The EFF is missing the point with the American Privacy Rights Act

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip⁩ to ⁨mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/how-political-campaigns-use-your-data-target-you

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 problem with local legislation is that it is hard to enforce as Google or who ever else may not be based in the state there users are in. 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.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I don’t think that the EFF is missing the point, I think that they’re being politically savvy.

If they simply say “okay, this act is enough… for now”, data vultures will be able to negotiate back some exceptions into the act. Instead, if the EFF criticises the act as being not enough, there’s some chance that additional protections will get added in.

[NB: I’m not from USA nor directly affected by whatever those laws do. I’m solely an external observer.]

source
rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨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, 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 pick on them if they don’t do it right, not agree.

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 while exploiting the average Joe.

source
- possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨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
  
  source
  - Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨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
    
    source
  - rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨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®.
    
    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…
    
    source
grue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Did you link to the wrong article?

eff.org/…/americans-deserve-more-current-american…

source
- possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Good catch
  
  source
  - grue@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Thanks.
    
    Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’d just like to state for the record that I agree with the EFF, not you. Sorry.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments