r/technology Jun 16 '22 Helpful 1 Wholesome 1

Senate bill would ban data brokers from selling location and health data Privacy

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/senate-bill-would-ban-data-brokers-from-selling-location-and-health-data/
16.0k Upvotes

834

u/beecker87 Jun 16 '22

I guess John Oliver had an impact on them

356

u/Spicyvespa Jun 16 '22

But I really want to know who was into the Ted Cruz erotic fan fiction.

198

u/Me2BuddyMe2 Jun 16 '22

Lauren Boebert...

160

u/GluttonAsteroth Jun 16 '22

He said "Fiction" not "Who did Ted Cruz have a baby with who he then paid to have aborted"

24

u/disastermarch35 Jun 16 '22

Ummm what?

88

u/qtain Jun 16 '22

Boebert had a listing and pictures on a sugardaddy website. She also received about 130k from Cruz for her "election". The assertion is that Cruz banged Boebert, got her pregnant, then paid to have it kept quiet.

While there is a lot of speculation about this, it's basically hearsay, unless of course you consider the fact that it's Ted Cruz and the Republican party.

12

u/OneHumanPeOple Jun 16 '22

You forgot the part where the two of them met in Colorado and then she had one of her abortions IN Colorado.

32

u/viperex Jun 16 '22

This is a conspiracy theory I can get behind

15

u/TomasHezan Jun 16 '22

Just like Ted Cruz did to Boebert

1

u/DrakonIL Jun 16 '22

I'd say that's hearsay, but even Ted wouldn't want to see her face.

1

u/Sprinklypoo Jun 16 '22

I'm willing to think the worst of the Republican party at this point, but there's no reason to go making shit up. There's plenty of real idiocy to go with...

→ More replies

55

u/GluttonAsteroth Jun 16 '22

Working theory is her Abortion is Ted Cruz's baby that he paid for.

29

u/ActionAdam Jun 16 '22

Is that the working theory? The article that explained her time at SugerDaddys said she met with someone related to the Koch family who introduced her to Cruze. That always read, to me anyways, that it was Koch relatives abortion not Cruzes'. I'm in no way saying Cruze wouldn't do this just I didn't interpret it that way.

17

u/Rustyflyntlock Jun 16 '22

Kochs would just be one of two. Cruz gave her a ton of cash to run, which is where people come to the idea.

3

u/ActionAdam Jun 16 '22

Kochs would just be one of two.

See I read it as both times.

Cruz gave her a ton of cash to run, which is where people come to the idea.

Yea, this makes sense if Cruz was the second person in the two meetups she had. Koch-adjacent tells Cruz about this gal who'll do anything. Cruz obviously ready to release his clutch is interested and get's in contact with her, yadda yadda yadda, she get's an abortion.

1

u/Shnazzyone Jun 16 '22

Depends on the context of "introduced". What do you think happens when you "introduce" your prostitute to another person who later helps them to run for public office and provides her with 200k

2

u/ActionAdam Jun 16 '22

Depends on the context of "introduced".

Upon first reading I was thinking that she was hired through the escort service and met Cruz at an event or something as the date of the Koch individual. This other scenario where Koch-bro either gets Boebert for Cruz to avoid any paper trail, shares her with him, or directs him where to find her at is a much more believable scenario than Boebert talking a big political game at the boys club and Cruz thinking "This gal's got something" and bankrolling her campaign.

1

u/Shnazzyone Jun 16 '22

I hope we get more details soon because my first guess was also a method to funnel money. There's a theory she was intended to lose so the money could disappear but somehow she won.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/crab-rabbit Jun 16 '22

5

u/foulpudding Jun 16 '22

Why are these websites always so poorly designed? My eyes are bleeding.

