not correct or true; incorrect.
"that is the wrong answer"