Americans Ready for Tougher Privacy Rules on Big Tech

[DooKey]

According to a national survey of 2,500 adults in the US at least 83% of those surveyed want tighter rules on companies like Facebook that have their personal data. Also, the same percentage of those surveyed think companies that have their information should be legally responsible in the event there's a breach. One other item of note is the fact that 55% of those surveyed believe there is political bias and censorship alive and well on Facebook. There are lots of other survey results and I recommend you read about them and make up your own mind.

It wasn’t all bad for the technology sector. Sixty-three percent of Americans perceive technology to be a "good force", with 68% perceiving it to have a "positive impact on the world". However, when they were asked about specific companies, none received majority approval for being "good for democracy".

 

[oROEchimaru]

the other 17% are in to pain

 

[odditory]

Time to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire on the OS-wide data spying in Windows 10.

An Opt Out button is needed, but something tells me MS will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing it, as nothing short of their own Facebook level scandal will sufficiently motivate them.

 

[SLCPUNK]

I'm sure those 70 year old congress people will be well up to the task of regulating a business as massive and technically innovative as Facebook. No way regulatory capture will occur and twist regulations into artificial barriers to competitive entry.

 

[vegeta535]

Time to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire on the OS-wide data spying in Windows 10.

An Opt Out button is needed, but something tells me MS will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing it, as nothing short of their own Facebook level scandal will sufficiently motivate them.

I agree. Most services that mine you Daya are at least free to use. MS shouldn't be on a OS they charge a lot of money for. Offer the spy riddled version for free.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I'm sure those 70 year old congress people will be well up to the task of regulating a business as massive and technically innovative as Facebook. No way regulatory capture will occur and twist regulations into artificial barriers to competitive entry.

They'll hire advisers and experts to help them out with that task. Of course, they'll be hired from Facebook staff that recently left for a better paying contract and a nice hefty severance package from FB.

 

[darckhart]

Oh goodie. I am expecting Equifax to be held to this too.

 

[-Anomie-]

Big problem with this: All governments have realized by now that companies like Facebook and Google are doing a massive amount of civil espionage for them, for free, legally. There's no way they'll tell them to stop, they just want to figure out how they can force said companies to share that data with them.

 

[Uvaman2]

Big problem with this: All governments have realized by now that companies like Facebook and Google are doing a massive amount of civil espionage for them, for free, legally. There's no way they'll tell them to stop, they just want to figure out how they can force said companies to share that data with them.

force? pffft.
at most we will get a veneer and like the other poster said, regulations to entrench current companies.. all the while crying about horrible government regulations to keep the public thinking all regulations are bad.

 

[c3k]

Time to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire on the OS-wide data spying in Windows 10.

An Opt Out button is needed, but something tells me MS will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing it, as nothing short of their own Facebook level scandal will sufficiently motivate them.

No. An Opt IN button is required. Otherwise they get nothing. And, should I opt in, only the data I specify (for the time period or number of data submittals I specify) get used. And, it only goes to the user I agree for it to go. That user cannot forward it on to ANYBODY unless I am specifically requested for permission and I agree.

So, say Facebook (or MS) wants my location data. Hmm. "Okay". For this instant in time? For the next hour, day, week, month? It's got to be specified.

If I say no, it don't go.

If I say yes, then it ONLY goes to Facebook. If Nike wants to know where I'm going (say it's an exercise app), then effing Nike has to ask ME for my permission for my data. Facebook has no right to sell it on.

Now, how will Facebook (or any phone app) make money? Well, let them charge for whatever "service" they provide. Or hope that the gullible will continue to sell themselves to the follow-on providers.

These blanket eulas are offensive and should be illegal.

Violations of privacy rights should be punishable by fines and corporate firings. No more "so sorry for the data breach". Instead, we've fired the top 12 executives, and here's a butt-load of cash. After a few examples, I'm willing to be there'd be some changes in how data is handled.

/rant

Just dreaming.

 

[RanceJustice]

We need not just rule on "big" tech companies, but an entirely new baseline for privacy, anonymity, security, and utilization in the 21st century.