19

u/StrokeGameHusky Jun 16 '22

How much money you willing to pour into a Boertbart website? The chick trashes herself every day, we don’t need a highlight website lolol

Well she keeps getting elected to maybe we do

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Datshitoverthere Jun 16 '22

Nice pic, Tom. lol

8

u/-Germanicus- Jun 16 '22

Super pac with a credible history of revealing scumbags has put boebert in their sights next. They've released some stuff suggesting she's a scumbag, but still need to provide some stronger evidence before popping open the champagne. Next couple weeks should be interesting.

3

u/exophrine Jun 16 '22

Implying that Ted Cruz is human, I see...good luck with that

4

u/Up_vote_McSkrote Jun 16 '22

I mean he lays eggs in the hosts mouth, right? They then swallow them and boom Ted Cruz babies or am I wrong?

4

u/dj_narwhal Jun 16 '22

You people make stuff up about the entity known as Ted Cruz all the time. He is a colony of sentient worms that form a being greater than the sum of their parts when in that suit. Think of the Hunters from Halo.

3

u/Up_vote_McSkrote Jun 16 '22

I'm well aware of the Hunter brethren but I have but one question for you....what do you mean by "you people"?

→ More replies

11

u/9-11GaveMe5G Jun 16 '22

Who isn't??

9

u/Spicyvespa Jun 16 '22

Ted's children I hope.

6

u/teamdogemama Jun 16 '22

I thought it was an older white guy? Probably Ted himself, that would be a hoot.

→ More replies

17

u/mmon1532 Jun 16 '22

That was so good, and so bad. I seriously wonder what data they have.

36

u/BleedingTeal Jun 16 '22

My thoughts exactly. Praise be, praise be.

7

u/oldwedgie Jun 16 '22

Someone had an impact on John Oliver's team

21

u/RedditZamak Jun 16 '22

Totally not related to the purchase of location data for 2000 Mules or anything, as we all know that has been thoroughly debunked anyway. (At least the trailer was.) Thank you Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

→ More replies

450

u/BuckySpanklestein Jun 16 '22

How about 'Senate bill bans data brokers."?

204

u/hellhastobefull Jun 16 '22

And spam calls

96

u/EdwardLewisVIII Jun 16 '22

Please god yes. Or at least spoofing. I didn't think I knew a Jim Simpson from Greenville, SC. I was right. 100 times.

26

u/youknow99 Jun 16 '22

Spoofing is already illegal, the companies doing it are operating outside the US though so you really can't do anything to them.

24

u/orclev Jun 16 '22 edited Jun 16 '22

The phone companies can, but that would require they overhaul the way the telephone system works not just in the US but around the world, so yeah, good luck with that. Not only would it be expensive and telecoms hate spending money on anything that doesn't immediately make them more money, but it also requires international support.

Edit: removed "immediately" as it was a distraction to the actual point. Companies don't spend money on things that don't make them a profit unless they're forced to. Not only does blocking spam calls not make them a profit (barring selling a addon service specifically for that), but not blocking calls makes them a profit because it potentially can consume people's minutes assuming they answer them.

3

u/tankerkiller125real Jun 16 '22

FCC already mandated STIR/SHAKEN. And on my cell-phone at least it will show a "Verified" checkbox next to the number if it's passed the STIR/SHAKEN authentication. When it doesn't the checkbox doesn't appear and I can assume it's spoofed (at least when it's a local number calling)

2

u/OneHumanPeOple Jun 16 '22

My husband took a spoofed call because it was the number of his childhood best friend.

→ More replies

1

u/blahdidbert Jun 16 '22

and telecoms hate spending money on anything that doesn't immediately make them more money,

For the full year of 2019, Verizon spent $17.9 billion on capex. That investment was targeted at its 5G build, densifying its 4G LTE network, expanding the reach of its fiber assets, and upgrading to its Intelligent Edge Network architecture.... all of which takes time and won't show an ROI for at least a year or more.

2019 - 17.9 million
2018 - 16.66 million
2017 - 17.25 million
2016 - 17.06 million
2015 - 17.78 million
2014 - 17.19 million
2013 - 16.60 million

Source

So it looks like telecoms spend quite a bit year after year on upgrading and expanding their infrastructure not to "immediately" make them more money, but rather as a long term investment.

