EFF Proposes Addressing Online Harms with 'Privacy-First' Policies (eff.org) 32
Long-time Slashdot reader nmb3000 writes: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a new white paper, Privacy First: A Better Way to Address Online Harms , to propose an alternative to the "often ill-conceived, bills written by state, federal, and international regulators to tackle a broad set of digital topics ranging from child safety to artificial intelligence." According to the EFF, "these scattershot proposals to correct online harm are often based on censorship and news cycles. Instead of this chaotic approach that rarely leads to the passage of good laws, we propose another solution."
The EFF writes:
The EFF writes:
What would this comprehensive privacy law look like? We believe it must include these components:
- No online behavioral ads.
- Data minimization.
- Opt-in consent.
- User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information.
- No preemption of state laws.
- Strong enforcement with a private right to action.
- No pay-for-privacy schemes.
- No deceptive design.
A strong comprehensive data privacy law promotes privacy, free expression, and security. It can also help protect children, support journalism, protect access to health care, foster digital justice, limit private data collection to train generative AI, limit foreign government surveillance, and strengthen competition. These are all issues on which lawmakers are actively pushing legislation—both good and bad.
This is garbage. (Score:1, Insightful)
Companies can easily dispense with these recommendations:
No online behavioral ads: Free speech concerns.
Data minimization: Free speech concerns
Opt-in consent: Free speech concerns.
User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information: OK! But they already have that in most cases.
No preemption of state laws: Federal law preempts state laws by definition, and part of that is related to free speech concerns.
Strong enforcement with a private right to action: Which results in things like a single handi
Re: (Score:3)
And unlike people we can't imprison or execute corporations when they are naughty.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to see some corporate income tax filings.
Re: (Score:2)
And unlike people we can't imprison or execute corporations when they are naughty.
Unless you're walking around with a Too Big To Fail free card, the longstanding way to "execute" a corporation is simply driving them out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
But executing them is way, way less morally questionable than with real people.
The "modern" economy, isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, the modern internet economy would COLLAPSE if these were put into place.
This right here SHOULD tell you something about the "modern" internet economy.
The internet and internet commerce existed and thrived LONG before "companies" started giving everything away for "free" by turning the consumer into The Product. Implying that we should simply continue that no matter what is what is ridiculous.
Blackmail, GDPR territoriality, and minimum wage (Score:3)
No online behavioral ads: Free speech concerns.
How does blackmail remain a crime given said "free speech concerns"? I'd like to argue inward from that.
User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information: OK! But they already have that in most cases.
In part because of GDPR. However, several businesses selectively apply the data protection guarantees of GDPR, honoring only requests made from a location within the European Union or Britain.
No preemption of state laws: Federal law preempts state laws by definition
This is meant in the sense of minimum wage laws. Under current law, the several states retain power to set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. "No preemption" would mean that the several states retain pow
Re:This is garbage. (Score:4, Interesting)
User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information: OK! But they already have that in most cases.
The victims of Experian would like a word with you.
Re:This is garbage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies can easily dispense with these recommendations:
No online behavioral ads: Free speech concerns. Data minimization: Free speech concerns. Opt-in consent: Free speech concerns.
As an AC just pointed out, we need to stop regarding corporations the way we regard individual citizens. Corporations should NOT enjoy unrestricted free speech. They have far more power, and do far more harm, than individual citizens. They already pillage citizens and the planet itself through 'cost externalization'. You want also to maintain their ability to externalize the consequences of what they say by promoting "free speech" for corporations? Fuck that (literal) noise.
User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information: OK! But they already have that in most cases.
Citation please.
No preemption of state laws: Federal law preempts state laws by definition, and part of that is related to free speech concerns.
Laws are not immutable. They can be changed - it happens all the time. It they didn't, we'd still have women as chattel and slavery would be legal. Remember that whole "government by the people, for the people"? You should remember it. I'm a Canadian, and even I know that one.
Strong enforcement with a private right to action: Which results in things like a single handicapped person suing thousands of businesses because aisles aren't wide enough, resulting in people being run out of business while a bunch of lawyers and that single handicapped person getting rich. Fuck that.
I've not heard of that - can you provide a link? If it has happened, then I'm sure laws could be crafted in such a way as to minimize or prevent it. Again, these things are not static and not immutable.
