On Friday, November 9, 2018, EFF submitted a letter in response to the U.S. Department of Commerce's request for comment on "Developing the Administration's Approach to Consumer Privacy," urging the agency to consider any future policy proposals in a users' rights framework.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Democratic U.S. senator on Thursday unveiled draft legislation that would allow hefty fines and as much as 20-year prison terms for executives who violate privacy and cybersecurity standards.
This effectively means that all content contained in any link or reference to other material (such as memes and news stories) would firstly require the internet platform to obtain a license before it could be shared.
One aspect of the legislation would allow researchers to use text or data mining computer programs on material they have legal access to read, if such mining is for nonprofit purposes or in the public interest.
Wojcicki focuses on Article 13 of the EU's new Directive on Copyright, which passed in early September and makes tech platforms liable for copyright-protected content. Essentially, this means that giant platforms that rely on user-generated content, including Google's YouTube, , and , would be responsible for making sure that users don't share copyrighted material.
If the breaches had taken place under tnew GDPR legislation then the information commissioner would be able to fine Facebook a maximum of either £17m or 4% of global turnover, whichever is the higher amount.
This legislation comes after the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.S., and the U.K., released a statement calling for government access to encrypted files on the basis of national security and crime prevention.
That Congress is now considering passing privacy legislation after more than a decade of debate and delay is a positive development, says Amie Stepanovich, the US policy manager for digital rights organization Access Now. But with a panel consisting entirely of major internet companies, consumer voices were sorely lacking.
Apple has filed its formal opposition to a new bill currently being proposed by the Australian government that critics say would weaken encryption.
The USMCA contains a number of positive provisions that recognize the realities of e-commerce and take steps to ensure that member countries limit barriers to digital trade. Trade agreements like the USMCA also limit the ability of member countries to make their own policies and strategies for the emerging digital world.
Tech heavyweights Google and Facebook have joined civil and digital rights groups in an unusual alliance aimed at defeating Australia’s planned encryption laws. The Communications Alliance chief executive, John Stanton, said the government was trying to ram its encryption legislation through without proper consultation.
READ MORE: Russia may scrap net neutrality principle for foreign companies to fund anti-terror law In December, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) moved to roll back net-neutrality regulations, which were introduced in 2015 by the Obama administration to ensure an open and free internet.
Peter Dutton’s proposed legislation to expand the government’s surveillance capabilities into telecommunication devices through the inclusion of spyware risks could create “systemic weakness or vulnerability” that would be open to exploitation, Australia’s peak industry group has warned.
But the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which Google opposed, has triggered fears that tech firms will face a “patchwork” of new laws across the US unless they agree to federal legislation that would supersede them.
Executives from Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Google, Twitter and Charter Communications testified on data privacy before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Executives from Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Google, Twitter and Charter Communications testified on data privacy before the Senate Commerce,… read more
The GDPR is important in the United States because even though the biggest companies that handle data in the U.S. lobbied against it, now that it is law they are obligated to follow the rules (provided they have data on or offer services to Europeans).
Your expectations as a user and certainly for companies trying to innovate, you can’t have 50 different standards; we want to have one robust national standard that protects people,” said Michael Beckerman, Internet Association CEO.
What likely happened here is a bunch of people who do not understand how the Internet fundamentally works have looked at statistics on how many times Google, Yahoo, Reddit, Twitter, etc have linked their content and multiplied that by some arbitrary number for their “link-tax” and decided that they can now cash in because of their new legislation.
Critics argue that the most controversial part of the proposal will effectively force all but the smallest website operators to adopt "upload filters" similar to those used by YouTube, and apply them to all types of content, to stop users from uploading copyrighted works.
In a session this morning, MEPs approved amended versions of the directive’s most controversial provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed by critics as the “link tax” and “upload filter.”
On July 27, Washington, DC’s Office of Cable Television, Film, Music, and Entertainment proposed a set of rules restricting the city’s internet service providers from selling customer data and browsing history without their consent.
That would essentially restore the net neutrality rules enacted federally under former President Barack Obama, which were later repealed by the Federal Communications Commission under the watch and guidance of current chairman Ajit Pai. But this bill actually goes further than those rules with an outright ban on zero-rating — the practice of offering free data, potentially to the advantage of some companies over others — of specific apps.
The proposed data protection legislation offered by India’s ministry of electronics and information technology last month is a complex hybrid, blending provisions borrowed from European privacy law and indigenous strains of Indian statutory architecture.
Law enforcement agencies would gain new powers to conduct covert surveillance on electronic devices and compel technology companies to assist in decrypting private communications under proposed legislation. Taylor said the reforms “will allow law enforcement and interception agencies to access specific communications without compromising the security of a network”.
It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the government access a target’s information where possible. In short, it would force communications providers to work extensively with the government to gain access to a target’s data where it was in their power to do so, and it would also compel them to keep all of this secret.