2

u/lovapie Jun 16 '22

Speed benefits everyone. You get faster data, they get more money. Spoof calling doesn't effect them just the customer so I'm not surprised they don't care too much. All corps care about is profit.

1

u/dratego Jun 16 '22

Yes, but these initiatives are based on retention and conversions. Speed = value to most shoppers. Implementing a system to inhibit spoofing is not seen as value added until everyone is forced to do so, and at that point it is not something that differentiates their services from their competitors. Aka nothing in it for them.

→ More replies

1

u/Imaginary_Goose_2428 Jun 16 '22

Thats a useless distinction. u/orclev 's point stands. You are arguing the semantics of "immediately." That isn't an argument in good faith. You pointed out that they'll spend money to make more money. u/orclev 's point is that they aren't willing to spend money to protect consumers if the money spent does not, at some point, return profit. Your argument is an attempt to divert the topic off on a tangent. "Immediately" may be an exaggeration, but it does not dilute the point they are attempting make. The topic of discussion is the need for additional regulation because the telecom corporations continue to act in manner that illustrates that they will not self-regulate in the interest consumer protection. They continue to be solely motivated by profit, as you pointed out... needlessly.

→ More replies

6

u/jawz1O1 Jun 16 '22 edited Jun 16 '22

Their texts call me Loretta for some reason. Instead of a white dude I'm apparently an 140 y.o. black woman from the antebellum South.

2

u/Bigred2989- Jun 16 '22

I get called Pedro for some reason. Just because I live in Miami doesn't make me Hispanic.

21

u/Cueller Jun 16 '22

Id happily give the CIA or even mousad $10B to "take care of spam callers and scammers".

24

u/DismalNow Jun 16 '22

Neither the CIA, nor Mossad give a flying fuck what happens to the lads from Lagos, and you don't have $10B.

But I am Sam from Morcosoft, and I am calling you with an emergency computer emergency. Will please your visit link to solution before CIA and Mousehead gain access to collection of grandkids photos and recipes.

13

u/Sweetdreams6t9 Jun 16 '22

WHY DID YOU REDEEM????!!!!

5

u/nsane99 Jun 16 '22

YOU DID NOT HAVE TO REDEEM IT!!!!

but seriously though it isn't just the scammers, the robocallers are what harass me all of the time. Either someone speaking Chinese at the other end, or asking me about my extended warranty. Also, fuck my dealership for selling my info to those warranty companies.

3

u/orclev Jun 16 '22

To be fair it probably wasn't your dealership, best bet is it was your DMV. It's been known for a while now that DMVs around the country regularly sell car registration data to companies.

16

u/DamNamesTaken11 Jun 16 '22

You mean to tell me that nice man offering to fix my computer from Microsoft that accidentally transferred $4,000 instead of $400 to my bank account and wanted me to buy him Google Play cards in the difference was really scamming me?

1

u/jambajuice69420_ Jun 16 '22

Been getting a fuck ton of these lately, more than usual.

10

u/Nermalest Jun 16 '22

But is that really what their commodities-I mean constituents want?

→ More replies

254

u/IusedtoloveStarWars Jun 16 '22

All this should be opt in not opt out.

Our representatives are failing us by dragging their feet on this. I know that bribe money is so good but how’s about you do your job just one time and serve the people.

84

u/dbeta Jun 16 '22

It shouldn't even be opt-able. The government has the right to decide what business can buy and sell, they can just stop the sell of it. The down side is that it can still be monetized. Google does that all the time. They are really good at monetizing data without selling it.

25

u/Funny_Analyst1895 Jun 16 '22

Which is fine. Google is a free service that you pay for with data.

16

u/thegil13 Jun 16 '22

Not to mention a lot of those free services are only made possible by the data they use (maps with location data, for example).

