51 Tech CEOs Send Open Letter To Congress Asking For a Federal Data Privacy Law (zdnet.com) 35
The chief executive officers (CEOs) of 51 tech companies have signed and sent an open letter to Congress leaders today, asking for a federal law on user data privacy to supersede the rising number of privacy laws that are cropping up at the state level. From a report: The open-letter was sent on behalf of Business Roundtable, an association made up of the CEOs of America's largest companies. The CEOs of Amazon, AT&T, Dell, IBM, Qualcomm, SAP, Salesforce, Visa, Mastercard, JP Morgan Chase, State Farm, and Walmart, are just some of the execs who put their name on the dotted line. CEOs blamed a patchwork of differing privacy regulations that are currently being passed in multiple US states, and by several US agencies, as one of the reasons why consumer privacy is a mess in the US.
This patchwork of privacy regulations is creating problems for their companies, which have to comply with an ever-increasing number of laws across different states and jurisdictions. Instead, the 51 CEOs would like one law that governs all user privacy and data protection across the US, which would simplify product design, compliance, and data management. "There is now widespread agreement among companies across all sectors of the economy, policymakers and consumer groups about the need for a comprehensive federal consumer data privacy law that provides strong, consistent protections for American consumers," the open letter said.
This patchwork of privacy regulations is creating problems for their companies, which have to comply with an ever-increasing number of laws across different states and jurisdictions. Instead, the 51 CEOs would like one law that governs all user privacy and data protection across the US, which would simplify product design, compliance, and data management. "There is now widespread agreement among companies across all sectors of the economy, policymakers and consumer groups about the need for a comprehensive federal consumer data privacy law that provides strong, consistent protections for American consumers," the open letter said.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the 4th Amendment:
Blame assignment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Instead, the 51 CEOs would like one law that governs all user privacy and data protection across the US"
No, what they want is a weak federal law, which will supercede state laws, so that they can continue to rape your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
that would be their ideal, but a strong nationwide law is still better for them than a bunch of not-quite-the-same medium-to-strong laws.
State laws are a better approach (Score:4, Interesting)
"Laboratories of democracy" is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. .... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If there's one Federal Law written by Facebook/Google lobbyists - it's extremely likely there are egregious loopholes.
If there are 50 attempts to close such loopholes, it's far more likely that you won't have a few bribed politicians subvert the entire process.
Re: (Score:2)
... what they want is a weak federal law, which will supercede state laws, so that they can continue to rape your privacy.
Yes, and I'm also sure they're hurrying and lobbying to get it done before the next election, just to be sure of having the friendliest possible policy makers crafting the weakest, least protective, most anti-privacy laws possible.
Re: (Score:2)
While I am sure that federal law will have more of a compromise, I think a lot of organizations in general are realizing that less federal regulations doesn't mean they get a free pass to do whatever they want, but have to try to abide by a large set of diverse and ever changing state regulations, who will want to make sure its citizens are protected as well.
Consistency is a companies biggest friend. It allows for long term planning, and being able to pull a detailed strategy. While regulations may hinder
Alternate Headline: (Score:5, Funny)
"51 Tech CEO's announce that it would be cheaper to buy one set of federal legislators than it is to buy all them in each state."
Re: (Score:3)
Short and sweet.
51 Tech CEO's are cheap.
Lowering the burden in development by having only one set of laws or lowering the cost of lobbying are both a financial win for them.
Re: (Score:3)
We already know how this will end if the feds have their way. They will pass just one new law, saying that the states may not pass their own privacy laws. We know this because of the way the feds are trying to make California's fuel economy and net neutrality standards illegal.
Here is my recommendation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my recommended federal bill.
Two companies may not share private data relating to a third party without gaining permission from that third party EVERY SINGLE TIME. No catchalls either no "you give us the right to share data with whoever we like"- if Google wants to share data on us with Target, Walmart, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, they need to ask us EVERY SINGLE TIME, and for EVERY SINGLE COMPANY and this has to be separate from any EULA so that people know PRECISELY WHEN-WHERE-AND-HOW their data is passed around like a stereotypical 1980's college sorority girl.
Yes, many people will stop doing business with certain evil entities and some companies will be forced to be more privacy aware and less loosey-goosey with our data.
Re: (Score:3)
I like that. It will, of course, never be enacted into law in the US or anywhere else, but it's nice to think about.
Re: (Score:2)
Reason not included in letter (Score:3)
"Bribing the US Congress is so much easier than having to bribe all 50 state legislatures."
