[HN Gopher] Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell upend...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell upended privacy
       bills for years
        
       Author : Terretta
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2024-04-14 20:58 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
        
       | notamy wrote:
       | https://archive.is/2024.04.14-205049/https://www.washingtonp...
        
       | neglesaks wrote:
       | Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In
       | 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a
       | compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a landmark agreement from three
       | key lawmakers, a first-of-its kind bipartisan deal. Again and
       | again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing
       | to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against
       | colleagues' efforts and not empowering her staff to fully
       | negotiate."
       | 
       | Ahhh, the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers.
        
         | D13Fd wrote:
         | Yeah. It's her pet issue. Much like term limits and many other
         | things for other elected representatives, if they actually
         | addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her
         | any more.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _if they actually addressed the issue there would be no
           | reason to vote for her any more_
           | 
           | This isn't how politics works. Issues can bring someone into
           | office. They rarely remove them from them.
           | 
           | Cantwell is kept in office by the machine she built. If she
           | delivered to that machine, she'd gain from it, not lose. The
           | only thing she would be doing by "saving" an issue is
           | telegraphing to a primary competitor that there are chips on
           | the table.
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers_
         | 
         | Do we know why she bombed those bills? She could be two faced.
         | Or she could be a case of perfect being the enemy of the good.
        
           | tedunangst wrote:
           | My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us.
           | Compromise has too many names on it.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _she needs to be known as the one who saved us.
             | Compromise has too many names on it_
             | 
             | I'm not saying this is incorrect. But it's politically
             | incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except
             | Presidents.
        
       | walterbell wrote:
       | Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or weaker
       | than state privacy legislation?
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _Is the proposed federal privacy legislation stronger or
         | weaker than state privacy legislation?_
         | 
         | Probably weaker, because that's how compromises work.
        
           | _factor wrote:
           | In fact, that's how US laws were intended to work. Federal
           | gives guidelines that apply to all states. The states narrow
           | the scope for any issues that arise.
        
             | walterbell wrote:
             | Can federal laws prevent state laws from providing privacy
             | protections?
        
             | D13Fd wrote:
             | That's not necessarily true in the US. Federal law can
             | either preempt state law, meaning that states are not
             | permitted to pass stricter or less strict laws in an area
             | (e.g., copyright and patent law), or not, meaning that
             | states are free to pass stricter laws.
        
       | Blackstrat wrote:
       | Remember where she is from. Nuff said.
        
         | seadan83 wrote:
         | No, there is more to the story:
         | 
         | > On Sunday, Cantwell heralded a breakthrough privacy measure
         | with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy
         | McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), marking the first time the leaders
         | of the two critical committees had agreed on a plan to
         | establish a federal baseline for what data companies can
         | collect online and to give consumers new privacy rights
         | 
         | > In recent years, Senate Commerce has twice advanced a bill to
         | expand federal privacy laws for children and another sweeping
         | measure led by Blumenthal and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)
         | to force tech companies to take greater steps to protect
         | children from harm. Both lawmakers expressed gratitude for
         | Cantwell's support in written statements.
         | 
         | Beyond this, overall I believe the article is actually implying
         | that Cantwell is working against Democratic party interests.
         | Kinda seems like the WaPo wants to say something, but is not
         | really willing to just say it.
        
       | staminade wrote:
       | I went into this expecting to think she was corrupt or insincere,
       | but instead it seems like she's just...not very good at her job?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-14 23:01 UTC)