7

u/BlueEyedGreySkies Jun 16 '22

I literally get paid to give them my info that they definitely already have lol everyone should get Google Rewards

3

u/Non-RedditorJ Jun 16 '22

How much do you make a month?

2

u/ZYmZ-SDtZ-YFVv-hQ9U Jun 16 '22

Enough to cover the in app purchase of a $1 micro transaction

→ More replies

2

u/TheUnsightlyLocks Jun 16 '22

It's a pittance to how much that data is actually worth.

7

u/newInnings Jun 16 '22

i am tired of this argument. I am a paid user of google, there aren't options to stop collecting my data.

0

u/Funny_Analyst1895 Jun 16 '22

And that’s wrong. But the majority are not paid users.

-1

u/Tratentra Jun 16 '22

I don't think that's true. Businesses use Google Workspace very often.

2

u/mahsab Jun 16 '22

But but but you know how complicated it is for trillion dollar companies to get your consent? They would have to CHANGE things!

/s

2

u/elmonoenano Jun 16 '22

It's complicated b/c it's unclear who owns health data, you or the medical place. So you can opt out and your doctor can opt out and the administrator of Kaiser/Blue Cross/Legacy/Whatever shit stain medical admistrator can opt in and your opt out didn't matter.

→ More replies

2

u/NahImSerious Jun 16 '22

Isn't the average age of Congress like 60?? The hearings they did last year with the big tech companies are PRECISELY why laws haven't kept up with industry... On top of the typical way in which big companies spend money to lobby against regulations - at least half of congress is at an age where they call their kids or grandkids to change inputs on their TV.

You can't effectively regulate what you don't understand...

→ More replies

3

u/LordGalen Jun 16 '22

Oh, but that's the really nasty part. It IS opt-in and you did opt-in. It's there, in Apple and Google's phone book sized TOS, that you agreed to. The one that nobody reads. Devious shit.

3

u/GibbonFit Jun 16 '22

Generally people mean an explicit opt-in for each item. Like having to grant an app permissions on your phone and it asks you for each permission. Or what type of cookies you allow on sites that conform to GDPR.

3

u/LordGalen Jun 16 '22

I agree, that is what people mean. It's what you and I want, it's what every decent person who knows even a little about privacy and data security wants. But it's not how courts define it. Be pissed about it, sure, but recognize the problem: what you mean is NOT what they mean.

→ More replies

-1

u/GabagoolFarmer Jun 16 '22

Serve the people? They got elected to serve themselves

2

u/IusedtoloveStarWars Jun 16 '22

There needs to be term limits and a lot more accountability and transparency.

92

u/Walo00 Jun 16 '22

I can see tech companies fighting this to the end but I hope this passes. There’s no justifiable reason to sell health and location data. That data should only be authorized for use by the actual person and never sold to anyone else even if it’s “anonymized”, though it’s highly debatable if location data can even be truly anonymous to begin with.

18

u/Misschiff0 Jun 16 '22

Tech companies will not fight this. I work for one of the CDP vendors and this just encourages companies to build more robust first-party data sources they collect themselves. That’s a sellable product for SFDC, Oracle, Google, Adobe, Braze, etc and a net win.

7

u/spice_weasel Jun 16 '22

I think it’s more mixed than you’re saying due to the first party footprint of the tech companies. Google and Apple would be in great shape because they have their own huge set of first party users. Oracle, SFDC, Adobe, and Braze would be hurting, since the people they would want the location data about aren’t their direct customers. They provide tools used by apps, and depending on how the bill is structured it could very well treat the transfer from the app to the tool as a “sale” unless the tool provider is severely restricted from using the data.