Same as it ever was (Score:2)
...which will, completely coincidentally, demand a level of red tape infeasible for small start-ups to meet. Small startups who might otherwise threaten the marketshare of these 51 giants by offering a compelling new "killer app" to users.
Fixing the privacy policy is relatively simple (but not easy):
SAP? American? (Score:2)
The open-letter was sent on behalf of Business Roundtable, an association made up of the CEOs of America's largest companies. The CEOs of Amazon, AT&T, Dell, IBM, Qualcomm, SAP
I have some friends who work in un-scenic Walldorf, Germany at SAP CHQ near scenic Heidelberg, Germany.
They will be surprised to hear that they work for an American company.
I mean, if it was posted on Slashdot, it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a couple of ponds, a couple of great trails, and the IKEA.
Yes I do miss living there.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a couple of ponds, a couple of great trails, and the IKEA.
In the IKEA shopping complex . . . I preferred shopping at an alternative furniture shop named "Perplex".
Hält länger, schmeckt besser
Oh and there is an excellent Italian shop in Walldorf near the Partner Port that will sell you 100% arabrica coffee beans at dirt cheap prices. And a kilo of salsiccia, as well.
But living in the Heidelberg Altstadt, where I could toss a dead cat from my front door into the Neckar . . . I'll still stay my comment that Walldorf is un-scenic.
Heidelberger Druck fac
Re: (Score:1)
The open-letter was sent on behalf of Business Roundtable, an association made up of the CEOs of America's largest companies. The CEOs of Amazon, AT&T, Dell, IBM, Qualcomm, SAP
I have some friends who work in un-scenic Walldorf, Germany at SAP CHQ near scenic Heidelberg, Germany.
They will be surprised to hear that they work for an American company.
I mean, if it was posted on Slashdot, it must be true.
The open-letter was sent on behalf of Business Roundtable, an association made up of the CEOs of America's largest companies. The CEOs of Amazon, AT&T, Dell, IBM, Qualcomm, SAP
I have some friends who work in un-scenic Walldorf, Germany at SAP CHQ near scenic Heidelberg, Germany.
They will be surprised to hear that they work for an American company.
I mean, if it was posted on Slashdot, it must be true.
doesn't that depend on how you read it? it could (and probably does) mean SAP is one of the biggest companies in US and not an American company. YouTube is the biggest video sharing platform in my country but that doesn't make it from my country...
HIPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have a model privacy law. No need to reinvent the wheel, just expand HIPAA to cover all personal information and apply it to all businesses. Then we can talk about expanding HIPAA protections.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
How about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop requiring private data. Period.
I shouldn't have to tell them anything private to view their website. And they shouldn't collect anything from me either. No tracking cookies.
Any personal information needed to say bill and ship an order may only be used for the purpose of billing and shipping.
Zero 3rd party transfers of my data. If I want the 3rd party to have it i'll send it to them when I solicit their services.
Re: (Score:1)
And you want the service they provide to be free too, right?
If you want to get rid of all info collection, then you had better be prepared to start paying for all the "free" services that you are currently using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get rid of all info collection, then you had better be prepared to start paying for all the "free" services that you are currently using.
Nope, that doesn't follow. Providers of "free" services can keep making money from non-targeted ads, without info collection. They may make less money per ad, but they won't starve.
Federal makes sense (Score:1)
If you are a resident of Florida, than if your data is breached at a small mom and pop in New York, then the mom and pop has to send a notice of the breach of the state of Florida within something like 5 days.
If you're in Texas, they don't care.
The state laws are already so diverse that the timelines and what is considered sensitive information are all different.
I happen to agree it is probably about watering down the California data protection, but common laws would
I gotta bad feeling about this... (Score:2)
That being said, I find it difficult to believe that all these corporate heads really are concerned about us. When was the last time effective laws were enacted by greedy corporations AND a corrupt government officials that actually protect the American people? It appears to me that only corporations and politicos end up being protected and profitably I might add.
Also, I see E. Schmitdhead, M. Zucksuck, and @JackDorsey are not o
Quite Simple (Score:2)
These companies are obviously deciding to do this because they want to get rid of all data privacy and protection.
Compliance is actually quite simple and several large International companies do it with ease: Comply with the most restrictive requirement found anywhere, everywhere. All done. Case closed. No need for any complication at all.
The real problem is that these companies are only in business because if they were to implement comprehensive data privacy and protection policies they would be out of
Aka plausible denial (Score:2)
Good for dcscooter.com (Score:1)