reflecting the US' typical free-market approach
does this equate to "if you don't like what you see, buy a better version" ....................................
The US government has started the process to create fresh rules to safeguard Americans' online privacy, opening a "request for comments" on its initial proposal. On Tuesday morning, the Department of Commerce opened a public comment period on a "user centric" approach it says will "provide high levels of protection for …
Completely embarrassed to be an American.
Hold the embarrassment for a while to see where things land. The statement that GDPR has been effective because of fines is not yet evidenced. I've personally been notified of two corporate breaches affecting my personal data since it became law, and even the large company I work for has had a SNAFU and belched personal data to the wrong customers.
That may not be a scientific study, but even looking at news coverage, I don't yet notice any obvious reduction in the number of UK data breaches since GDPR came in. I'd agree most companies are trying MUCH harder - but unfortunately effort != competence.
'corrupt useless ruse' is a distinct possibility. However, let's wait until Trump signs something into law...
also as far as fines go, think of what the FCC will do to a company that tries to sell devices that are 'unintentional radiators' without getting them tested first... MILLION DOLLAR FINES are not uncommon.
That being said, the fines and punishment for spammers, robocallers, and other "irritation crimes" done by businesses [and scammers] can be used as an example of "too weak" enforcement and punishment.
I guess it's time to fire off an e-mail to Senator Diane [pejorative] Feinstein, tell her off about recent events in the news, and THEN suggest she step up to the plate with respect to GDPR and maybe save her own career. [she's a better alternative than 'the other candidate' and I might have to hold my nose, choke down the bile, and vote FOR her aka against the other one]
'Civil Liberties' need to favor the citizens over organizations or corporations (political or otherwise). GDPR-like laws in the USA are likely to help in that regard.
"'corrupt useless ruse' is a distinct possibility. However, let's wait until Trump signs something into law..."
From the article:
"even at this early stage, the DoC has ruled out the introduction of law"
The fact that no-one is going to sign anything into law is one of the main ways it's obvious this is a corrupt, useless ruse. With any possibility of enforcement ruled out from the outset, it's impossible for it to be anything else.
don't yet notice any obvious reduction in the number of UK data breaches
One of our customers came in for a chat yesterday. They have big web-sales side to their business (ie they hold tens of thousands of people's names and addresses etc.). They have not even started looking at GDPR compliance yet. Well, they might have started now, after my boss pointed out quite how large the fines could be.
I think we're going to have to wait for a year or three before we can see how much of an impact GDPR has (or hasn't) had. If only because most GDPR compliance project take many months to complete and most companies only started them in April.
Oh of course Brexit has to come into it again.
Since you started it, remind me what sort of political butthead threatens the sick and weak to get their own way?
The only thing stopping the thugs in Brussels giving the UK a decent deal is themselves - and they are the ones who raised the "possibility" that life-giving medicines might be "unfortunately" tied up in red tape at customs for months. Obstructing the family booze trips to Calais is one thing (although you might want to work out who loses most on *that* one - I believe British vineyards had a good year...), threatening to prevent diabetics and cancer patients getting the drugs they need is blackmail of the worst kind.
Thugs? They're just pointing out the obvious, that if the same (or even double) the number of customs staff suddenly have to cope with 10x the number of import/exports without any kind of ramp up time that there will probably be delays. Ireland for example depends on pharmaceutical exports and is recruiting 1000's of customs/vet/drug inspectors but training takes time. There's nothing to say those delays will all be on the EU side either, take a look at UK Government IT system Brexit readiness reports as covered here.
Thugs I said, and thugs I meant.
I can understand that the UK cannot expect to keep exactly the same arrangements as we have now for our dealings with "the mainland", but when one of the people who is supposed to be negotiating in good faith basically says "fall back in line and shut the f*** up or we will block lifesaving meds" then it goes from negotiation to extortion and blackmail.
They could have chosen plenty of other things like booze or cars but they chose to highlight pharmaceuticals for a reason. Can't buy a new Beemer? Oh well, just have to wait a while for it to get through the new layers of red tape. Granny needs her insulin? Whole different ballgame.
I think you're mixing up something you or the Daily Mail made up and what people actually said.
"La Grande-Bretagne pourrait connaître une pénurie de médicaments à grande échelle si aucun n'accord de sortie du pays de l'Union européenne, prévue le 29 mars, n'est trouvé, a déclaré le directeur général du géant pharmaceutique AstraZeneca, Pascal Soriot, cité par le Sunday Times."
The OP wrote "but when one of the people who is supposed to be negotiating in good faith basically says"
I don't think the people in your quote are involved in the negotiations or have I missed something?
So, yes, it does look like something which has been made up.
America is a blatant corporatocracy, we are a hidden one. Politicians are never going to go against corporations unless enough people kick up a stink. e.g. possibly net neutrality. Privacy is something that people don't care about because they are unaware of the problem and that's why we are where we are.
"the DoC has ruled out the introduction of law or fines"
Which means that it's a waste of effort. There is no way that any of the data-slurpers are going to stop their egregious behavior without being forced. What they're more likely to do is something like what Google does with its "My Activity" page where you can view and delete what they've gathered. That's better than nothing, but isn't anything close to what people actually need.
I don't take Google at its word for anything. I wasn't intending to assert that they actually do or don't follow through with what they say, only that other companies are likely to adopt similar policies (which they may or may not actually adhere to).
What I assert is that a Google-style policy over data handling does not actually address the problem of data collection. It's an effort intended to convince people that they have control over their data and privacy when, in fact, they don't. In other words, it's a sham.
So now we'll get something like that from Facebook and Google too, while they continue to find newer and better ways to be even more evil and anti-consumer.
I'd love to blame this on Trump, but the same thing would have happened no matter who became president. I know the Bernie believers will say "it wouldn't have happened if he was president" but talking a good game about privacy doesn't get congresscritters of either party to go against the lobbyists financing their next run (and cushy "fact finding" junkets that bring the family along)
Any rule/regulation/law that this current US administration puts in place has only one purpose: To remove the rights of normal people and to increase the power of the currently powerful.
Strikingly similar to the rule within the current USSR. Same philosophy guiding the BrExit, Russia, Trump, etc?
Remember the CAN-SPAM act? Actually it gave many spammers a legal protection, while preempting stronger state regulations against spam.
This could be along the same lines, actually giving Google, FB, MS & C the right to slurp while forbidding states to introduce stronger legislation.
Name any country in which that isn’t true. The cause is not the country, culture, or form of government; it’s man. It is in his very nature because of its evolutionary advantages.
The best way to slow down corruption is to spread power out, separating who has what powers (national, state, county, city, judiciary, legislative, executive, military).
That is why messy, loose democracies are more successful than highly managed, centrally controlled socialistic governments.
Thank you for subscribing! You can count on us to keep you up to date about all the latest privacy deals from our partners. Check out our shockingly intimate privacy quizzes online and share the results with your friends. Enter your email password and we can check which of your friends are already interested in privacy topics. Download our app to stay in touch.
To unsubscribe, create an account then adjust your topic subscriptions. Changes may take up to two weeks to apply. New topics are added weekly.
Privacy is not a consumer's right, to be discussed with with commercial entities.
It's a citizen's basic right. It's not the Department of Commerce that should handle it. It should be the Department of Justice - and Congress.
That's why in Europe the Authorities tasked to oversee privacy rights are not those managing commercial policies.
US is now thinking there are no more citizens, only consumers. Maybe it's time to rewrite the Constitution as "We the Consumers of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Marketplace..."?
Really, all those policymakers sold their soul to corporations??
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019