The Trump Administration is Talking To Facebook and Google About Potential Rules For Online Privacy (washingtonpost.com) 71
The Trump administration is crafting a proposal to protect Web users' privacy, aiming to blunt global criticism that the absence of strict federal rules in the United States has enabled data mishaps at Facebook and others in Silicon Valley. From a report: Over the past month, the Commerce Department has been huddling with representatives of tech giants such as Facebook and Google, Internet providers including AT&T and Comcast, and consumer advocates [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], according to four people familiar with the matter but not authorized to speak on the record. The government's goal is to release an initial set of ideas this fall that outlines Web users' rights, including general principles for how companies should collect and handle consumers' private information, the people said. The forthcoming blueprint could then become the basis for Congress to write the country's first wide-ranging online-privacy law, an idea the White House recently has said it could endorse. "Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity," Lindsay Walters, the president's deputy press secretary, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with Congress on a legislative solution consistent with our overarching policy."
Much as I hate to admit it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I deeply enjoy mocking Europe, they have much better consumer privacy protection than the US. It would be great to catch up a little. Plus: Trump making the US more like the EU? The heads exploding would be like the end of Kingsmen.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, you have a bunch of very smart people at Google and Facebook who want as few privacy protections as possible working with an administration this is... ummm... less smart. I wonder how that is going to turn out?
Only One Rule Required (Score:3)
Anyone storing private information is liable 100% for its unauthorized release.
They would be completely on the hook for compensating any losses and remediating any financial fallout.
Re: Only One Rule Required (Score:1)
There are no losses or fallout, and it was entirely authorized.
Re: (Score:1)
Does that include storing audio tapes of my friend and me planning crimes? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the real problem is in the "storage" of the information.
They shouldn't be storing and tracking every last thing that everybody does, by default or otherwise.
PS: They don't actually sell your data to anybody, that's a fallacy. It's much too valuable to start passing around. What they actually do is promise to show your adverts to "relevant" users on their systems - if you pay them enough.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Google does. Facebook? I've no idea what they scheme for monetizing the data is.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone storing private information is liable 100% for its unauthorized release.
They would be completely on the hook for compensating any losses and remediating any financial fallout.
Remember though, that places like Facebook have a lot of authorized releases. I don't know if you ever go there, but everyone there has friends who take "intelligence tests" or personality tests which then post something like "Billy is a great friend, but a terrible enemy", or "If you can't handle suzy at her worst, you don't deserve her at her best". Stupid shit like that. These doofuses went to some website suggested by Facebook, then plugged in a bunch of personal data, and got a response that gratifies
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone storing private information is liable 100% for its unauthorized release.
I can think of numerous cases where corporations were not held accountable for their actions (or inactions). I think it will persist if they can continue to hire the best lawyers, craft convoluted user agreements, and have the resources to forum shop their cases for the best outcome.
Not About Privacy -- About AI (Score:1)
As much as I deeply enjoy mocking Europe, they have much better consumer privacy protection than the US. It would be great to catch up a little. Plus: Trump making the US more like the EU? The heads exploding would be like the end of Kingsmen.
I suspect they are spinning it this way to manipulate you, but that in reality they are using it to undermine privacy protections. My suspicion is that this isn't about privacy. Think about it. This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition. Congress will pass a law to keep states from doing that, and that law will give big data companies legal cover both for (1) continuing to use their mass
Mod parent up! (Score:3)
This needs higher visibility, but I'm all out of mod points.
Re: (Score:3)
This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition. Congress will pass a law to keep states from doing that, and that law will give big data companies legal cover both for (1) continuing to use their massive existing amounts of data, which is a large corporate asset, in AI work and (2) collecting additional data.
Exactly. And I'd also add, this:
Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity.
It's setting up the idea, soon to be enshrined in law, that more privacy always mean less prosperity.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect they are spinning it this way to manipulate you, but that in reality they are using it to undermine privacy protections. My suspicion is that this isn't about privacy. Think about it. This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition. Congress will pass a law to keep states from doing that, and that law will give big data companies legal cover both for (1) continuing to use their massive existing amounts of data, which is a large corporate asset, in AI work and (2) collecting additional data.
