Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it matters anyway, just like how most of the standard bodies have been taken over by them and now slowly approve of features that further their business motives (I am looking at you ITU).
Two ways (there must be more?) I can think of to fix the behaviour of these behemoths:
1. External: Internet Activism. This has been well underway for a long time now but the corporates are patient beasts. The problem always remains gathering enough support [1] and generally the short attention span of the larger populace.
2. Internal: The employees. Be critical, put yourselves in akward situations, start demanding answers [2]. The problem might be risking job security? That could be offset by forming a large enough group?
--
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17420849
[1] Btw, the signees of this letter care about your privacy: https://www.eff.org/document/december-2018-preemption-letter
[2] https://demandprogress.org
/offtopic https://firstlook.media is doing a great job. Almost all their articles are of high quality.
I mean, we seem to be following a pattern:
Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace.
Populace rises up against this.
Big power 'loses'.
Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up, but a little less.
Big power 'loses'.
Repeat until popular power is worn out and big power gets what they want.
Once passed, popular outrage won't remove it, it's way harder to get support for repealing than for approving.
So...
I'd like to support something that changes that system from working that way.
I'd think an expiration date would due... but I'm open to supporting anything that would break this pattern.
One would think we need interest groups more.
Would love to see more of those, especially in the EU, and the way they have them in the US. I'd love a privacy focused action group, but I don't want to buy a host of unrelated political issues with that. The EFF and similar organisations do a pretty good job at that, would love if we had more groups like that over here.
That said, I worry that it's too easy for small advocacy groups to get steamrolled by bigger interests if they prove to be a problem. Even if they're popular with the public, it just takes a payment to a PR firm of your choice to roll a story that they're selling dead babies and suddenly everyone is confused.
I worry that it's just hard to do. It takes a special kind of person (and lots of them) to keep general politics out, even more so when you're successful and advocating your personal politics would be easy and effectful. Oh, and being vigilant so you don't get co-opted by a political movement.
Just put tighter limits on campaign contributions, like most democracies do.
It can be (and has been for some laws) done. In the past, it's been done by including "sunset provisions" in the law itself, where the law must be periodically confirmed by a new vote or it automatically ceases to have force of law.
It would also be legally possible to create a law that places sunset provisions on all subsequent laws. I have been in favor of this approach for a very long time. Practically, it's not going to happen, though.
Practically it might not happen, but if enough people move in the direction of supporting something like this, the pressure will build. Just as it was not practical to make marijuana legal in the 60s.
Remember that the people in power are mostly old dinosaurs who will die soon (they are old already)
They will be replaced and the vision of those replacing them will shape the future.
I can't recommend Jacques Ellul and his "The Technological Society" any higher. He traces it back to the early stages of the industrial revolution. Also his "Propaganda, The formation of Mans attitudes"[2] is unfortunately not wide enough known in the English speaking world.
[1] https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...
The problem with your cited pattern isn't the duration of laws. It's the founding principle of the "big power" to only serve its own interests. With that founding principle, it can only ever require constant vigilance to push back. One possible alternative founding principle is the "benefit corporation" that requires by company charter, to have social benefit in addition to seeking profit.
For example, lets say your state legislature has 100 representatives. You could require sunset clauses as follows:
51-55 votes: 2 years
56-60 votes: 5 years
61-80 votes: 10 years
81+ votes: No expiration
It’s a thought experiment to see how our lawmaking might change under such a regime. California’s constitution can be amended by ballot propositions, and it's not too crazy to think that such a prop might pass.
I can see a scenario where a city, state, or other political division sees volatility on the horizon, and enacts just a change as a kind of defense against future laws being ossified
...Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them...
There are obviously huge challenges associated with this as we are living in a dynamic world but I would love to see a push towards more evidence based politics and more rational discussions around the often implicit assumptions underlying specific legislation.
INAL and maybe there is something like this going on internally in politics but I think there is more to be done in making this accessible to the public and giving it more room in political discussions.
You're talking about workplace organizing to mitigate reprisal risk when taking direct action, aka "sabotage".
The IWW has literature on how to engage in such endeavors, and a good relationship with the TWC, who're organizing the tech industry in such a manner.
Please note I've so far omitted the word "union", although it's a concept adjacent to what you're reaching for.
1. https://www.iww.org/PDF/Official/IWW_organizing_manual.pdf
That said, what specifically are we aiming for. Privacy laws? Is there a bullet point of what these laws prohibit/require? Enforcement mechanisms? Standards? Protocols?
"Pro-privacy" isn't really enough, for a political program.
It would be great if one of these think tanks could put forward a specific agenda, preferably one that a large portion of us can support. What is it we want achieved?
I doubt this clear definition is impractical or utopian and could very well be implemented, so I doubt effective privacy legislation needs to be extensive. People consent to share information all the time. That would of course cost an industry that has stakes in information about you, even if that is not their primary business.
Furthermore it is worth to think about if there is any information about you which you are not eligible to share.
It is not trivial to determine if information is personal. Perhaps there should be a formal process to determine that.
