Apple part of industry group lobbying for comprehensive US federal privacy law

AppleInsider

A group of which Apple is a key member is "aggressively" lobbying the Trump administration and others in pursuit of a federal privacy law, with the goal of shortcircuiting a California law and creating something corporate-friendly, according to a report.

"We are committed to being part of the process and a constructive part of the process," said Dean Garfield, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, which also counts the likes of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Intel, and Microsoft among its members, according to the New York Times. "The best way is to work toward developing our own blueprint."

In June, California -- home to many ITIC members -- passed a law taking effect in 2020 that will give people the right to know what data tech firms are collecting about them, why they need it, and with whom they're sharing it. While imposing strict demands, Times sources noted that companies are additionally worried about having to deal with a "patchwork" of rules varying from state to state.

Until Facebook lobbyist Joel Kaplan raised the threat at an ITIC board meeting in May, companies were said to split on privacy laws. Firms like IBM and Salesforce were okay with tougher requirements, but ones that depend on advertising, such as Facebook and Google, were reportedly against any and all new privacy regulations. Apple presumably fell on the former side, since its primary business is hardware and the company has maintained a pro-privacy stance, even using it as a marketing tool.

The May meeting marked a turning point, as Facebook and Google allegedly warmed up to a federal privacy law as long as they had a chance to influence it.

In July David Redl, the head of a Commerce Department division working on privacy, said that the administration's "commitment to prosperity will be our guide," and that the industry is "rightfully concerned about the potential for a fractured and stifling regulatory landscape."

In a separate statement, White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters said that the administration wants to work with Congress on rules that find "the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity." It's hoping to have an outline ready by the end of 2018, though that could be delayed because of the number of federal bodies likely to get involved.

ITIC, the Internet Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are in fact pushing for a highly lenient stance involving voluntary guidelines, rather than strict rules with penalties for breaking them. In the meantime the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have been pressuring California legislators, hoping to secure last-minute edits to soften that state's privacy campaign.

tallest skil

The federal government has no power to create laws on privacy. The US Constitution implicitly protects the right to privacy, as has been affirmed by several SCOTUS rulings. The federal government has absolutely no power to violate said privacy in the first place, so any “law” on it will be either unconstitutional or just general overreach.

gatorguy

tallest skil said:

The federal government has no power to create laws on privacy. The US Constitution implicitly protects the right to privacy, as has been affirmed by several SCOTUS rulings. The federal government has absolutely no power to violate said privacy in the first place, so any “law” on it will be either unconstitutional or just general overreach.

So HIPPA and FERPA don't actually exist, essentially unenforceable overreach, and SCOTUS stuck down the 1975 Privacy Law as unconstitutional? 

On the contrary the Constitution itself does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy AFAIK. Instead the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments have served as the legal basis for privacy laws. A clear and concise Federal law expanding on the 1974 Privacy Act seems appropriate IMHO rather than dealing with a disjointed structure of local and state laws that may be at odds with each other. That would be near impossible to police in a mobile society. 

claire1

Sickening that basic human rights now need to be fought for in America.

nouser

The Right to Privacy is not specifically defined in the constitution but vaguely alluded to in the Bill of Rights and has some, albeit small implied, weight by a few SCOTUS rulings.  This is still very controversial and could well wind up being regulated by our government.  Our government has consistently taken control of things that would seem to be outside their scope of authority.  I choose to consider this another such threat.

Good reading: 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
https://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy
https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html

Wiki also has a good brief on this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy

SpamSandwich

Good lord, no! Keep the Feds out of it. What Apple wants here is a set of standards so they will be protected from liability. I understand that point of view, but it’s wrongheaded in the extreme.

rotateleftbyte

SpamSandwich said:

Good lord, no! Keep the Feds out of it. What Apple wants here is a set of standards so they will be protected from liability. I understand that point of view, but it’s wrongheaded in the extreme.

Facebook is being investigated in the EU for not providing all the data they have on a person (GDPR violation). FB is wriggling like mad as they don't want the world to know this sort of stuff.

Don't you want the ability to know what information they have on you AND have the opportunity to get it deleted?
IMHO, and if it is left up to each state to pass the laws it will be 2300 before all 50 states get one passed.
This sort of thing should be done nationally then they can't hide across state lines.
If you don't then I have to conclude that you are on the side of the likes of FB etc.

dkhaley

gatorguy said:

So HIPPA and FERPA don't actually exist, essentially unenforceable overreach, and SCOTUS stuck down the 1975 Privacy Law as unconstitutional? 

On the contrary the Constitution does not anywhere plainly and explicitly guarantee a right to privacy AFAIK. Instead the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments have served as the legal basis for explicit privacy laws. A clear and concise Federal law expanding on the 1974 Privacy Act seems appropriate IMHO rather than dealing with a disjointed structure of local and state laws that may be at odds with each other. That would be near impossible to police in a mobile society. 

Would the proposal regulate privacy between citizens and the government, or between companies and consumers? If the latter case, the interstate commerce clause gives them the basis to regulate (except business entirely within a state).

SpamSandwich

rotateleftbyte said:

SpamSandwich said:

Good lord, no! Keep the Feds out of it. What Apple wants here is a set of standards so they will be protected from liability. I understand that point of view, but it’s wrongheaded in the extreme.

Facebook is being investigated in the EU for not providing all the data they have on a person (GDPR violation). FB is wriggling like mad as they don't want the world to know this sort of stuff.

Don't you want the ability to know what information they have on you AND have the opportunity to get it deleted?
IMHO, and if it is left up to each state to pass the laws it will be 2300 before all 50 states get one passed.
This sort of thing should be done nationally then they can't hide across state lines.
If you don't then I have to conclude that you are on the side of the likes of FB etc.

I don't care what you think, chum. Blocked!

gatorguy

dkhaley said:

gatorguy said:

So HIPPA and FERPA don't actually exist, essentially unenforceable overreach, and SCOTUS stuck down the 1975 Privacy Law as unconstitutional? 

On the contrary the Constitution does not anywhere plainly and explicitly guarantee a right to privacy AFAIK. Instead the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments have served as the legal basis for explicit privacy laws. A clear and concise Federal law expanding on the 1974 Privacy Act seems appropriate IMHO rather than dealing with a disjointed structure of local and state laws that may be at odds with each other. That would be near impossible to police in a mobile society. 

Would the proposal regulate privacy between citizens and the government, or between companies and consumers? If the latter case, the interstate commerce clause gives them the basis to regulate (except business entirely within a state).

Thanks, that's a useful mention. Welcome to AI forums by the way! You should post more often. 

chasm

I am a bit alarmed by the notion that "privacy" is on one side of this debate and "prosperity" (ie looting/pillaging) is on the other (this is not my view: these are the words of the current administration). Improved privacy is not the opposite of "prosperity" (for whom?) -- it is the friend of prosperity for all, and an inalienable part of the rights laid down in the BoR and Constitution (see also, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.")

SpamSandwich

chasm said:

I am a bit alarmed by the notion that "privacy" is on one side of this debate and "prosperity" (ie looting/pillaging) is on the other (this is not my view: these are the words of the current administration). Improved privacy is not the opposite of "prosperity" (for whom?) -- it is the friend of prosperity for all, and an inalienable part of the rights laid down in the BoR and Constitution (see also, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.")

Oh, my. How soon we forget. It was the previous two administrations which established and gleefully operated the most extensive warrantless spying operations in the history of the world. And it was during the Obama administration that Wikileaks and Edward Snowden revealed the actual extent of the unconstitutional abuses.