Trump administration working on federal data privacy policy

“The Trump administration is crafting a proposal to protect Web users’ privacy, aiming to blunt global criticism that the absence of strict federal rules in the United States has enabled data mishaps at Facebook and others in Silicon Valley,” Tony Romm reports for The Washington Post. “Over the past month, the Commerce Department has been huddling with representatives of tech giants such as Facebook and Google, Internet providers including AT&T and Comcast, and consumer advocates, according to four people familiar with the matter but not authorized to speak on the record.”

“The government’s goal is to release an initial set of ideas this fall that outlines Web users’ rights, including general principles for how companies should collect and handle consumers’ private information, the people said,” Romm reports. “The forthcoming blueprint could then become the basis for Congress to write the country’s first wide-ranging online-privacy law, an idea the White House recently has said it could endorse. ‘Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity,’ Lindsay Walters, the president’s deputy press secretary, said in a statement. ‘We look forward to working with Congress on a legislative solution consistent with our overarching policy.'”

“So far, the Trump administration has held 22 meetings with more than 80 companies, trade associations and consumer groups since late June, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, one of the entities involved in the effort,” Romm reports. “Privacy hawks have told the Commerce Department that they should turn to Europe for inspiration [GDPR]… Meanwhile, U.S. businesses are pushing the Trump administration to articulate a vision for privacy that’s less aggressive than that of Europe, participants in the talks say.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Whether it should be done at the federal or at the state level can be debated, but some protections certainly need to be implemented with millions giving away their private data to the likes of Facebook and Google without even knowing it or what it’s being used for while mailing off their DNA – their DNA! – to outfits willy-nilly.

SEE ALSO:
California’s data privacy law highlights growing frustration with tech industry – July 17, 2018
U.S. House Republicans demand answers from Apple, Google on privacy, data practices – July 9, 2018
California lawmakers approve data-privacy bill despite opposition from Google, Facebook, advertisers – June 29, 2018
Apple highlights user privacy as Facebook exec steps down – June 14, 2018

38 Comments

  1. We should keep a close watch on any federal privacy policy to make sure it does not expand government access to personal and corporate data in the name of “enforcement.” Laws passed to address an momentary crisis can have unintended permanent consequences. See “Patriot Act.”

      1. I would just point out the “whataboutism” diversion if it were true that either Mr. Dingler or I “had no problem with NSA snooping under Obama.” Since that is a lie, I won’t bother.

        1. Sorry, the jig is up. You are a liar and FALSE conservative. I don’t trust ANYTHING you say. Please change your screen name to LiberalUSER. That I can agree with …

  2. “… the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity,” Of course we will all have to see what the policies are, but it doesn’t sound like private citizens privacy will be the primary goal. I’m not sure that there IS an appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity, which is kind of a nebulous concept in this situation. Who decides what is “appropriate?” Remember, Ronald Reagan warned us about anyone who says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    1. Reasons for caution:

      The current Administration has, in practice, defined “prosperity” almost exclusively in terms of increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, rather than in terms of increased wealth for the bulk of the population. What’s good for US Steel or Facebook may not be so “prosperous” for the rest of us.

      When this Administration talks about “balancing prosperity with” anything else, the something else is looking at an absolute loss. See the emphasis on “balancing prosperity with water quality” and “balancing prosperity with wilderness protection.”

      In this case, they are talking about “an appropriate balance between prosperity” and the constitutional right of privacy. Privacy, like voting rights and a free press, is not subject to balancing against anything, absent a clearly compelling public purpose. Protecting Facebook’s profits (and thus protecting political contributions from Facebook stockholders) is not compelling because it is not a public purpose at all.

      1. “…The current Administration has, in practice, defined “prosperity” almost exclusively in terms of increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, rather than in terms of increased wealth for the bulk of the population. What’s good for US Steel or Facebook may not be so “prosperous” for the rest of us….”

        Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

        You are such a Marxist.

        As employment figures go up, wealth for the “bulk of the population” rises as well.

