I think the prevailing attitude is more like, "Yes, crime is a function of inequality, but it's also a function of X, Y, Z other things, and leaving them out does more harm than good to the discourse."
While it has some good features (data minimization) it's also got some major weaknesses -- for example state attorneys general say they wouldn't be able to enforce it, it preempts existing stronger privacy laws in states like California and Illinois (and potentially Washington to some extent), EFF's warned about some big loopholes, etc. And that was even before these latest changes.
> Why not move the needle in the right direction and then lobby for additional things?
Two reasons. Preemption not only weakens some existing laws, it keeps states from passing future stronger laws -- so it caps protections. And, politicially, no privacy law in the US has ever been strengthened by Congress (or state legislatures) ... so, it's very unlikely that the lobbying for additional things will have an affect.
I htink there were three key sections that got cut out:
1) "A covered entity or service provider may not collect, process, retain, or transfer covered data in a manner that discriminates in or otherwise makes unavailable the equal enjoyment of goods or services on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability." This was hugely important, it was sa major victory to get a bipartisan committee majority supporting similar language in APRA's predecessor ADPPA.
2) Requirements for algorithmic impact assessments by large companies (I forget the exact threshold).
3) A requirement to let people opt-out of consequencial automated decisions (with some exceptions), somewhat similar to California's CCPA.
Paul Graham, 2020: "Lambda School will teach you programming faster than most colleges. And it not only works well remotely, but was designed to from the start." [1]
Paul Graham, 2022: "Of 1277 students who graduated from Lambda School in 2020 and sought jobs, 950 got them, for a placement rate of 74.8%.
(Lambda's weirdly dedicated haters will be happy to hear that these numbers were audited by an accounting firm.)" [2]
Having something audited by an accounting firm doesn’t make me trust the numbers much more. It’s well known that many accounting firms will give you whatever result you want as long as you pay enough
Yep. When I get upgraded to an SUV I exchange it for something along the lines of the car I had originally reserved. I've asked them to put something in my file saying "don't upgrade to SUV" but it appears beyond the capabilities of their system.
NO on the Intelligence Community's fake reform bill, the FISA “Reform” and Reauthorization Act (which as the OP points out is actually an expansion of warrantless wiretapping)
YES on the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, which actually does include some significant reforms
Note: This comment isn’t directed at the parent poster. I’m just expressing my thoughts on the phrasing used in the article that the parent mentioned in their comment.
“Reform” doesn’t automatically mean good, it just means reformed. Reformation attempts that turn out badly aren’t fake - they are very real, and so are the consequences.
I understand that the intent is to point out dishonesty, but when words are used in a manner that their definitions do not support, it detracts from the clarity of what might otherwise be a fine point.
If something truly is fake, by all means, point that out. If a news article is entirely fabricated with blatant falsehoods then I would agree if someone referred to it as fake news. When used inappropriately though, the phrase becomes hyperbole.
I mentioned how such rhetoric detracts from the clarity of an argument, but that wasn’t to say that its use is ineffective. On the contrary, it’s a hallmark of political discourse for good reason.
My point was that sometimes the best way to be heard in a room full of shouting people is to whisper. In a world absolutely polluted with hyperbole, stating a point clearly and fairly is, I’m sad to say, extraordinary.
It's very good in that it's significant progress over other US-based laws. Then again if you compare it to the much stronger privacy protections in the EU, there's still a looooong way to go.
It's true that California's legislation gets a lot of industry input, and they're not going to pass something puts the big tech companies out of business. On the other hand, there's a very effective coalition of privacy organizers there -- who are quite familiar with tech's tactics, and can be very effective at cutting through tech's spin with legislators. Plus, the California Privacy Protection Agency (which got established by a referendum, not through the legislature) has a lot of clout -- there isn't anything comparable in any other US state.
Washington state has similar dynamics, although with the CPPA equivalent. Microsoft and Amazon are hugely influential here; but, grassroots organizers had repeatedly stopped them from getting the very weak Bad Washington Privacy Act through the legislature. And this year, we passed My Health My Data -- stronger in some ways than California's privacy law.
Texas ... has been a disappointment. The privacy law they passed this year is based on the Bad Washington Privacy Act but significantly weaker.
WA MHMD is a game changer because private right of action. Doesn't rely on the attorney general or a dedicated privacy agency to take action -- private lawyers can.
(Technically not the first privacy law with private right of action because the Video Privacy Protection Act has one, but that law was originally passed to cover videotape rentals and the courts are still working out how it applies to video content on the Internet)
Yeah, that's one of the big ways that it's stronger than California's law (where the private right of action is limited to data breaches). [Another way is that it's opt-in, with an additional authorization for sale of data; California's law is opt-out.]
Of course MHMD doesn't take effect until after the next legislative session, so I'm sure there will be attempts to weaken it. So I'm not counting any chickens quite yet!
It's a very good point, I haven't seen a lot of discussion of the role of Experian et al in KOSA.
In the US, it seems like it's mostly being driven by "child-safety" orgs, some of whom are well-intentioned but just don't understand the downsides, some of whom are anti-LGBTQ and appreciate the downsides. But others may well be active behind the scenes.
The over-optimism is indeed a really important takeaway, and agreed that it's not tool-dependent.