[ad_1]
While the Democrats hoped to resume the House in November, party leaders were quietly drafting a comprehensive list of policies they intended to highlight – and investigations they planned to launch – as soon as the hammer of the speaker would be Nancy Pelosi. Most seem to be designed to Donald Trump's a hell of life, such as subpoenas for tax returns, or documents related to his catastrophic response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico. But the Democrats are also encircling legislation that could help to rename the party and strengthen their political position, ahead of the 2020 elections. One of their emerging priorities? Finally, we suppressed Big Tech. "We have to do something," said Pelosi Kara Swisher this week during an interview for The New York Times, to "protect the privacy of the American people".
Many people in Washington have spoken of following in Europe's footsteps and creating a so-called Internet Rights Charter. But the Democrats really seem to do it. According to Swisher, Pelosi was elected Silicon Valley MP Ro Khanna to be his James Madison. And Swisher put his hand on the document.
The 10 listed "rights" resemble a cocktail of the Obama and G.D.R.'s network neutrality guidelines, the new European consumer protection laws that came into effect this year. The first states that Americans should have the right "to have access to all the collection and use of personal data by companies and to know them". The tenth states that any entity that collects your personal data must have "reasonable business practices and a responsibility to protect your business". private life. "Up to here, everything is fine. In the meantime, however, there are many gray areas and many "rights" that could be problematic for Washington, the Democrats and technology companies. In general, the rules are consumer-friendly and privacy advocates are likely to appreciate the second "right" – the right to choose to consent to the collection of data – as well as the third, which gives users have the right to obtain the correction or deletion of personal data controlled by a company. "
The provisions on internet neutrality are likely to be very popular among voters and technology companies, but not necessarily with telecoms and Republicans. Rights to "access the Internet and use the Internet without the Internet Service Providers blocking, limiting, setting paid priorities or otherwise unfairly promoting content, applications, services or devices" and "having access to to multiple platforms, services and viable and affordable Internet providers with clear and transparent prices "very much resemble those of FCC's 2015 network neutrality guidelines by Obama, which in late 2017 garnered 83% support from voters; several states have already sought to reinstate the 2015 rules following F.C.C. President Ajit Pai topple them this year. The state of California passed a law that would restore these protections for its residents, although the Justice Department sued it for attempting to violate federal rules.
Technology companies will probably bypass some of the rules, including the fifth, which would empower consumers "to transfer all personal data from one network to another". Facebook and Twitter, among other companies, prevent you from finding your friends on competing social platforms; even when you download all your personal data from one of these two big tech companies, they do not communicate the contact information of your so-called "social graph", despite the construction of these networks by persuading them users to share their own data. lists of telephone and electronic contacts. Like the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allowed you to transfer your phone number to a new network, the Internet Rights Charter states that your list of friends must be portable, not confined. to a single platform, but essentially treated as a digital possession. Such a rule would help to empower new businesses and users, while removing some power from the existing giants of Silicon Valley.
Khanna's Internet Rights Charter is not perfect, but it seems to offer a viable compromise between the interests of the big tech companies and the political factions seeking to dissociate them completely. On the right, both Donald Trump and its Justice Department have made threats, as laughable as legal experts, to reduce the power held by companies like Google and Facebook; on the left, the legislators have questioned the monopoly impulses of these societies, their uncontrolled power and their annoying habit of being turned away by foreign powers. Abroad, governments have been stricter with Big Tech, adopting laws like G.D.P.R. to help protect user data. Legislation that could appease right and left could also be of interest to Silicon Valley, if entrenched interests believe that Khanna's bill would prevent more radical possibilities.
According to Swisher, Khanna consulted a number of influential figures in the sector, such as the creator of the World Wide Web. Tim Berners-Lee, to write his set of principles. In theory, the list has already secured the support of critical opinion leaders. ("For the Internet to live up to its potential as a force of good in the world, we need guarantees that guarantee fairness, transparency and human dignity," Berners-Lee said. Time.) The most pressing question is whether the most powerful technology companies will shrink. Together, four of the largest groups – Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google – have spent more than $ 50 million on lobbying fees in 2017, and this figure will only increase given the increased scrutiny to which they have been facing scandals like this one. on Facebook. "It's a 15-year fight, but I do not think the technology is immediately prepared against it, and Congress is more willing to be strong in regulation," Khanna said. Time. "The technology is amoral. It's great in many ways, but not as good as others. They must now spend the next 10 years thinking about how they are shaping this technology for the public good. "
The bill could also be a net benefit for Democrats, providing the party with a simple, non-partisan message to promote before the next presidential election. As activists as John Oliver revealed in 2014, when he entered the war with the CF.C. on net neutrality, there are millions of committed voters who care passionately about protecting Internet access – and who do not necessarily fall in pre-established political tribes. Regulating Silicon Valley could be one of the few problems of the Trump era that unites young people from right to left. And what if the republicans of the establishment decided to take the side of big companies? It is then a political weapon more than Pelosi can use against Trump.
Here is the bill below:
You should have the right:
1. have access to and knowledge of all the collection and use of personal data by businesses;
2. give consent to the collection of personal data by any party and the sharing of personal data with a third party;
3. where the context is appropriate and in a fair process, obtain, correct or delete personal data controlled by a company and ensure that such requests are honored by third parties;
4. secure personal data and be informed in a timely manner when a breach of security or unauthorized access to personal data is discovered;
5. move all personal data from one network to another;
6. to access and use the Internet without Internet service providers blocking, limiting, setting paid priorities or otherwise unfairly promoting content, applications, services or devices;
7. Internet service without the collection of data that is not necessary to provide the requested service without prior consent;
8. to have access to multiple platforms, services and Internet providers that are viable, affordable and through clear and transparent tariffs;
9. not to be discriminated against or unfairly exploited on the basis of your personal data; and
10. to ensure that an entity that collects your personal data applies reasonable business practices and liability to protect your privacy.
Source link
