Comments on: The Long-Term Promise of Privacy Federalism, Part 2 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/09/the-long-term-promise-of-privacy-federalism-part-2.htm Sun, 04 Mar 2018 01:52:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Internet Freud https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/09/the-long-term-promise-of-privacy-federalism-part-2.htm#comment-2047 Sun, 04 Mar 2018 01:52:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14781#comment-2047 Our system tends to work in the following way. Problems mount. States, left to their own devices, start enacting poorly thought out laws, often at cross-purposes with each other, and generally impractical and harmful. Faced with this morass, the federal government will finally be moved to step in to fix the mess. CAN-SPAM is a pretty good example of how it works. My guess is that only people who haven’t watched state legislatures in action would think that they ought to be dabbling in privacy regulation. Not only is it like watching sausage being made, the links are generally rotten.

I will also add that, in the U.S., privacy has been turned on its head because of the politicization of consumer fear. As the current FISA debacle illustrates, Americans have been hoodwinked into thinking they have more to fear from private companies having access to information about them than the government having access. Such silliness is very real, and its influence is most keenly felt at the state level where well-meaning, but mostly unqualified legislators act from ignorance and often regulate on the basis of misinformation and Chicken Little sensibilities.

]]> By: curtisneeley https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/09/the-long-term-promise-of-privacy-federalism-part-2.htm#comment-1375 Wed, 02 Sep 2015 23:46:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14781#comment-1375 This response is to the Bilyana sur-reply. Eric used the term “regulatory capture” to describe State legislatures as more easily captured than federal legislatures. This was not an attempt to use the term to allege anything beyond the empirical fact State sized legislative bodies are less expensive for special interest capture than U.S. Congress. “capture = control”
If the pot AND kettle are both black, there is no need for name-calling or attempting to understand the cooking reason behind this idiom. Yes; America is still incompetent regarding privacy. Bilyana calls this only a crossroad at the beginning of her paper on p.2? We are lost in America regardless of how we advance wearing our English blindfold since 1790 and made authoritative in 1828. Both nations still use line drawings in colouring books or, err…, coloring books.
America is incompetent regarding individual privacy and other communications allegedly protected by U.S. tort(s). America does not yet recognize the fundamental human communications right missing in the U.S.A. Ironically; This missing fundamental human communications right is needed BEFORE honorably discussing the occasional need to protect privacy despite the First Amendment.

]]> By: The Long-Term Promise of Privacy Federalism, Part 1 (Guest Blog Post) https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/09/the-long-term-promise-of-privacy-federalism-part-2.htm#comment-1373 Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:38:26 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14781#comment-1373 […] 1 of a 2 part series, Bilyana explains why she thinks states are a good backstop for privacy. In a companion post, I’ll offer some rebutting thoughts and her sur-reply.] […]

]]>