Technology

Complicated advances in data privacy

Recent attempts to create the first major data breach privacy policy in the United States have caused unrest in Washington. But from the turmoil in Congress and elsewhere in the United States, we are finally seeing progress in protecting Americans from the unrestricted data collection economy.

What is happening is increasing consensus and laws (imperfections) that give people real control and companies have more responsibility to control our data mining indefinitely. Given all the controversy, tacky lobbying and gridlock strategies, it may not seem like a win-win situation. But it is.

Let me zoom out into the big picture at US tech companies like Facebook and Google, most of which are middlemen of unknown information and even local supermarkets collect any information about us that might help their business.

We benefit from this system in some ways, including when businesses are looking for more effective customers through targeted advertising. But the availability of a lot of information in almost everyone, with a few restrictions on its use, creates the conditions for abuse. It also contributes to public distrust of technology and technology companies. Although some companies that have benefited from unlimited data collection now say the system needs to be reformed.

Wise policies and enforcement are part of the answer, but there is no quick fix – And there will be disadvantages. Some consumer privacy advocates have argued for years that Americans want federal data privacy laws that protect them no matter where they are. Members of the National Assembly have discussed, but not passed, the draft law in recent years.

The strange thing now is that big corporations, policy makers on both sides and dead privacy seem to agree that national privacy laws are welcome. Their motives and vision for the law, though, are different. This is where it frustrates.

The association, which comprises a group of companies and technology companies, recently launched a marketing campaign that calls for federal privacy laws – but under very specific conditions, to reduce the disruption of their business.

They want to make sure that any federal law violates stronger state privacy laws, so businesses can follow one set of guidelines instead of dozens of potential conflicts. Businesses may hope that the bills passed by Congress will disturb them more than anything else implemented by the Federal Trade Commission, which is now largely democratic.

This is partly due to the legislative tensions of the war, which are invisible to the outside world and have long sidelined consumer privacy concerns. Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, told me that she sees what corporate lobbyists are advocating as a “tidal, industry-friendly law that offers privacy on behalf only.”

Behind the mud, though, is an emerging agreement on a very important element of federal privacy law. Even the biggest sticking point – whether federal law should repeal stronger state law, and whether individuals can sue for privacy violations – now seems to have a working central reason. One possibility is that federal law will overrue future state law but not the existing version. And people may be entitled to sue for violations of privacy under restricted circumstances, including repeated violations.

Lawlessness is not the cure for all our digital privacy chaos. Even the smartest public policy leads to unwanted trade, and sometimes poorly designed or under-enforced laws make things worse. Occasionally there is a residual odor on rattan products.

Most people experience the 2018 European Digital Privacy Rule, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is a shocking announcement about data tracking cookies. The first of two California digital privacy proposals in theory puts people in control of how they use their information, but in practice often consists of filling out forms. And recent data privacy laws in Virginia and Utah mostly give industry groups what they want.

Are there any advances in protecting our information? Well, yes!

Some privacy advocates may disagree, but despite the imperfect laws and changing ideas between the public and policymakers, there are profound changes. They show that the beginnings of the American data collection system were unraveling and that additional responsibility was shifted to data collection companies, not individuals, to preserve our rights.

“Progress seems imperfect; There is no such thing. It seems appropriate and a start, ”Gennie Gebhart, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, told me.

I do not know if there will be a federal privacy law. Gridlock rules, and such rules are tricky. But behind the lobbying and uncertainty, the terms of the debate on the privacy of information have changed.


  • Yikes in cryptocurrencies: The prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have been steadily declining, which my colleague David Yaffe-Bellany says shows that cryptocurrencies are rising similarly to high-tech stocks.

    Also, TerraUSD virtual currency is estimated to be worth $ 1 each, and it has fallen below that level. This is why it’s so big, from a colleague of mine at DealBook.

  • Local florist present submissions to Amazon: To speed up delivery in rural U.S. areas, Amazon is trying to pay small businesses a few dollars per package to ship orders to neighboring homes, Recode reports.

  • Instagram believes new fathers are more interested in “disability” and “fear.” The Washington Post Writers column explores why disturbing images of her newborn Instagram feed and provides tips on how to reset social media when they are not working with us. (Application may be required.)

Puppppppy Match your face!


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think about this newsletter and what you would like us to explore. You can contact us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you do not already have this message in your inbox, Please register here. You can also read Via the On Tech column.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.