There will be some minimal federal protections in the law, probably aimed at nominally anonymizing the data or not using it to make spam phone calls or something else people will like that won't affect the companies that want to use it. But those are there mostly to give cover to politicians so they can spin it as protecting privacy.
Just a guess that would be in keeping with how government works.
I can to say this very thing. Quoting to boost ACs visibility.
I'm sure they will call it something like the "PROTECTING INTERNET PRIVACY ACT". That will pretty much tell us everything we need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition.
The internet is inherently an interstate operation, and thus the federal government is right to preempt states from enacting a mish-mash of varying laws. One company trying to follow fifty different laws that may contradict each other is a waste of time and money. Sometimes the ICC is applied very loosely. This is not such a time.
Besides, you should want federal laws. That prevents Big Corp X from operating out of state Y to get around The People's Republic of California's laws over privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember back in March of last year, when congress removed any limitations to ISPs spying on their customers? One of the justifications for that action was the fact that these rules didn't apply to Google or Facebook and
Re: (Score:2)
It already says "Officials are looking to give consumers more control but also limit state efforts."
This is basically an attempt to block the states from implementing strong privacy laws.
Collaboration (Score:1, Insightful)
In other news, Mr. McGregor is consulting with Peter Rabbit on how to protect his carrot garden.
Wow (Score:2)
Cautious outlook (Score:2)
This kind of stuff has been long time coming. At the moment the laws on the book are incredibly mute on what happens if a company loses your data. Hell even losing credit card information is pretty iffy in a court of law, unless you can show that your stolen credit card information was used to directly harm you financially. It is time that criminal liability was held to those who lose sensitive information. However, I will admit, that I myself don't have really firm ideas for what that restitution shoul
I'd rather they focus here... (Score:2)
The government's goal is to release an initial set of ideas this fall that outlines Web users' rights, including general principles for how companies should collect and handle consumers' private information...
How about [forcing] inter-operation of service providers' message & voice apps? That is, being able to use Telegram's message & voice app to communicate with WhatsAPP for instance?
Heck, I can effortlessly send email from whatever client I choose without worrying whether a recipient who has conveyed a valid address will receive it.
Is this so hard? I do not think so.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be great, but will never happen.
Where I work, the product team uses Slack. Our build system uses HipChat since it has good integration with it. The company standard is Microsoft Teams, but it's just too slow unless you have a brand new desktop since we also have to run both Visual Studio and IntelliJ so most devs just use Skype. Support and sales use Salesforce chat which we can't deploy to everyone because of the high cost.
Re: (Score:2)
How about [forcing] inter-operation of service providers' message & voice apps?
Which section of the Constitution gives the US government this legislative oversite? Do you REALLY want the US government mandating APIs for smartphone apps?
Heck, I can effortlessly send email from whatever client I choose without worrying whether a recipient who has conveyed a valid address will receive it.
Then you are completely ignorant of the internet and the current state of zealotry over spam prevention. You cannot assume that any email you send to anyone ever gets there, or that the contents will be unmolested enroute. "Ignorance is bliss".
But in any case, your "effortless" email is not based on US legislation mandating interoperability, it is base
Corporations are "people" too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that when people get privacy in the USA, megacorps get it too. You will be less able than ever to keep them in check.
Not saying you are wrong but devil's in the details here. The right to privacy, at least offline, for a citizen is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to privacy for a company is only if Congress so wills it. So the question is how willing would Congress be to grant such a right to companies? Yeah, I mean we know how it will turn out, but I guess I just wanted to point out that it doesn't have to turn out that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying you are wrong but devil's in the details here. The right to privacy, at least offline, for a citizen is enshrined in the Constitution.
The Constitution tends to grant us immunity from government intrusion into our privacy in various ways, but I don't think it's at all clear that we have the same protection as they enjoy in the EU.