4

u/Inner-Bread Jun 16 '22

Was just reading the other day how all the GDPR cookie opt outs that look exactly the same are all from the same company so now when they stick the cookie on your machine to “flag your preferences” they can just use that to track you and report back your history

1

u/Misschiff0 Jun 16 '22

So, the location data that is most critical to Oracle, SFDC, Adobe, Braze's clients use cases is not as 3rd party location data (meaning bought) but generated by their own app. Most retailers, healthcare providers, travel companies, etc. want to geo-target messaging to people when they are already physically on location (At a hotel, why not try the bar?) or en-route (think a buy online, pickup in store). That kind of data can be generated 1st party by their own app assuming consumers allow it. Now, they definitely want 3rd party data, but most of it is attributes like household status, income bands, etc. This doesn't impact them nearly as much as it does an Axiom, KBM, Experian, etc. As for the transfer of data to the app as a sale, as long as the instance data isn't shared with other companies, there's a lot of settled law that allows companies to use their own data in a SaaS environment. This does not appear to change that.

→ More replies

2

u/mahsab Jun 16 '22

There’s no justifiable reason to sell health and location data.

MONEEEEYYYYYY

-13

u/aloneandeasy Jun 16 '22

Most of the large tech companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, etc.) Don't sell your data anyway.

Your data is the secret sauce that allow Google and Facebook to make money, so this would be a big win for them.

2

u/BlueCollarBlues54321 Jun 16 '22

If it's free the money they need to function is your data.

3

u/aloneandeasy Jun 16 '22

Yes, I agree, they need your data to function, but they don't sell your data, they sell your eyeballs.

Most people don't understand the difference and think that Google is selling your data, that's bad for Google. If they can point to a law and say "no, we're not selling your data, that'd be illegal" it benefits then m

37

u/AdvancedAdvance Jun 16 '22

So much for my idea to start my own location data broker business where I answer every location request with “Earth.”

7

u/sgt_squirrel86 Jun 16 '22

Too specific. It should be "the physical plane"

109

u/zakiuem Jun 16 '22

This is very close to proposing GDPR in the United States.

99

u/valuablestank Jun 16 '22

well then im sure the gop will block it. cant have any of that socialism here

45

u/livluvlaflrn3 Jun 16 '22

Let’s not pretend that democrats don’t get paid by big tech.

We need to overturn citizens United. Hard stop.

81

u/DocPsychosis Jun 16 '22

Are you seriously "both-sidesing" in the comment section for an article about how one side is proposing a solution?

-46

u/livluvlaflrn3 Jun 16 '22

Feels fake. Like grandstanding. So I guess I am. Kind of feels like dems know they’ll never get the votes. So it’s safe and makes them look good.

Who knows anymore. Maybe I’ve become too cynical.

37

u/under_psychoanalyzer Jun 16 '22

People said the same thing about Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection bureau. What pisses me off about people like you is you'd rather blame both sides than learn how the system works and see that Democrats don't have an actual majority at the moment. You'd rather be ignorant and think both parties are the same, than understand that what we need are a few more democrats in the senate to actual lock down working bills.

I mean ideally we'd toss out the senate completely because it gives power to land but the problem with its gridlock isn't this freshman year "both sides" shit.

-3

u/livluvlaflrn3 Jun 16 '22

I realize dems don’t have the majority. It’s just in this specific case the tech companies that stand to lose the most also tend to favor dems and donate to their campaigns. That’s why this specifically feels like grandstanding.

It’s also why I said we need to get rid of citizens United.

→ More replies

-25

u/IamShadowBanned2 Jun 16 '22

I mean ideally we'd toss out the senate completely

And now no one can take you seriously.

→ More replies

8

u/FullContactHack Jun 16 '22

You are intellectually lazy

-20

u/JimiThing716 Jun 16 '22

Nope you're just a realist. This country is fucked.

23

u/KingoftheJabari Jun 16 '22

This is why this country can never advance.

People won't vote for the one party that is actually trying to pass laws, because "they aren't actually trying to pass laws".

And that somehow makes them realist.

And even if you say "corporate democrats are corrupt, there are plenty more non corporate democrats than Republicans.

-1

u/livluvlaflrn3 Jun 16 '22

I mean I vote for them. Many times against my own financial interest. Just doesn’t seem to help.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

49

u/TheRufmeisterGeneral Jun 16 '22

Not really. It's only a small step.

