Clive Robinson November 5, 2020 11:54 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

The proposition has some serious flaws, and was watered down by industry, but voting for privacy feels like it’s generally a good thing.

What ICT related legislation these days does not have serious flaws, or get watered down by lobbyists seeking unwaranted favours for their paymasters?

What many in the US fail to realise is just how idiotic the lack of Privacy legislation is in the US when seen by most other Western Nations and many others. Or the “bully boy” behaviours, illegal claims and other behaviours used to justify just how far the US Government Agencies and Corporations are prepared to breach treaties, legislation and agreements they have signed upto just to breach peoples privacy in other Sovereign States and Nations.

Thus any legislation that tries to “redress the balance” for the good not just of the local society but potentially much of mankind is a small but positive step on a journy the US has to make to come into line with a more civilized world.

But now the legislation is passed comes the process where by it’s words are given meaning by court decisions, hopefully these will also move in the right direction.

vas pup November 5, 2020 1:32 PM

Privacy related
Ring doorbells to send live video to Mississippi police:

“Police in Jackson, Mississippi, are asking residents to connect their smart doorbells to a real-time surveillance center, in an effort to fight crime.

But privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation described it as “our worse fears confirmed”.

“The footage from your front door includes you coming and going from your house, your neighbors taking out the trash, and the dog walker and delivery people who do jobs in your street,” wrote Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst for EFF.

“In Jackson, this footage can now be live streamed directly onto a dozen monitors scrutinized by police around the clock.”
Amazon has sold millions of Ring security devices, which includes video cameras as well as doorbells.

It is working with hundreds of police forces around the US on a program that encourages residents to share information and video recordings with law enforcement via the Neighbors app, which is not available in other countries.

Earlier this year Amazon suspended use of its facial recognition software Rekognition by law enforcement agencies in response to concerns about potential racial bias.

Many US states, including Mississippi, have banned police use of facial recognition.”

Related Topics

Jesse Thompson November 5, 2020 5:41 PM

voting for privacy feels like it’s generally a good thing.

Sounds like the perfect legal trojan horse to me, then.

Name your doomsday legislation “The Defending Privacy Act” or “The Saving Adorable Kittens Act” and put at least a half-hearted attempt to obscure in the language what the actual execution will play out as.

Then the majority of the voting base will “feel like it’s generally a good thing” to “vote for privacy” or for kittens or whatever is close to the electorate’s hearts, but they wind up supporting the trojan payload instead.

unbob November 5, 2020 7:49 PM

The pay for privacy potential of it really set my teeth on edge. I’m also a bit surprised it was explained so poorly to voters. Nobody framed it any better to the general public than: “Privacy is good right? Please check the box.”

Tommo November 6, 2020 1:41 AM

Corporations can’t cash in with proper privacy protections in place, and they don’t pay good money to politicians for your privacy. Now Australia, for example, has no problems with “bills of rights” or other such nonsense. In fact the only privacy laws are good ones, such as suppression of child abuse cases. Media can not report on public officials that commit serious crimes against children, and they can continue on to be, lets say, the attorney general for example.

Curious November 6, 2020 4:12 AM

Btw, unsure if related, but over here where I live in Europe, iirc there are secrecy/privacy laws for public official documents, which slaps secrecy on a document, if the document has a persons name in the title. So, as I understand it, if you file an official complaint and you are tricked by a public official to putting somebody’s name specifically in the title, the complaint afaik suddenly can’t be read by anybody. Take what I wrote with a grain of salt, as this is some years back and it is entirely possible that I am not remembering this correctly, but I think I do, the context being some public system for allowing insight into government documents online, but there are some restrictions and as I remember it, this “personal privacy” rule I think I remember is probably counter intuitive.

DeQuincey November 6, 2020 7:15 PM

@ Tommo “Australia, for example, has no problems with “bills of rights” ”

Australia has no bill of rights, judges address cases on their understanding of human rights, though this doesnt seem as politicised as US.
The secret services are currently targeting whisleblowers, not wrongdoers in cases like the bugging of Timor’s internal discussion during the Timor Gap oil Treaty and war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Laws prevent these cases being aired in public, and they are held without the defendants knowing the charges.
Internet and phone providers have to keep records of customer communications for two years and make them available to bodies including local government.
In response to calls for a federal corruption body there is curently a government proposal that would exclude politicians.

Joshua Smith November 8, 2020 8:38 AM

Why such a bill with serious flaws was passed by the legislators?. I wonder why our politicians don’t care about a common man. And such a law that is turned down by the industries should have a long debate and discussions before voting.

I have no idea will it bring some good vibes to the layman or it’s another disaster, another political scam.

Jerel Crosland November 18, 2020 8:58 PM

California (where I live) JUST passed the strongest privacy laws in the country. California privacy advocates have been beaming with pride! But this proposition actually REVERSED much of that, and opened legal loopholes for big corporations, and allows companies to say, “If you want SOME privacy, as determined by us, you can pay us for the privilege!” Whatever little bit if good was included was ENTIRELY offset by the bad. But advertising and relying on the voters not to read everything in the voter pamphlet proved effective, and now it’s an embarrassment. Great. Yay us.

Leave a comment


Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.