35
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world

The EFF has been calling for national private legislation for a while but now that we have something on the table they are criticizing it. They are calling for state level laws but the problem with local laws is that there are 50 different states for companies to try to keep track of. The other problem with local legislation is that it is hard to enforce as Google or who ever else may not be based in the state that there users are in and each state will be treated differently and will receive different levels of support. We need unification so that companies know and meet the requirements. States are simply to small to be effective against a company.

Even if the privacy act is not completely perfect it can always be expanded or revised in the future. We need something to be passed as technology has surpassed public awareness.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 11 points 1 month ago

I don't think that the EFF is missing the point, I think that they're being politically savvy.

If they simply say "okay, this act is enough... for now", data vultures will be able to negotiate back some exceptions into the act. Instead, if the EFF criticises the act as being not enough, there's some chance that additional protections will get added in.

[NB: I'm not from USA nor directly affected by whatever those laws do. I'm solely an external observer.]

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago
[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Thanks.

Now that we've cleared that up, I'd just like to state for the record that I agree with the EFF, not you. Sorry.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -5 points 1 month ago

That's what concerns me. Everyone wants to follow others these days.

If you did a little research and came up with your own conclusion good on you but I am concerned that people will just be followers.

I also think the EFF has a flare for being politically charged up for no good reason.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Agreeing with a persuasive argument is not 'being a follower.'

Frankly, the fact that this bill seems to have broad support among the same Congress that's not only renewing but expanding FISA is suspicious enough to begin with. The EFF's analysis about how it preempts potentially-stronger state laws to form a ceiling on privacy rights instead of a floor just proves the obvious: that it's a limited hangout designed to give the appearance of addressing the problem while actually shielding big business from real privacy protections with teeth.

[-] kelargo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Papers please

[-] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It depends on how "far from perfect" the bill is. I think most of the times it is wise to revise a bill before it gets passed because it becomes more complicated after that. You'd need a whole new bill for that, start at zero with that, and convince everyone that it's necessary to tackle the same issue yet again. Of course the role of the EFF also is to advocate for privacy and the people and pick on things if politicians don't do it right, not agree with a healf-hearted attempt. So they're bound to be negative about smaller issues with any proposed solution.

I see some valid concerns. There are several loopholes. Some things won't get protected. I think it's a bit strange that contractors can do whatever they want. And "pay-for-privacy" isn't what we should strive for. Sure, it aligns well with American ideology, but it only helps the rich and people with time at hand to care about such things, while exploiting the average Joe and 98% of the population.

And immediately introducing a mandatory ceiling is more caring for the big tech companies, than for the citizen.

(Edit: Concerning the "pay-for-privacy": https://lemmy.world/post/14442251 )

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

My biggest concern is the lack of a national privacy standard. Having different laws for each state will just confuse consumers and cost companies a lot of money.

At least it is a start

[-] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

I feel like it would turn out like many regulations do, companies just match what california requires since they're typically more strict than the rest of the US

[-] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure, I mean the needs and wants of the consumer and the companies can be opposed to each other. It'd be convenient for the companies if it were simple(r). Maybe at the cost of the people.

I'm not that gifted with the lawmaking process in the USA. I don't really understand what is the responsibility of whom, national or federal... It sounds to me more like an issue with complexity of having a federal republic than anything with privacy...

And I mean you already have different legislation in all of the states that affect businesses and what they can sell to whom. (And how.)

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
35 points (81.8% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

33890 readers
993 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS