How Political Campaigns Use Your Data to Target You
www.eff.org
Data about potential voters—who they are, where they are, and how to reach them—is an extremely valuable commodity during an election year. And while the right to a secret ballot is a cornerstone of the democratic process, your personal information is gathered, used, and sold along the way. It's...

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.

  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    4·
    7 months 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 )

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOPEnglish
      32·
      7 months 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.zoneEnglish
        2·
        7 months 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.deEnglish
        1·
        7 months 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®. 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.)