To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Sara Collins, policy counsel at Public Knowledge, said the new proposal "gratuitously preempts the much stronger FCC privacy protections governing mobile carriers. These protections have been used to ensure data on mobile phones are not shared with third parties without the user's permission." (Photo: afagen/cc/flickr)
Digital rights advocates sharply rejected legislation announced by a group of Republic senators that would cover how technology companies use consumer data as part of contact tracing measures to help stem the spread of COVID-19.
"This is an anti-privacy bill, not a privacy bill," Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, said Tuesday.
Greer warns that the GOP lawmakers "are pretending to care about Big Tech companies' abuses while pushing for legislation that would do absolutely nothing to protect people."
The proposed legislation in question is the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, announced in an April 30 press statement by GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Jerry Moran, (Kan), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Thune told Politico he hopes the measure can be included as part of the next coronavirus relief package.
According to Moran, the proposal would "address specific consumer privacy violations resulting from COVID-19." But Fight for the Future countered that assertion, calling the legislation a "thinly veiled attempt to weaken existing privacy protections."
Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for an open internet, was also critical of the proposed bill and detailed a number of concerning aspects.
"Companies may still profit from selling health information or geolocation data, and are allowed to infer who has been diagnosed with the novel coronavirus," said Sara Collins, policy counsel at the group. "The only 'restrictions' apply to data specifically collected for coronavirus contact tracing. Even these limited protections fail to apply to law enforcement or federal agencies."
"The bill gives no new resources to the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law, no new enforcement powers, and--despite reference to any FTC rules--no new rulemaking authority," said Collins.
"To make matters worse," she continued, "the bill gratuitously preempts the much stronger FCC privacy protections governing mobile carriers. These protections have been used to ensure data on mobile phones are not shared with third parties without the user's permission. As a final insult to consumer privacy, the bill would preempt the states from adopting or enforcing any stricter privacy protections in the absence of strong federal protections at the FTC."
"This bill is truly a privacy 'cure' worse than the disease," said Collins.
Greer, in her statement, urged lawmakers to "cut the crap and enact real data privacy legislation as soon as possible."
"Now more than ever," she said, "it's essential for both human rights and public health."
The concerns over the proposed legislation came a month after over 100 human rights groups warned that governments' response to the Covid-19 pandemic "must not be used as a cover to usher in a new era of greatly expanded systems of invasive digital surveillance."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just hours away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Digital rights advocates sharply rejected legislation announced by a group of Republic senators that would cover how technology companies use consumer data as part of contact tracing measures to help stem the spread of COVID-19.
"This is an anti-privacy bill, not a privacy bill," Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, said Tuesday.
Greer warns that the GOP lawmakers "are pretending to care about Big Tech companies' abuses while pushing for legislation that would do absolutely nothing to protect people."
The proposed legislation in question is the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, announced in an April 30 press statement by GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Jerry Moran, (Kan), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Thune told Politico he hopes the measure can be included as part of the next coronavirus relief package.
According to Moran, the proposal would "address specific consumer privacy violations resulting from COVID-19." But Fight for the Future countered that assertion, calling the legislation a "thinly veiled attempt to weaken existing privacy protections."
Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for an open internet, was also critical of the proposed bill and detailed a number of concerning aspects.
"Companies may still profit from selling health information or geolocation data, and are allowed to infer who has been diagnosed with the novel coronavirus," said Sara Collins, policy counsel at the group. "The only 'restrictions' apply to data specifically collected for coronavirus contact tracing. Even these limited protections fail to apply to law enforcement or federal agencies."
"The bill gives no new resources to the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law, no new enforcement powers, and--despite reference to any FTC rules--no new rulemaking authority," said Collins.
"To make matters worse," she continued, "the bill gratuitously preempts the much stronger FCC privacy protections governing mobile carriers. These protections have been used to ensure data on mobile phones are not shared with third parties without the user's permission. As a final insult to consumer privacy, the bill would preempt the states from adopting or enforcing any stricter privacy protections in the absence of strong federal protections at the FTC."
"This bill is truly a privacy 'cure' worse than the disease," said Collins.
Greer, in her statement, urged lawmakers to "cut the crap and enact real data privacy legislation as soon as possible."
"Now more than ever," she said, "it's essential for both human rights and public health."
The concerns over the proposed legislation came a month after over 100 human rights groups warned that governments' response to the Covid-19 pandemic "must not be used as a cover to usher in a new era of greatly expanded systems of invasive digital surveillance."
Digital rights advocates sharply rejected legislation announced by a group of Republic senators that would cover how technology companies use consumer data as part of contact tracing measures to help stem the spread of COVID-19.
"This is an anti-privacy bill, not a privacy bill," Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, said Tuesday.
Greer warns that the GOP lawmakers "are pretending to care about Big Tech companies' abuses while pushing for legislation that would do absolutely nothing to protect people."
The proposed legislation in question is the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, announced in an April 30 press statement by GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Jerry Moran, (Kan), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Thune told Politico he hopes the measure can be included as part of the next coronavirus relief package.
According to Moran, the proposal would "address specific consumer privacy violations resulting from COVID-19." But Fight for the Future countered that assertion, calling the legislation a "thinly veiled attempt to weaken existing privacy protections."
Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for an open internet, was also critical of the proposed bill and detailed a number of concerning aspects.
"Companies may still profit from selling health information or geolocation data, and are allowed to infer who has been diagnosed with the novel coronavirus," said Sara Collins, policy counsel at the group. "The only 'restrictions' apply to data specifically collected for coronavirus contact tracing. Even these limited protections fail to apply to law enforcement or federal agencies."
"The bill gives no new resources to the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law, no new enforcement powers, and--despite reference to any FTC rules--no new rulemaking authority," said Collins.
"To make matters worse," she continued, "the bill gratuitously preempts the much stronger FCC privacy protections governing mobile carriers. These protections have been used to ensure data on mobile phones are not shared with third parties without the user's permission. As a final insult to consumer privacy, the bill would preempt the states from adopting or enforcing any stricter privacy protections in the absence of strong federal protections at the FTC."
"This bill is truly a privacy 'cure' worse than the disease," said Collins.
Greer, in her statement, urged lawmakers to "cut the crap and enact real data privacy legislation as soon as possible."
"Now more than ever," she said, "it's essential for both human rights and public health."
The concerns over the proposed legislation came a month after over 100 human rights groups warned that governments' response to the Covid-19 pandemic "must not be used as a cover to usher in a new era of greatly expanded systems of invasive digital surveillance."