No pay-for-privacy schemes: Free speech concerns
Effectively asked and answered above. But I'm left wondering: what the hell does 'pay-for-privacy' or a lack thereof have to do with free speech? Commerce, perhaps - but speech?
No deceptive design: Free speech concerns, and oh, who gets to decide what that "deceptive" design is?
That might be a fair point, if we didn't already have laws against deceptive advertising and various kinds of fraud. And even if we didn't already have those laws, would you really want your argument to die on that particular hill of protecting deception and fraud?
In addition, the modern internet economy would COLLAPSE if these were put into place.
IIRC the economy of the American South took a drubbing when slavery was abolished. I see this as a modern equivalent, or at least a modern analog. Fundamentally your argument amounts to allowing corporate abuse, general behaviour, and tearing up the social fabric 'because money'. Is that really the world you want yourself and any descendants to live in?
These recommendations are ridiculous.
No, they very much are NOT ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Search the web for [ada troll] (Score:2)
a single handicapped person suing thousands of businesses because aisles aren't wide enough, resulting in people being run out of business while a bunch of lawyers and that single handicapped person getting rich.
I've not heard of that - can you provide a link?
Search the web for ada troll. For example, ALDA ran some articles about vexatious Americans with Disabilities Act litigation [alda.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, assuming that a frivolous suit like that would get to court and that a jury would side with such a greedy and unreasonable plaintiff. The most likely result would be that the judge woul
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the modern internet economy would COLLAPSE if these were put into place.
And that would be bad why exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is basically what GDPR is, or should be if it was properly enforced. The EU has free speech and it hasn't stopped GDPR having huge benefits.
The main flaw in the way GDPR is enforced is the opt-in consent part. Recital 32 says that consent cannot be manufactured, e.g. through dark patterns or making it hard to not consent than to click "allow all". If that was better enforced, there would be very little tracking or behavioural advertising on the web, at least in Europe.
I think a mixture of laws like GDP
Re: (Score:2)
It's guidance for governments to implement, not companies. "State law" just means legislated laws in general. This isn't USA specific.
Your free speech arguments seems entirely without merit. You've raised them on the very points which benefits free speech by the fact that they reduce an individual's trackable exposure.
The ad industry has been subverted by our current "internet economy". It has syphoned a huge amount of money into very few pockets. That's often referred to as an oligopoly when in a sing
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yeah, about that. https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Help me government this library has books that do not confirm my bias! https://www.salon.com/2023/04/... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want Mexicans coming here and getting our food?
Well they're already harvesting most of it for us... it's only fair they get to eat a little.
Re: The left (Score:1)
Got an example of that?
I mean assuming you're not just saying that talking like an asshole should have no consequences. That's a pretty weak and tired argument.
You claim the left is censoring speech - the claim should include who is censoring what, and how.
So, f.e. a platform owner deciding not to publish a hate screed isn't quite the same thing as, say, British laws preventing publication of the name of an accused royal racist.
The latter is certainly censorship. The former an example of "freedom of the pre
I like it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Online harms = someone has an opinion I don't like, or the government doesn't like, or a big corporation doesn't like
OK... (Score:2)
User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information.
As long as this is for private individuals, not public figures, politicians, or criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you should mention that, most of Europe has a similar law concerning the right to your picture (i.e. someone taking your picture). You cannot take my picture (with me as the relevant subject, i.e. you can take a picture of a cathedral that I just happen to stand in front of, but the cathedral needs to be clearly the focus of the picture) without my consent... unless I'm a "public figure". Then all bets are off and you can snap away with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that seems correct. You don't want such people expunging the internet of their past misdeeds...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For all practical purposes, yes. Technically you shouldn't take my picture, but unless you somehow publish it, there isn't much I can do.
I would love targeted ads if... (Score:2)
...they weren't so frikkin' stupid
When I'm in the market for a product or service, I would love to see pitches from all quality suppliers
When I buy, or choose not to buy, they should stop, all of them
This is not what I get today
I buy a tool, and get lots of ads for the same tool
I look at a product and decide it's not for me, I get lots of ads for it
I get ads based on very general criteria, like male, over 50, in the US
And worst of all, I get scam ads where the scammer scrapes the video of a $10K tool and of
America Will Not Get Any Privacy Laws (Score:2)
Not only will businesses cry foul that it's a first amendment violation; but the laws aren't here to do anything for the citizens. The laws and entire legal system are there to help the corporations make more money, legally enslave the population, and shield the government from the citizens.