This cannot be left to the industry, there will be no "self regulation" as they're incapable, but that doesn't mean government's roles and reach do not need need to be reassessed. For instance, a solid once-and-for-all ruling regarding 4th Amendment (and 5th amendment in some cases) taking into account a digital world. Today being "secure in your papers and effects" should include your PC and your phone, as well as any data of yours that is stored on the Internet with any kind of service provider (ie to thrash the "but its not on YOUR computer, its on THE CLOUD so the rules don't apply!" nonsense forever). This means rolling back lots of CLOUD Act junk and retracting many of the PRISM and PATRIOT Act policies. Furthermore, we need new privacy protections - like some European nations recently passed but going even farther - that says that, by default, a company or service can only collect data or metadata necessary to actually provide you the service itself, must keep it secure under penalty (ideally under zero knowledge encryption), and must purge it as soon as it is no longer needed. Follow up by making sure that these protections cannot be waved by simply using a site, checking a box, or signing up for someting and require all TOS be short, free of "legalese" and easily understandable at a "newspaper" reading level. If it is voluntarily waved, it should need to be so in terms of reasonable compensation and under very clearly stated parameters that do not extend beyond those gathering it (ie Company X takes your info from a survey in response for a $100 gift card, they cannot pass that info itself along to Company Y or any "partners" of theirs, under stiff legal penalty. )This would just be the barebones start and I can hear all the whining about the big data analytics and advertising types about their business model; tough shit, time to evolve. Yes that means monetization will need to change - an overall positive that will benefit the Internet and We The People in many, many ways.

There are lots of other reforms needed, including on companies that offer 'de-facto' monopolies and/or have usurped the public square so to speak. I am NOT in favor of making sites culpable for what their users say/do/create - we've seen the dangers of that. We should break down barriers when it comes to tech and ensure we're fostering the right kind of change in many ways, not the least of which is getting away from proprietary platforms and centralization - especially when there is public money involved. Whenever possible government contracts or other public money should be spent on the use of open source and spec software (and hardware/firmware if applicable). Likewise, enforcing open standards should be required. For instance, in the medical sector electronic medical record systems (EMRs) often cost a fortune and despite this are the very definition of vendor lock-in, with the inability for one vendor's EMR data files to be readable on another vendor's EMR - or sometimes an older version of the same vendor's own product! Mandating that in order to accept Medicare / Medicaid / Tricare (or the public, universal single payer system we desperately need) and/or to be HIPAA compliant, you need to use a single, open and extensible EMR data and file standard! Likewise, we should not have Facebook and Twitter style monolithic private entities dominate the public square, to the point that elected officials are using them to communicate with constituents as a primary means. We have better, open, federated alternatives (ie Diaspora / Frendica or Mastodon / GNUSocial ) that only lack behind thanks to the mass of people already on Facebook/Twitter and thus recognizable names. Imagine if the POTUS microblogging handle was on a Mastodon instance run by the White House itself? We should stop pouring public time, money, and effort into proprietary tech when there are better alternatives; it will even save money later on when nobody has to wonder "Well gee, that custom script for the State department that we paid someone to write for MS Office means we have to keep the antiquated system churning along and nobody can really fix it". The Internet itself became viable due to its openness and many of our government's successes, from the AES encryption standard, to NSA hardened Linux, and TOR itself for instance are based on this principle.

There is a lot of multifaceted work to be done (I haven't even touched on dealing with so-called "disruptive" companies like Uber who simply want to exploit loopholes to get around requirements in the rest of their industry - another element that needs to be squashed and new reforms to come. There's also a whole discussion alluded to earlier about the nature of the public commons being usurped by private entities and how sticking one's tongue out metaphortically and saying 'its not censorship or a freedom of speech violation because the gov't doesn't do it" isn't sufficient), and big tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter needs to be held to very stringent account, but things need to go so much farther than a slap on the wrist for Facebook et al and it all needs to happen while still keeping the public good and freedoms of We The People in mind.

 

[HoffY]

No. An Opt IN button is required

This guy gets it.

 

[Jagger100]

force? pffft.
at most we will get a veneer and like the other poster said, regulations to entrench current companies.. all the while crying about horrible government regulations to keep the public thinking all regulations are bad.

Well your own statement kind of proves the government is not up to the task of enforcing regulations, especially when it comes to their use as a political or social engineering tool it gets worse.

 

[Jagger100]

Time to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire on the OS-wide data spying in Windows 10.

An Opt Out button is needed, but something tells me MS will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing it, as nothing short of their own Facebook level scandal will sufficiently motivate them.

EULA reform is needed. I'm pretty sure there must be consumer protection against just anything going into the 'small print' in some transactions, probably can be duplicated there.

 

[Uvaman2]

Well your own statement kind of proves the government is not up to the task of enforcing regulations, especially when it comes to their use as a political or social engineering tool it gets worse.

Well that applies to a government that is corrupted... Regulations and laws are not inherently evil or disfuctional as Republicans would have you believe.