There's a growing drumbeat (in Washington) that China's new #privacy laws give Chinese citizens' greater protections than in the US -- and that's good enough reason for DC to pursue federal #dataprotection laws.

Let's unpack why that argument doesn't make sense.

<<cue thread>>
So it's true that Beijing is rolling out a comprehensive national #privacy standard that, in its very basic levels, is based on Europe's General Data Protection Regulation. You can read a translation here newamerica.org/cybersecurity-…
It hits all the needs-to-have: greater consent for how data is used, checked. data breach notification requirements, check. potential hefty fines for wrongdoing, check.

Again, at a basic level, it does look like the GDPR.

But....
Let's look at the specifics. There are some major differences. Let's start out with the most critical one: these #privacy rules do not apply to how the state access' people's data, giving national security agencies free rein over reams of data. That kinda kills the argument, flat
I mean, sure. you can have privacy rights, on paper, and aimed at how privacy companies use your data. But if it doesn't apply to (an authoritarian) govt, does it really matter.

I'll take the Fourth Amendment any day, imo.
And then there is how China is trying to use the proposals to expand its own control. All Chinese-related data must be kept in the country, and there are other "data localization" elements aimed at forcing companies to keep all data within the borders.
Call it the data center model for China's massive intranet.

Not exactly something other parts of the world are doing, despite growing concerns about other (Western democratic) countries calling for more data to be stored locally
On data transfers, too, Beijing has massive control over what gets to be shipped outside the country -- for whatever reason.

I love me some privacy rules that give the govt unilateral control over that. Yup, definitely "putting Washington on the back foot," sure.
Oh, another fun one. The proposals would allow Beijing to blacklist intl companies that process Chinese data if they are found to have broken China's #privacy rules.

Question: how's that's going to work when Beijing comes calling for data access on national security grounds?
I could go on and on. Yes, it's #privacy, on paper, in terms of greater powers to the consumer to demand control over their data from PRIVATE companies.

It says nothing, really, about govt access to data -- and that's kinda a big deal, imo.
In DC, the argument is that b/c China is pursuing privacy rules that, on paper, look similar to Europe's standards, then Washington should get in on the game to make sure it's "not left behind."
I mean, I could point you in the direction of California's revamped #privacy regime, or even the watered-down versions in Colorado and Virgina. Let alone the legit sectoral data-limitations in industries like financial services or healthcare.

Also: FOURTH AMENDMENT
I get it, the US doesn't have federal privacy standards, and it needs them. But that's not to say US citizens (and others, to a degree) aren't protected from data-hungry practices. To frame this as "China is winning on privacy," doesn't make sense.
How I see it: DC folk are framing this privacy issue along national security grounds as another battleground where the US is going up against China in the battle for digital supremacy.

I mean, I get that. China is competing with the US. But on privacy, forgettaboutit
There are many things wrong with how data practices work in the US. That's especially true for how non-US citizens are currently treated and how US national security agencies can access that data
And sure, you may not like the FISA system and the lack of transparency on how data is collected and used by both private and public US entities.

I hear ya, I'm with ya.
But enough with the "China is winning the privacy war" narrative.

It's not, and will never be as long as its authoritarian regime has unlimited access to people's data for whatever reason it wants
In that regard, the US is so far ahead, it's not even worth the argument.

Can the US do more? For sure. Should there be federal privacy standards. Yup. But to compare the US to China on this issue doesn't help -- and plays into a political narrative being pushed by some in DC
Rant over. Thoughts appreciated.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Scott

Mark Scott Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @markscott82

19 Aug
Two things are pretty clear. 1) Taliban continue is all over social media. 2) Western far-right groups have embraced the militants' message as their own.

Read all about how that's shaking out in this week's Digital Bridge newsletter 👉 politico.eu/newsletter/dig…
.@Facebook's publication of a new (US-focused) transparency report has again got people talking about how to hold these companies to account.

FWIW, both EU & US officials are (finally) putting pen to paper 👇 Image
.@Apple really screwed the pooch on announcing plans to scan ppl's images for sexually explicit material. But as US & EU officials gather in Washington next week to discuss encryption, the iPhone maker's attempts at finding a middle group btwn privacy & security are worth a look
Read 6 tweets
16 Jul
Happy Schrems-iversary! It’s been a year since Europe’s highest court stuck down EU-US data transfers.

Where are we on getting a deal done? Not close at all. Here’s why politi.co/3idBCt2 w/ @vmanancourt
@vmanancourt Reminder: the underlying issues haven’t really changed since 2015 — when the previous “Safe Harbor” agreement was similarly struck down nyti.ms/3eoZx7G Image
@vmanancourt And even from the beginning, the so-called “Privacy Shield” agreement was on shaky ground — despite what US officials said (this is @PennyPritzker in 2016) nyti.ms/3kr1Yua nyti.ms/2Ui74Oz Image
Read 7 tweets
4 Jun
@Facebook @EU_Commission @CMAgovUK Focus is on social networking giant’s collection & use of data and if that gave it an unfair advantage.

This is just the start of the investigations, and we’re still months, if not more than a year, away from any specific charges
Want more on how #antitrust regulators are pushing into #privacy world? I got you covered politi.co/3uQjaea
Read 4 tweets
4 Jun
For everyone wading into the global tax overhaul as G7 ministers meet today — hi, welcome, glad you could make it.

Let’s break down where we are, what are the sticking points, and what may — and may not — be accounced in coming days.

<cue thread>>
OK, first things, first. This is not about tax. At its core are unanswered questions over which govts have the right to tell large (digital) companies what they can and can not do within their jurisdictions.

In short, it's a power play (but I would say that, as a POLITICO hack)
Countries like France & Italy see the likes of @Facebook & @Google making lots of ad revenue within their countries and legitimately question: why is that cash going to Ireland/US and not staying with us? How's that fair?
Read 30 tweets
5 May
@Facebook Major caveat: @OversightBoard wants FB to review its Trump ban within 6 months and come up with another penalty other than lifetime ban.

So we might be back here in the Fall.

Fun.
@Facebook @OversightBoard So this ruling applies to other global leaders that break FB’s policies.

But, and it’s a big but, any bans must be temporary & consistent with the harm caused.

Good luck figuring that out.
Read 14 tweets
5 May
In a couple of hours (9am EST), we'll know if Donald Trump is allowed back on @Facebook. It represents a watershed moment of online content rules -- and shines a spotlight on how FB has de facto power over much of our lives.

A thread on what to expect and this ruling means:
So let's do the basics: Trump's account was suspended after Jan 6 riots and FB referred that decision to @OversightBoard in late Jan to determine if that was correct decision or not oversightboard.com/news/175638774…
As w/ everything that FB does, it divided opinion. The US right called it censorship, the US left called it about time. The rest of the world said what about us amid similar posts from other global leaders
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(