Republican senators tell FTC to back off data security, surveillance rules US federal rulemaking on surveillance and data privacy should be left to Congress, not American consumer watchdog agencies — or states — according to a trio of Republican senators. In a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), urged …
Considering how the Republicans are squeaking by the midterms when the opposition normally gets landslide support, I think most Republicans are highly overrating their "victory", and unless they dump that Drumpf albatross, they're not very likely to win the next Presidential election. He's past is "best before" date, and the stench from the rot is atrocious.
Republican politicians can't cut him loose because he still has a lot of grassroots support, and would even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue.
That's why when many walked away after Jan. 6 they all came crawling back within weeks, as he was rumored to be considering creating a third party which would cut the republican party off at the knees. But having him pick nominees is proving to be almost as disastrous as what should have been a red wave rout was barely a whimper, so maybe they should call his bluff and after his party wins zilch in 2024 (or he gets indicted and flees the country before trial, whichever comes first) the "Trump party" followers will be forced to rejoin the republican party to keep the democrats from winning everything.
The late night comedians had a field day with Trump last night, running montages of analysts from all networks (even one on Fox) calling Trump the "biggest loser" of the election. Nothing is worse in his mind than being called a loser, so he's probably been throwing a giant tantrum like the giant toddler he is.
It's more of not reading the true intention of the senator's statements, rather than the actual words
""We believe that this balance can only be struck within federal legislation that is comprehensive and preemptive, such that the law creates a single national standard," according to the letter. "Without federal preemption, any new privacy rules issued by the FTC would only add to the existing 'patchwork' of state privacy laws and create an additional layer of requirements for businesses."
Which we haven't done for DECADES and NEVER WILL, we will *always* come up with an excuse to 'accidentally' have to skip addressing this issue in Congress because of our vacation breaks. Or "important" other legislation. Or "budget". Or "political atmosphere". Or "requiring further study with a special hearing". Or "didn't get the necessary attention [due to hold the vote at 2AM]". Or "unnecessary amendments". Or "will be addressed at the next session [which never comes]".
...
Because they don't want to say, out loud: "IT WILL NEVER COME because Big Business would rather not have to spend a thin dime on the issue unless told, and if we simply don't tell them to, they'll keep the money in their pocket, be happy, and donate to my re-election campaign instead".
There. A bit of frank Truth.
I disagree with 'spanking'. even a small one. More like a Pyrrhic victory.
Big losers: media predictors, polling operations, democrats in general (especially in Florida). Think of the money spent on 'Beta', for example.
Big winners: The People getting a government that really can't do any more (significant) damage for the next 2 years
Strategists get a lesson learned. The problem is not bad politicians. The problem is NOT Trump. The problem is not GenZ either. The problem is a lack of proper communication, and relying on demographics and a polling horse-race down to the last day, when as many as half of the important places voted early.
But we all know that behind them there are the huge ones which are actually those making money from people's data. Let's remember no one is forced to collect sensitive data (sensitive as defined by GDPR, for example) while personal data have to be properly protected (and not sold) anyway.
Of course this is an attempt to block FTC so Congress can do nothing and leave companies paying a lot in lobbying activities (unlike small businesses...) doing whatever they like.
Maybe businesses should look at the toughest of all the states' rules and just stick to that set. That way there's no need to apply different rules in each state and their customers get the best level of protection wherever they live. They can then also drop the specious argument about extra costs to meet each different set of rules. But then again, maybe they aren't really interested in consumers' privacy and data protection...
Exactly this. We're going to continue adhering to GDPR rules even though Ree Smogg and co are determined to trash the UK's data protection equivalency all in the pursuit of halfwit ideology and the abuse of data by their linked businesses, such as Palantir and equivalent quasi-criminal organisations.
@AnotherName
"Maybe businesses should look at the toughest of all the states' rules and just stick to that set."
Why? The whole point of states is to allow for difference. Hobbling yourself by assuming the most strict rules will leave you behind the competitor who doesnt tie themselves up that way.
"That way there's no need to apply different rules in each state and their customers get the best level of protection wherever they live."
Except is the protection good or bad? Over strict rules have caused problems where they dont need to be. Even a guy asking if the injured stray dog he saved was ok was met with 'cant tell you because GDPR'. Next time he probably wont bother as he suspects they probably put it down. Various problems for legal guardians of the elderly even when those guardians can prove they have the authority (power of attorney). The more resistance met the more likely people will seek a competitor.
"But then again, maybe they aren't really interested in consumers' privacy and data protection..."
Maybe the focus is on serving the customer not tickbox hell. I am not against data protection but there is a balance.
Over strict rules have caused problems where they dont need to be. Even a guy asking if the injured stray dog he saved was ok was met with 'cant tell you because GDPR'.