        1. One of my college classmates has, as we say in Texas, “worked hard and did well.” Sadly, I only knew him casually 50 years ago, since he is now within the top 30 of the Forbes 500 wealthiest individuals. He isn’t just in the “Top 1%” but the top 0.0000000001%. Even so, he is only about 5% as wealthy as Jeff Bezos. You don’t have to be a Marxist to see that sort of wealth concentration as unhealthy.

          Between 1940 and 1975, American productivity and real wages rose at almost the same rate. Management had tacitly struck a deal to share the wealth with labor. Since the mid-70s “stagflation,” productivity has continued to rise, but the profits have mostly gone to corporate investors rather than to the people doing the work. Median family incomes have barely kept ahead of inflation, and have only managed that because there are now so many families with multiple breadwinners and even more multiple paychecks.

          High-paying blue-collar jobs are dwindling, with the high employment figures largely attributable to unskilled jobs at minimum wage or thereabouts. Just as automation has displaced physical labor, AI is beginning to displace professionals. Paralegals would be driving taxis, if Uber hadn’t eliminated those jobs, too.

          The present administration has seemed satisfied with that situation. Their tax code changes may, possibly, help lower income folks, but they are really focused on corporations and wealthier individuals. Any additional personal income after inflation (enhanced by tariffs) will go to increased healthcare costs.

          So, when I hear them talking about “balancing privacy and prosperity,” I don’t think that it’s my prosperity being enhanced at the cost of my constitutional right to privacy.

        2. “Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
          You are such a Marxist.”

          Quaintly amusing in a McCarthy-esque sorta way but for the fact you probably believe it so.
          Which makes you quite scary.

        3. Well said, thetheloniousmac.

          I see the libtards are piling on proving you RIGHT. There misinformation comes without a conscience and facts always prove them wrong …

      2. “The current Administration has, in practice, defined “prosperity” almost exclusively in terms of increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, rather than in terms of increased wealth for the bulk of the population.”

        Not only are you a clueless Marxist, you are a LYING FAKE conservative. You have no credibility and thetheloniousmac called you out for what you are. Becoming common around here lately to point out your DECEIT …

        1. So am I Groucho, Harpo, Chico, or Gummo? Anybody who can call me a Marxist can only know those Marxes. Supporting private enterprise and personal liberty gainst Mr. Trump’s massive government intervention in the economy is the very opposite of anything Karl Marx ever advocated. Classic conservatism isn’t Trumpian, I will admit, but that makes it no less conservative.

          1. You are a LYING FRAUD and NOT a conservative!!!

            I am immune from liberal brainwashing sophistry. You should feel ashamed, but obvious you do not have a conscience…

  3. It sounds as though the involvement of Google and Facebook in framing this legislation means that Americans will be fobbed off with a diminished degree of privacy protection compared to what the GDPR is already offering Europeans.

    I note the phrase “the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity”. My cynical nature leads me to believe that when it comes to striking a balance, the prosperity of the large data corporations and their massive lobbying operations will be given vastly more protection than the privacy of American citizens.

  4. There are some great countries leading the way when it comes to website privacy rights. You can consult several sites but Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Romania seem to top the list. Thank goodness the free and civilized world has great nations implementing great website privacy rights. I hope that Apple’s home nation can learn from what these great leaders have done.

      1. Road Warrior was talking about great in regard to privacy rights, not their economic system. Norberg has nothing to say about privacy in this piece. So the point of your off topic post is what?

        1. It’s a typical example illustrating the 3 rules of thumb I’ve seen after years noticing a trend when debating with people from Apple’s home’s nation.

          1. Insult the messenger.
          2. Use smoke and mirrors to distract from the message.
          3. Never ever address the issue at hand.

          There is another trend from Apple’s Home nation that I’m seeing. Never ever say anything nice about another nation, never acknowledge that other nations can be great in certain parameters.

          It’s all symptomatic of a fearful, hateful, insecure empire in decline.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.