In any case, I think it's far better to have clear, unambiguous laws drafted for the effect desired, rather than loosely "interpreting" some existing law to mean what you want it to mean. It's not like there aren't precedents we can look to and see what the effects would be (again, the EU's consumer protection la
Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The Trump Administration is Talking To Foxes and Wolves About Potential Rules For Hen-house Safety.
No conflicts of interest here. No sir! None whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
what do you mean, the Trump adminstration has the NSA, which guards our privacy and keeps us secure from the terrorists in our ranks. you might even be a terrorist and not no it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump Administration is Talking To Foxes and Wolves About Potential Rules For Hen-house Safety.
No conflicts of interest here. No sir! None whatsoever.
If that's hip-speak for "taking the first steps to even think about doing something about it", then sure ...
Re: (Score:2)
They talk to hackers about securing systems. Though hackers like money and staying out of jail. I don't think we can get these greedy CEO's to work in the public's best interest.
double speak (Score:1)
"Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity," Lindsay Walters, the president's deputy press secretary, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with Congress on a legislative solution consistent with our overarching policy."
translation:
we'll make sure to write the laws so that companies can do whatever they want,
because our overarching policy is to make
Wait, what was that? (Score:2)
Since when does a government ask criminals how they'd like their laws?
its like the cook asking the butchers. (Score:2)
No way the cows are going to get a fair cut.
The Rules (Score:2)
Oh, but any government official is exempt from having his/her data siphoned.
Why would we ask Facebook and Google? (Score:3)
Facebook and Google are the worst offenders. We should be asking the EFF, and taking some cues from GPDR. Asking Facebook to write privacy legislation is like asking Wells Fargo to write banking laws.
Oh, wait - murca
Is Ajit Pie drafting the legislation? (Score:2)
Given this administration's track record, I think we can make a pretty good guess about how this is going to work out. Consumers will have the right to drop their pants and grab their ankles, and that will be about all.
Re: (Score:2)
This administration is, indeed, the worst in history, but I wouldn't trust any administration since Eisenhower to write those policies. And that limit is probably because I don't remember the older ones.
Privacy vs...profit? (Score:2)
Shouldn't the balance be between privacy and freedom of speech? Why is profit a consideration for online privacy rules? Are we saying that if we have laws that provide privacy protection, they *must* take the profits of companies that will need to comply with them into consideration when creating them?
Damn. At le
Re: (Score:1)
Why is profit a consideration for online privacy rules?
They didn't say profit. They said prosperity. Different word.
they *must* take the profits of companies that will need to comply with them into consideration when creating them?
They didn't say that. You did.
When you use the word they did, then yes, you need to take the prosperity of the economy into account when enacting laws. What good are privacy laws if you drive the economy into the crapper and the companies you are regulating go into bankruptcy because of them? Do you want lawmakers that don't care at all if the growth of the economy goes negative because of the laws they write? Or do you want laws that balance the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. It's a different word. In this context, the "prosperity of the economy" would be the prosperity of the companies impacted, which would be how well they are doing fiscally, right? I'm guessing you agree, because you also said:
You're assuming, rather than asking a question of me. It *
Re: (Score:2)
In this context, the "prosperity of the economy" would be the prosperity of the companies impacted
We're all part of the economy.
You're assuming, rather than asking a question of me.
That's called a "rhetorical question", and yes, we assume that you don't want the US economy to take a dive into the crapper just because of ill-considered privacy laws. But, who knows? I've been surprised when someone has actually said something ridiculous in response to such a question.
It *sounds* like you are arguing that the only way that these companies can be profitable (not go into bankruptcy) is to make sure that privacy laws don't interfere with their ability to make money
It only sounds that way because that's what you want to hear me saying. You are forgetting that there are more companies involved than just one, and more than just the companies that you'd lik
Re: (Score:2)
Stipulated. This law is meant to apply to companies that we entrust personal information to that we might think has some expectation of being private. While the impact of privacy regulations like this one may extend to parts of the economy beyond those companies, those are what I was talking about.