[HN Gopher] Lawyers' Committee Opposes New Draft of American Pri...
___________________________________________________________________
Lawyers' Committee Opposes New Draft of American Privacy Rights Act
Author : rntn
Score : 18 points
Date : 2024-06-24 20:05 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lawyerscommittee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lawyerscommittee.org)
| idontknowtech wrote:
| This seems to be the crux of their argument, and I find it
| convincing:
|
| > Passing comprehensive privacy legislation would be a major
| public good-but APRA no longer can be called comprehensive. Civil
| rights guardrails are essential for consumer trust in a system
| that allows companies to collect and use personal data without
| consent. The new draft strips out anti-discrimination
| protections, AI impact assessment requirements, and the ability
| to opt-out of AI decision-making for major economic opportunities
| like housing and credit. We cannot abide a regime that would
| perpetuate, in the words of Dr. Ruha Benjamin, a form of 'Jim
| Code': 'the employment of new technologies that reflect and
| reproduce existing inequities.'
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I don't find it convincing at all. Why do privacy protections
| need to be coupled to anti discrimination language? Pass them
| as a separate bill, and start with blanket protections on
| privacy, explicit consent, a ban on data brokers who operate
| without end user consent, and transparency around how data is
| obtained. This just looks like an uncontroversial and obvious
| good (privacy) is being bogged down with politically loaded
| riders.
| karmajunkie wrote:
| FTA:
|
| > The new draft of APRA also creates a massive loophole for
| personal data collected and used on an individual's device.
| Tech companies would be able to do almost anything they want
| with data that stays on a personal device-no data
| minimization rules, no protections for kids, no advertising
| limits, no transparency requirements, no civil rights
| safeguards, and no right to sue for injured consumers. As AI
| and computing become more powerful, allowing more processing
| to occur on a device, this loophole will grow. As a result,
| this draft of APRA is weaker than state laws it is
| preempting.
|
| That hardly amounts to an uncontroversial and obvious good--I
| would say regardless of your feelings on the anti
| discrimination provisions that it should be the
| uncontroversial to reject this legislation.
| flax wrote:
| While I agree with their aim and their reasoning on this bill
| with regard to the fact that it has been unacceptably weakened, I
| take issue with this quote:
|
| "the core purpose of privacy: to ensure that who we are cannot be
| used against us unfairly."
|
| No. Privacy is an end in itself. It is a human right. Falling
| back to economic justifications weakens the foundation of
| fighting for privacy.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| They're the exact same thing. There's no point to privacy if
| there's no reason for having it. Simply declaring it a human
| right is worthless if you can't justify why it is one.
| marshray wrote:
| Must we justify the right to a speedy trial by the argument
| that indefinite detention would unfairly limit our ability to
| obtain an auto loan?
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| If you can't figure out why indefinite detainment after an
| arrest is bad, I'm afraid that nobody is going to be able
| to help you.
| digging wrote:
| How is that an economic justification? It's about safety and
| consent as much as economics.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Yeah -- if I don't want to be known to another person I
| shouldn't have to be regardless of whether that person derives
| a benefit from knowing me. This is what it means to innately
| have a right like liberty or privacy. There is no grounds
| whatsoever for taking it away, and nobody has granted it to you
| on any grounds whether economic or moral.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > "the core purpose of privacy: to ensure that who we are
| cannot be used against us unfairly."
|
| I don't see even the vaguest mention of economics in this
| quote. Copy-paste fail?
| claytongulick wrote:
| Is this a case of perfect being the enemy of good?
|
| I don't know anything about the legislation, but the linked
| article's main complaint seems to be that anti discrimination
| language was removed from the bill. Ok. I don't understand all
| the issues involved with that, or what that language was.
|
| Regardless, is it still good without that? Does it increase our
| privacy rights? Why not move the needle in the right direction
| and then lobby for additional things?
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Anti-discrimination is the meat of this. We shouldn't allow
| opaque AI systems to be used as justification for
| discriminatory actions. Without anti-discrimination they will
| certainly be used in this way.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-24 23:00 UTC)