{"id":6029,"date":"2019-02-04T15:01:10","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T19:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=6029"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:27","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:27","slug":"a-grand-one-sided-bargain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/a-grand-one-sided-bargain\/","title":{"rendered":"A Grand (One Sided) Bargain"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On January 14, 2019, a think tank\ncomposed of tech industry giants such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft offered\na \u201c\u2019Grand Bargain\u201d to Congress and the American people alike. The Grand Bargain,\nauthored by The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), states\nthat \u201cCongress should repeal and replace existing federal laws with a common\nset of protections.\u201d ITIF<\/a>\u2019s\nmission is to \u201cformulate, evaluate, and promote policy solutions that\naccelerate innovation and boost productivity to spur growth, opportunity and\nprogress.\u201d To that end, it seems reasonable that the ITIF would promulgate a set\nof proposals and regulations that may be put into actions by Congress. However,\nbecause this think tank is composed of the very entities that are likely to be\nregulated by the grand bargain, does it make sense to let them write their own\nlegislation?  <\/p>\n\n\n

The United States does not currently have any federal data privacy laws in effect<\/a>. Instead, the United States has laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Ghram-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) which were written to regulate specific industries but have data privacy implications. As a result, \u201cthere<\/a> are multiple federal and state laws that regulate the private sector often focusing on particular sectors or types of data with multiple regulatory authorities responsible for oversight.\u201d \u201cThe Grand Bargain<\/a> would repeal all federal laws covering the privacy and security of various medical and financial data and replace this patchwork with a single statute that covers personal data in its forms.\u201d\u00a0 The Grand Bargain would also include a preemption feature which would overrule all state privacy laws, creating a national law which ITIF argues would be easier and cheaper for companies to comply with. <\/p>\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly, ITIF believes that\nthey would be more effective at writing the laws concerning data privacy than\nwould congress. They argue that congress could miss the mark on what is\nimportant in data privacy regulation. The synopsis<\/a>\nof the Grand Bargain claims that congress\u2019 \u201ckey task\u201d in drafting data privacy\nregulation would be \u201cto balance competing goals such as consumer privacy, free\nspeech, productivity, U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation.\u201d ITIF says\nit is \u201crelatively easy\u201d to pass privacy regulation that\u2019s goal is to maximize\nconsumer privacy. However, they warn congress to look at the fate of the\nEuropean Union when they passed their new privacy regulations; they warn of a\nsteep price payed by consumers. They cite \u201chigh compliance costs that were\npassed on to consumers; reduced choice in the digital economy as some firms\nchoose not to provide services; and limited innovation as it becomes much more\ndifficult for organizations, including nonprofits, to use data to innovate and\nimprove services.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

Instead, ITIF argues privacy legislation is most effective when the key factor is consumer welfare, rather than consumer privacy<\/a>.\u00a0 They argue that there are hidden costs and problems that arise when a legislative body focuses on privacy rather than welfare. The stance of ITIF is that consumer privacy is just a small part of consumer welfare, which is also made up of low prices, and innovative products and services. ITIF is of the opinion that, if left to congress and their competing \u201ckey factors\u201d, the tech industry of the United States may fall behind the rest of the world that does not have strict consumer privacy laws due to the increased cost of compliance that would hinder technological innovation. It seems that the tech industry is attempting to be proactive in their push for inclusion on the legislative drafting process. There have been calls from both the left and the right for more stringent regulation on the industry. However, this is no reason to give the tech industry a bigger seat at the table than any other complex important industry While all of these arguments laid out by ITIF have some merit, it could be dangerous to let an industry such a powerful industry to write the legislation that govern the industry. They may be tempted to, as they have already alluded to, give consumer privacy a backseat to maximizing profits and innovation. It makes more sense to create an independent agency dedicated solely to the tech industry and have that independent agency advise congress in drafting legislation. The ITIF surely will have a seat at that table and be able to express their concerns in that way. The tech industry, while profoundly important to the United States and its people, should take their rightful seat at the legislative table. <\/p>\n\n\n

Jared McDaniel, 28 January 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On January 14, 2019, a think tank composed of tech industry giants such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft offered a \u201c\u2019Grand Bargain\u201d to Congress and the American people alike. The Grand Bargain, authored by The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), states that \u201cCongress should repeal and replace existing federal laws with a common set …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6032,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6029"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6029"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6029\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6867,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6029\/revisions\/6867"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}