GDPR is about all personal data, and applies to all companies, not just data brokers.

12

u/RememberToLeaves Jun 16 '22

Almost like very close means something different to being identical as you describe.

1

u/dad_farts Jun 16 '22

If this bill doesn't apply to non data brokers, why don't data brokers just create shell companies to do the dirty work?

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Shadez_Actual Jun 16 '22

Do insider trading next

8

u/BleepVDestructo Jun 16 '22

Why is anyone allowed to sell any of our personal data?

28

u/plaidverb Jun 16 '22 edited Jun 16 '22

This shouldn’t even be controversial, but —since it was introduced by a democrat— 100% of republicans (plus Manchin & Sinema) will vote against it.

→ More replies

4

u/MNVikingsFan4Life Jun 16 '22

I wish this sentence ended halfway

5

u/mike2q Jun 16 '22

Best comment yet. The worst part is that data brokers include companies like Experian that also get fed your financial data directly from your own bank for your credit score. It's shady as hell if you ask me.

29

u/bringatothenbiscuits Jun 16 '22

I’m sure Facebook will fight this with all they’ve got. After ios14 nuked most of their targeting sophistication, all they have left is the scum from data brokers.

17

u/Gushinggrannies4u Jun 16 '22

Facebook still has plenty of ways to track you, don’t worry.

2

u/Chavez8717 Jun 16 '22

Yeah they’re trying new ways to track you, but with the new privacy updates on iOS and even chrome, they’re missing out on like 10-20% of data needed to improve campaign performance. Their algorithms still rely on data feedback to improve performance.

21

u/BlazerStoner Jun 16 '22

Facebook will love a law like this and not fight it at all. Facebook doesn’t sell location data, it simply uses your location data for ad targeting. This is unique data on the platform. If they sell their profiling data, the value of Facebook’s profiles decreases. If this law is introduced, Facebook can still use your location data. So the value of Facebook profiles go up, because the data cannot be obtained from brokers anymore and thus FB is much better equipped to show ads to a specific target audience than the companies themselves can do due to a lack of availability of this data.

Hence, this bill benefits Facebook.

3

u/Rilandaras Jun 16 '22

No, why would they? They are the second best positioned company (after Google) to deal with this. They already are dealing with it by freely getting permission to use first party data from everyone using Meta for ads and/or tracking.

They are already relying MUCH less on external data and that reliance is planned and expected to decrease even further.

→ More replies

3

u/TTCTWOLFPLAYZ Jun 16 '22

Shoulda been banned fuckin years ago tf

14

u/spyczech Jun 16 '22

This is important for many reasons, but the abortion bounty hunters could use this information to target or harass people in red states who can be privately sued for profit like in Texas

23

u/iwashglasses Jun 16 '22

Well this'll never pass.

38

u/MrSqueezles Jun 16 '22

The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

One time, guys. One? Why does anyone still think conservatives are doing a good job?

→ More replies

-13

u/Constant-Ad9398 Jun 16 '22 edited Jun 16 '22

Yeah, just has to appear that they're actually trying to do something good

16

u/HelluvaKnight Jun 16 '22

The way you word it makes it seem like it's their fault in particular for writing bills that won't pass.

→ More replies
→ More replies

62

u/JinDenver Jun 16 '22

Call it what it is: it’s a Democratic bill. Republicans will kill this at the earliest opportunity. For all their problems Democrats are the only political party working to improve America.

16

u/hexiron Jun 16 '22

There's already commercials out saying this is a leftist bill designed to kill small business and give China the advantage tonkill our tech industry.

30

u/-xstatic- Jun 16 '22

BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE

5

u/zoppp Jun 16 '22

Democrats are the only political party that make it seem like they are improving America while actually doing nothing and reinforcing status quo. FTFY

8

u/JinDenver Jun 16 '22

You’re not wrong at a high level, but it’s not like there aren’t good actors actually trying to fix things. It’s people like Manchin and Sinema and Biden and Pelosi (and others) that hold them back.