That's not because of GDPR, that's the age old problem of people who can't be arsed to understand even the basics - a variation from a few years ago when all sorts of things were being banned "because 'elf-n-safety'.
@I could be a dog really
"That's not because of GDPR, that's the age old problem of people who can't be arsed to understand even the basics - a variation from a few years ago when all sorts of things were being banned "because 'elf-n-safety'."
Thats a pretty good comparison to make with the crusade of health and safety clipboard nazis because the fear of being on the wrong side of the crusaders was huge. Anything even employee stupidity could potentially be used to attack the company and cost in legal fees if not penalty. As a result there was such a fear that draconian muppets were employed to make our lives miserable (I suffered one for a while).
All the effort to make life uncomfortable for the big guys makes life difficult for the smaller ones.
You'd have thought for sure, but the most restrictive is the Californian CCPA introduced in 2020, and now already amended by the new CPRA being enforced from Jan 1 2023 (and now looking very similar to GDPR protections). A big driver behind the CCPA was of course the consideration of behaviour by big tech but also trying to reduce data overreach by all the usual Federal Agencies.
That's a big business cost - trying to ensure you comply through a minefield of state vs federal requirements. Also just complying isn't sufficient, you have to demonstrate that you comply in a variety of different ways, depending on the state in question, so even if you do everything to comply with CCPA/CPRA you have to be constantly alert of what's happening in other states. That takes Legal admin, HR admin, Contract Admin, IT Admin, and a s**t load of staff training to try to ensure that no-one says or does the wrong thing at any level of your business, and varies based on where you are, where your suppliers are and where your clients are. It's easy to end up with one state that has a rule DEMANDING data be provided regarding the diversity of the workforce, another state that has a rule PREVENTING that information from being divulged.
As a business, how do you cope with that? Cue a Supreme Court case in about 5 years...
"Cue a Supreme Court case in about 5 years..."
We hope it never has to go there, but it is true that a bureaucracy overstepping its bounds of power can ultimately be spanked by the courts,. but it will take a LONG time and a LOT of money to do that. In the mean time Congressional oversight can put the brakes on a lot of it. If special interests do not rule the day, a sane GDPR-like regulation will result for privacy protection, and gummint snooping will be eliminated, at least if it is done the RIGHT way.
[and this 'diversity' thing (from gummints) may be the NEXT thing on the Supreme Court chopping block - valid lawsuits notwithstanding, gummints need to stop legitimizing discrimination in the name of diversity to "comply" with their NONSENSE]
The toughest of all of the states' rules - *that* is what CONGRESS is supposed to decide (and hopefully they DO). You are right, though, about different rules everywhere. 'Interstate commerce' is to be assumed with web sites, and that's why the USA has a federal government unlike the original 'Articles of Confeeration'.
because 3 branches of government SHOULD be sharing power, not grabbing it, the exec branch cannot invent law, nor can legislative ENFORCE it. Neither can the judicial branch interpret things as law that were not legislated, nor interfere in the executive branch's daily operation. All 3 have separate competing power by design, and FCC cannot step over its constitutional limitations, .
That's really what it is about. NOBODY gets too much power. EVERYBODY argues over it until the appropriate branches lof gummint do their job and hopefully get it right. NO power too great to any one agency or individual, elected or bureaucrat. 'We The People' remain free. (at least, that is the plan)
It could be argued that the FTC is enforcing rights to privacy and a fair trial. A 'little harmless marketing data collection' causing people great harm hasn't been hypothetical for a long time. Some states have enacted radical anti-abortion laws and they will cobble together marketing data as evidence of a crime. Police are using it to trace peoples' steps to past crimes. It's virtually impossible to stop your phone from leaking that data.
Do the right-wing radicals and local police departments have experts that can correlate collected data correctly? Hell, no. I bet 99.9% of typical Software Engineers can't either. They're more likely to get the wrong person that the right one. Say a criminal hits stores A, N, and then X. You visited the same stores in that order so you must be guilty, right? Maybe store A is home theater electronics, N is home theater furniture, and X is a supermarket. You were just some innocent sucker doing nothing except researching a home theater upgrade, buying dinner, and having your phone's factory weather app installed.
In their letter, the senators also cite the five US states making up this patchwork of privacy laws — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia — and say they're not fans of this approach, either.
Oh, so in Republicon-land, data privacy is supposed to be managed via all-knowing, benevolent, well-informed, top-down legislation. But personal privacy, like that in which one gets to manage one's own personal healthcare and bodily functions, is quite OK for a patchwork of privacy laws defined and administered by the States.
sure... replace laws of states that care at least somewhat about privacy, and ftc pro-privacy rules with something. But what they want to do is replace them with nothing while they claim to eventually, at some indeterminate point down the road, maybe if they feel like it replace them with something (or not if they don't get around to it.) The hell with that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
