クルド人へのヘイトスピーチ問題で緊急集会 暴力煽る者の正体とは?
自民裏金問題、検察の告発不受理で市民団体が不服申立て
レイバーネットTV(10/22)案内 : 日東電工の韓国での横暴を許さない!韓国オプティカルハイテック労組の闘い
食品安全委員会(第958回)の開催について【10月22日開催】
農薬第五専門調査会(第32回)の開催について(非公開)【10月24日開催】
遺伝子組換え食品等専門調査会(第256回)の開催について【10月25日開催】
遺伝子組換え食品等専門調査会(第257回)の開催について(非公開)【10月25日開催】
食品に関するリスクコミュニケーション 「食品中の放射性物質~今と未来への歩み~」の開催及び参加者の募集について
渡部通信(10/17) : 衆院選の本当の闘い
お知らせ:ソフトウェア等の脆弱性関連情報に関する届出状況[2024年第3四半期(7月~9月)]
お知らせ:JPCERT/CC 活動四半期レポート[2024年7月1日~2024年9月30日]
お知らせ:JPCERT/CC インシデント報告対応レポート[2024年7月1日~2024年9月30日]
JVN: 複数のNTT東日本製ホームゲートウェイ/ひかり電話ルータにおけるアクセス制限不備の脆弱性
〔週刊 本の発見〕「アメリカ帝国主義」とは何か
Weekly Report: フィッシング対策セミナー 2024(オンライン)開催のご案内
Preemption Playbook: Big Tech’s Blueprint Comes Straight from Big Tobacco
Big Tech is borrowing a page from Big Tobacco's playbook to wage war on your privacy, according to Jake Snow of the ACLU of Northern California. We agree.
In the 1990s, the tobacco industry attempted to use federal law to override a broad swath of existing state laws and prevent states from future action on those areas. For Big Tobacco, it was the “Accommodation Program,” a national campaign ultimately aimed to override state indoor smoking laws with weaker federal law. Big Tech is now attempting this with federal privacy bills, like the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), that would preempt many state privacy laws.
In “Big Tech is Trying to Burn Privacy to the Ground–And They’re Using Big Tobacco’s Strategy to Do It,” Snow outlines a three-step process that both industries have used to weaken state laws. Faced with a public relations crisis, the industries:
- Muddy the waters by introducing various weak bills in different states.
- Complain that they are too confusing to comply with,
- Ask for “preemption” of grassroots efforts.
“Preemption” is a legal doctrine that allows a higher level of government to supersede the power of a lower level of government (for example, a federal law can preempt a state law, and a state law can preempt a city or county ordinance).
EFF has a clear position on this: we oppose federal privacy laws that preempt current and future state privacy protections, especially by a lower federal standard.
Congress should set a nationwide baseline for privacy, but should not take away states' ability to react in the future to current and unforeseen problems. Earlier this year, EFF joined ACLU and dozens of digital and human rights organizations in opposing APRA’s preemption sections. The letter points out that, "the soundest approach to avoid the harms from preemption is to set the federal standard as a national baseline for privacy protections — and not a ceiling.” EFF led a similar coalition effort in 2018.
Companies that collect and use our data—and have worked to kill strong state privacy bills time and again— want Congress to believe a "patchwork" of state laws is unworkable for data privacy. But many existing federal laws concerning privacy, civil rights, and more operate as regulatory floors and do not prevent states from enacting and enforcing their own stronger statutes. Complaints of this “patchwork” have long been a part of the strategy for both Big Tech and Big Tobacco.
States have long been the “laboratories of democracy” and have led the way in the development of innovative privacy legislation. Because of this, federal laws should establish a floor and not a ceiling, particularly as new challenges rapidly emerge. Preemption would leave consumers with inadequate protections, and make them worse off than they would be in the absence of federal legislation.
Congress never preempted states' authority to enact anti-smoking laws, despite Big Tobacco’s strenuous efforts. So there is hope that Big Tech won’t be able to preempt state privacy law, either. EFF will continue advocating against preemption to ensure that states can protect their citizens effectively.
Read Jake Snow’s article here.