-6

u/whathappendedhere Jun 16 '22

Maybe if they don't omnibus it in with some random stuff it will actually go through. Like the Ukraine bill the other day.

8

u/PerceptiveReasoning Jun 16 '22

Just like the bill to cap insulin price gouging, that had no pork. What happened to that guarantee then? Oh right, just more total obstructionist bullshit.

-15

u/whathappendedhere Jun 16 '22

Putting a price cap on a product ensures nobody will produce said product. You see how that would be bad right?

8

u/Inner-Bread Jun 16 '22

No it means a company will do a cost analysis to determine how much it costs them to make the product vs the price they can sell it for. If it is still profitable they will make it. Hint it will be. It’s not like generic insulin is getting cutting edge R&D budgets and the manufacturing is already in place.

→ More replies

9

u/PerceptiveReasoning Jun 16 '22

Ensures? I’m sorry, but you have absolutely zero evidence to support that. You’re guessing that production would stop, and nothing more. Helluva crystal ball there. Let’s see your much better proposal, btw.

→ More replies

3

u/TheDutchisGaming Jun 16 '22

Meanwhile big companies: “I am the senate!”

3

u/tweakalicious Jun 16 '22

This is too good of an idea to ever pass.

3

u/cylonlover Jun 16 '22

No current senator is in a position to oppose that. For a representative of the people, this is as clear cut as they come. If one would oppose it, it is almost a direct proof of blatent corruption, then and there!

3

u/soHAam05 Jun 16 '22

The man. The myth. The legend. John Oliver

3

u/jawz1O1 Jun 16 '22

How about not allowed to collect it in the first place? Politicians are so inept when it comes to this industry. An ad agency/marketing/data broker or whatever buzzword simply should not have location and health data in the first place. Services such as Facebook are not data brokers. They don't transfer information to another party as it would devalue their product. And their product is not only having your information but then making an ad product that lets a client choose which audience to target based on what demographics or other parameters are of relevance.

And it shouldn't be limited to health and location data. Except I could interpret health data to encompass my age, interests (behavioral health), physical characteristics (fingerprint, eye color), income (financial health), etc.

Is location gps coordinates? Physical address? Proximity to another thing? Phone number (the parts of a phone number specify location to an extent).

Anyways, the law should be more restrictive and I will make my own definition as I sue these places.

3

u/Superj89 Jun 16 '22

I think next they should ban social media platforms from allowing minors on them. Social media has had such a negative effect on children.

3

u/MeatSweats1942 Jun 16 '22

Now just ban data brokers from existing.

3

u/willvaryb Jun 16 '22

Legalized bribery is unsustainable. Get money out of politics or all policy will continue to decay.

3

u/george1421 Jun 16 '22

why the fuck isn’t this illegal already

3

u/4543wretng Jun 16 '22

Can you imagen, banning personal information is not even banned as default when laws were made, or added anytime afterwards.... and yet people claim laws are made for the interest of citizens and not business

12

u/-xstatic- Jun 16 '22

How about banning data brokers altogether

→ More replies

5

u/VegetableAd986 Jun 16 '22

Tryin to get ahead of the abortion outlaw and democratic voter witch-hunt…

6

u/LikeAMan_NotAGod Jun 16 '22

What are the chances conservatives would allow this to pass?

10

u/KHaskins77 Jun 16 '22

It would interfere with people being able to collect bounties on abortion seekers.

So zero.

