New Legislation Would Punish Mishandling of Private Data 187
An anonymous reader writes "A bill introduced Thursday by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) would regulate the handling of consumers' private data and punish companies who screw it up (e.g. Sony). 'These rules would require companies to follow specific storage guidelines and ensure that personal information is stored and protected correctly. Companies that do not adhere to these security guidelines could be subject to stiff fines.' Blumenthal told the NY Times, 'The goal of the proposed law is essentially to hold accountable the companies and entities that store personal information and personal data and to deter data breaches. While looking at past data breaches, I've been struck with how many are preventable.'"
Oh, great .... now, instead of (Score:5, Insightful)
insecurity due to evil intent or incompetence, corporations will now have to follow rules made up by the most incompetent group of people on the planet?
Re:Oh, great .... now, instead of (Score:3, Insightful)
Use "certified" firms or be arrested (Score:4, Insightful)
These types of government regulations always turn out like this:
- Businesses are forced to use "certified" firms as contractors or auditors
- "Certified" firms are politically-connected firms with Washington lobbyists on their payroll
- Government agencies get created to police whatever is regulated in the law
- "Certified" firms work with the agencies to make sure certification is exclusive so they can charge above-market rates (rent seeking)
- Executives at "certified" firms contribute to Richard Blumenthal's re-election campaign.
- Small startup firms are kept out
- Innocent business operators are raided by regulating agencies, even though they never had a security breach.
- Security breaches and private data compromises continue despite government regulation
- There are fewer jobs for everyone handling private data, and there are fewer choices of services.
- Everyone wonders why we have high unemployment and private data breaches.
- People propose deregulating so we can have our freedom back.
- Someone comes up with the private-data equivalent of "think of the children!!!!"
- Time passes. Another hundred such regulatory regimes get added for every facet of life. Life steadily gets worse for everyone who isn't politically connected.
Which one costs more? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the "stiff fines" cost the company even more than the implementation of storage guidelines, why would they bother? When laws against corporations hit only their pocketbooks (say the cost of a few weeks' worth of hookers and blow for the CEO), they frequently don't have any teeth.
Money buys power. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who do you think is asking for the rules? The same stupid corporations who can't ever provide decent security, of course.
Before the rules are settled, companies will be immune to lawsuits from mere plebians who are injured by their screwups.
Money buys power, so you can be sure this will be included in any rules.
Additionally, the world is far too complex for any set of rules to cover all the cases. The greater the complexity of the rules, normally proportional to the age and size of the bureaucracy producing them, the higher the rate of perverse consequences. For example, the FDA is no responsible for most of the deaths around the world, all due to "'that drug doesn't exist yet" or "you can't afford the drug".
Thus, regulations NEVER work, always have unexpected and/or perverse consequences.
Name a set of regulations that work. Provide an economic evaluation of their consequences vs 'market solutions'.
The market, which has a bad rep in the progressive mind relative to gov-imposed solutions, should be appreciated among Slashdot's technical audience, as it represents a scalable parallel search algorithm for solutions that bother customers.
Fortunately, we can depend on basic system dynamics to assure us there will be an end to all of this : Power has a strong, inherent positive feedback --> the more power you have, the easier it is to get more. Un-restrained positive feedback systems always destroy the system.
Re:Oh, great .... now, instead of (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Darwin's system. When a company gets hacked and customer's information is taken, they lose business ...
More laws are not always the best answer.
Obvious problem: There's no impetus (without laws) for any company to ever tell you that they've lost your data. So your model fails completely.
Re:Oh, great .... now, instead of (Score:1, Insightful)
You think that's bad, wait to you see a Libertarian apply the logic of that numb-nut poster to, say, medical doctors or engineering firms. I debated a guy on here a few weeks ago who was defending the idea that building code enforcement wasn't required, and people should be able to build however they like, and if their house falls down and damages the next door neighbor's property, the neighbor can always sue.
In short, Libertarians are fucking morons. Either that or sociopaths.
Re:Money buys power. (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, the world is far too complex for any set of rules to cover all the cases. The greater the complexity of the rules, normally proportional to the age and size of the bureaucracy producing them, the higher the rate of perverse consequences. For example, the FDA is no responsible for most of the deaths around the world, all due to "'that drug doesn't exist yet" or "you can't afford the drug".
Thus, regulations NEVER work, always have unexpected and/or perverse consequences.
Name a set of regulations that work. Provide an economic evaluation of their consequences vs 'market solutions'.
What a logical clusterfuck.
Regulations NEVER work?
Is your drinking water clean? Is there lead in your paint? Is melamine used as a filler in your food products?
Did you have to work 12 hour days in an unsafe factory starting at the age of 8?
Your question is just another version of "What have the Romans ever done for us?" [youtube.com]
The answer is "a lot" and whoever modded you up should be ashamed of themselves.
Re:Oh, great .... now, instead of (Score:2, Insightful)