But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet. If you walk outside of your home/land, I can legally photograph and record video of you. I can write down what you're wearing, make assumptions about your income based on your address, record you gender/age/etc. All of that is 100% legal - you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places.
You could argue the internet is not a public space but that counters most pro-privacy people's opinions on free speech/etc online.
watching tv at home and netflix tracking everything about you?
alexa being actively used in your home to check the weather?
alexa and LG tvs passively listening in your home? and reporting back all the offline media you play?
google tracking what you search in your property (devices) in incognoto mode?
you using a mobile device that is technically owned by the wireless provider for another 11mo?
No, I really don't. I just can't do anything about it. I would agree with some form of this "implied consent" argument if going outside were an optional activity, but it's not.
> I don't think going online is an optional activity either.
I think that can be debated, but let's say you're right: that just reinforces my point.
My essential point is that the "public space" argument isn't terribly meaningful. Actual consent can only be given in the absence of coercion. If being surveilled is a requirement in order to simply function as a human being, then consent doesn't enter into it.
And, in my view, all of the arguments about privacy and spying hinge on the issue of consent. If data is being gathered about me without my consent, then I'm being spied on.
Do you "own" server logs simply because they reference your user id or an action you performed? Do you own the model architecture of machine learning models that may have incorporated your data?
The idea that you should own any information relating to you is entirely impractical, and completely disregards any notion of intellectual property too. There needs to be some protections for users with respect to privacy, absolutely, but it cannot be anywhere close to that one sided.
In particular, if you as a user want to use a service, you must agree that some data derived or about you is going to be kept private, because it is combined with IP of the company providing the service to you. It's reasonable to limit what companies providing services can do with such data, but at a minimum "providing the service to you" must be protected.
- US equivalent of GDPR: A law that would guarantee us the right to control data about us, be informed of data collected on us, and request a copy or delete that data. The critical impact here is to protect our privacy with regards to corporations.
- A generally-defined right to privacy: The EU enshrines privacy as a fundamental human right, the US equivalent would be for us to define a general right to privacy as an amendment to the Constitution. Much like the original Bill of Rights, I would like a right to privacy which is more solidified than the implied one built on other existing rights, but open to interpretation enough to allow for it to adapt to changing situations in the future. The core concept here is to protect our privacy with regards to the government.
The consent/privacy elements are near useless, imo. In practice, they amount to a "we value your privacy" notice. I don't think individually "negotiated" consent for users visiting a website or downloading an app is useful or privacy promoting. It just amounts to "tick this box to use this app," most of the time. Other times, there is a UI actively directing the large majority of people away from the rational choice.
Furthermore, GDPR is already in effect in the EU, and multinational companies already have to follow it. There's no reason for us to fail to implement all of GDPR, since so many already have to implement all of it anyways.
I can only offer my bullet point: true consent should be required for anybody to collect or use data that relates to me or my equipment.
Does anyone know if the law includes the ability to demand that data third parties have collected be deleted as well? Will I be able to tell what third parties already have my data from the source of collection?
Transparency is great, but all by itself it means little.
Generally just showing all the data is there to inform, and then the user can not participate or say as you ask delete.
I was thinking I'd put a delay on the actual deleting of data to prevent something malicious.
Granted this is all just a personal side project primarily for my personal use and education ;)
If you use that tool on all of your devices (and don't clear your cookies/etc) you will be opted out of those vendors tracking. But that doesn't accomplish since that type of targeting only makes up maybe 15% of targeted advertising. All that tool does is get you shittier ads. (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).
That hasn't been my experience. When I've used the tools, the opt-outs have failed for the majority of the companies in the list (as reported by the site itself).
That said, as you point out, they're pointless even if they worked correctly as you still have to engage in all the blocking that you usually do regardless.
> (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).
Ah, so Oracle's offering is worse -- worthless by design rather than implementation.
It is even more sad that I'm not the least bit surprised by this.
What I am really curious about, are any of these companies linked to Apple?
Considering the very public stance they have been recently taking. The article does not specifically mention them either way (and they are the only of the big ones missing).
How we know? Because they told us that? They would be funding thinktanks to pass NN if they had to. The truth about NN is only ONCE was a carrier ever really found to be selectively throttling for non-congestion reasons in the mid-2000s and the FCC shut that down immediately. NN still allows for throttling if you claim it's for congestion.
YET... SV likes to promote the idea of a slow internet without regulation.
Just because you agree with the idea doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to the propaganda.
The thing with money and speech in politics is that speech must be loud enough in order to be an effective agent for change whereas the effectiveness of money is considerably more independent that. By loud, I mean a quality more like the amount public awareness and genuine understanding a given issue has.
A law that prevents corporations from spending resources on politics would do this. Or low contribution limits could work, to limit billionaire influence.
A lot of comments in this and other privacy threads correctly worry about the combination of "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" and the electorate's short attention vs sustained private lobbying. My feeling is those effects cannot be overcome once in effect, so we have to roll back to prevent the effects in the first place.
Sounds politically unlikely, but stranger things have happened in American politics.