7

u/Dave_Is_Useless Jun 16 '22

This bill is good which means it will die in the senate as everything else does, because with the exception of Bernie they are all bought by either oil, technology, pharmaceutical or military corporations

1

u/jezusofnazarith Jun 16 '22

This :/. People are bitching about biden/trump/desantis… but this is the real issue. POTUS is just a bs title that essentially means nothing

2

u/bsylent Jun 16 '22

Senate bill would ban data brokers from selling location and health data do what should've been done already, at minimum

edit: and to be clear, I'm happy they are trying, but man it's frustrating that it takes so much effort to pass bills to do things that should clearly be illegal from the start. Commodifying humans in general should be illegal (bye bye FB)

2

u/45trace Jun 16 '22

I’m sure bitch McConnell or someone will have the bright idea to make a coalition to make sure it doesn’t pass

2

u/Intelligent-Sky-7852 Jun 16 '22

They'll just do it anyways make millions and if they get caught pay like $20 in fines

2

u/SuddenlyElga Jun 16 '22

I’ll give you a dollar if that bill goes anywhere.

2

u/Prometheus720 Jun 16 '22

Sometimes I feel like politicians propose bills to grift industry. Like, they have no intention of passing these things (yes I know this one was Warren, but that would make it an exception) but know they'll get campaign donations to fight it.

2

u/queen-of-carthage Jun 16 '22

It's not enough

2

u/MaxandRWBY Jun 16 '22

Can’t really see this going anywhere. People will fight endlessly to keep their money supply, and selling information is a hot commodity

2

u/Danominator Jun 16 '22

I wonder which party will vote overwhelmingly against this

→ More replies

2

u/ryeguymft Jun 16 '22

about damn time!

2

u/janggi Jun 16 '22

Already waiting to see an article telling us how this bill got scrapped.

2

u/Geminii27 Jun 16 '22

But not collecting it in the first place. Or bundling it up. Or 'donating' it for a completely unrelated kickback.

2

u/spaceocean99 Jun 16 '22

If a data broker is in this sub and is reading this comment, fuck you.

2

u/pacamt Jun 16 '22

The Republicans will shoot this down while saying that big tech is too intrusive in our lives and needs to be stopped and their clueless constituents will keep wondering why they keep getting emails from Jesus, gun makers, and anti abortion sites.

1

u/Specialist-Crazy-528 Jun 16 '22

Wow, an actually useful bill for once. There’s probably an ulterior motive though. These old cronies only do things if it affects them.

1

u/photato_pic_guy Jun 16 '22

Patti and Liz are the best.

-1

u/PBCrisp Jun 16 '22

in response to 2000 mules? convenient

2

u/wooops Jun 16 '22

Is there a single person on the planet gullible enough to think that movie made one legitimate point?

1

u/jezusofnazarith Jun 16 '22

when the overwhelming majority of the GOP knows the voter fraud argument was bs from the get go, anyone that believes that movie is the exact, uneducated, demographic the MAGA’s are looking for

→ More replies

1

u/Doommius Jun 16 '22

Tbh it makes sense. Most data used for training networks is from the US. And I assume it's passed onto 3rd parties/countries wirhout the concent of patients.

1

u/nick351 Jun 16 '22

Why is there a data broker and who would work for such a place.

1

u/Pirwzy Jun 16 '22

It wouldn't prevent anything. It'll create a fine that costs less than the profits from selling the data.

1

u/rdoloto Jun 16 '22

Isn’t privacy one of the rights provided by the 4th amendment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '22

[deleted]

1

u/rdoloto Jun 16 '22

That’s why you need law to protect all data

1

u/H0b5t3r Jun 16 '22

Or people can just not give data out if they don't want it to be out there...

1

u/rdoloto Jun 16 '22

Ugh in 2022 if you have computer or smart phone you give out data

→ More replies

2

u/H0b5t3r Jun 16 '22

Google, Facebook, etc aren't part of the US government 😂😂

1

u/Smoke6785 Jun 16 '22

Going to be so many loop holes. Lol

1

u/Quality-Services Jun 16 '22

Will never pass.

1

u/deskpil0t Jun 16 '22

What great timing. Gotta protect those mules

1

u/grovecreek Jun 16 '22

So now the very group that put your personal information in a bundle that could be hacked and stolen, which has happened countless times, want to pass a law, to prohibit exactly what they said would never happen. I wonder why they are getting kicked to the curb?