Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Rauner suggests doing a capital bill before fixing the budget
Posted in:
* From an e-mail…
Hi Rich,
According state-wide polling data collected by Illinois Public Opinion Strategies there is fervent constituent support for the Cook County Sheriff’s proposed data transparency legislation (SB 1502/HB 2774).
Some of the numbers:
· More than 94 percent disapprove of corporations collecting, sharing, or selling personal data.
· More than 80 percent said they would use the law and request the names of the companies that have obtained personal data.The Right to Know Act seeks to give consumers transparency into the types of personal data companies are collecting and to which third parties they’re selling it.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you would like to speak with the Sheriff.
Best,
SamSamuel Randall
Director of Communications, Cook County Sheriff’s Office
The full poll and methodology is here. Just 10 percent were mobile phones, so keep that in mind.
* Some of the questions…
2. Do you have you a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Facebook?
• Favorable 30.52%
• Unfavorable 42.82%
• Undecided 26.65%3. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Google?
• Favorable 55.92%
• Unfavorable 19.95%
• Undecided 24.13%
I haven’t been on Facebook much since the election. Too much drama.
* Anway, more questions…
8. Do you approve or disapprove of corporations collecting, sharing, or selling for profit your personal information, such as your social security number, credit card number, race, religion, gender, or location?
• Approve 04.46%
• Disapprove 92.39%
• Undecided 03.15%9. Do you approve or disapprove of corporations collecting, sharing, or selling your personal information, such as your social security number, credit card number, race, religion, gender, or location, without your knowledge?
• Approve 04.00%
• Disapprove 94.13%
• Undecided 01.87%
Kinda interesting that about the same number disapprove of this with or without their knowledge.
* A couple more…
10. Do you approve or disapprove of legislation that would require corporations to inform you about their on-line collection, sharing, or selling of your personal information, such as your social security number, credit card number, race, religion, gender, or location collected on their Web sites?
• Approve 66.20%
• Disapprove 28.81%
• Undecided 04.99%14. Do you approve or disapprove of consumers being able to file a lawsuit against a corporation whose smart phone application tracks your personal movements, locations visited, and your travel activity without your consent?
• Approve 69.36%
• Disapprove 19.53%
• Undecided 11.11%
And there it is.
As I’ve said before, we have a budding high tech sector in this state. Reasonable statutory restrictions to ensure privacy are fine by me. But keep the trial lawyers out of the enforcement or we could kill the golden gosling. We’ve got enough problems here without doing that.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 12:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Rauner suggests doing a capital bill before fixing the budget
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A Sheriff doing opinion polling.
Sounds like appropriate issue for a county sheriff
Comment by Opinion$ Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 12:28 pm
How are you going to achieve enforcement without the involvement of trial lawyers? Privacy restrictions aren’t going to enforce themselves.
Comment by IRLJ Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 12:39 pm
===How are you going to achieve enforcement without the involvement of trial lawyers?===
Um, lots and lots of laws are not enforced by trial lawyers.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 12:50 pm
“Reasonable statutory restrictions to ensure privacy are fine by me. But keep the trial lawyers out of the enforcement or we could kill the golden gosling.”
Or here’s a crazy idea: maybe companies shouldn’t violate our privacy without our consent while raking in huge amounts of money from it, and then they won’t get sued!
Comment by South of Sherman Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 1:04 pm
===Or here’s a crazy idea: maybe companies shouldn’t violate our privacy without our consent===
The problem is that if the law is written for the trial lawyers it’ll have its own built-in land mines. This should be worked out, not jammed through.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 1:06 pm
The polling was requested by a privacy group and the last two amendments very clearly lay out that enforcement may only be brought by the AG or SA - “shall have sole enforcement authority under the provisions of this Act.” The bill looks to have been limited, and limited further by amendments. Good bill, and timely.
Comment by ;) Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 1:47 pm
I don’t understand how trial lawyers could kill the golden goose here? These bills look like they would apply to any internet company collecting data from Illinois citizens. It makes no difference if the companies are based here or in California. If they’re dealing with Illinois citizens, they need to be transparent. So why exactly would this keep them out of Illinois? Just seems like a lot of fake news.
Comment by DontConversateWithTheFakes Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 2:04 pm
With due respect, if government was willing and able to protect our privacy, 9 million Americans would not find themselves having their identity stolen each year.
Yesterday I read a story about Uber’s executive getting caught designing his app so that it kept siphoning GPS data from your phone even after the App was deleted, a violation of Apple policy.
But did Apple warn its IPhone users after it discovered the breach? No, they did not. They just told Uber to knock it off.
Government alone cannot police this kind of market behavior. Civil itigation introduces a corrective market force.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 2:04 pm
I’d have to side with privacy and transparency advocates on this one. Huge personal pet peeve is the amount of information gathered and sold by different parties. Seriously considering a VPN. Think too many people are oblivious to the issue.
Comment by logic not emotion Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 2:21 pm
This might be pre-empted by federal regulation.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 2:23 pm
Those questions are completely biased. Selling social security numbers are completely different from the geo-location apps and apps that track your web usage that result in targeted advertising. Facebook and Google are free services that are open for public use. If you don’t like the terms of use, then don’t use them.
Comment by Mahna Anon Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 4:27 pm
Mahna Anon: I think that’s the point of these bills — to make companies say what data they are going to collect in the terms of use.
Comment by DontConversateWithTheFakes Wednesday, Apr 26, 17 @ 5:07 pm
I have been wanting to start an online business for a while and have done a lot of research about the various types of opportunities. You are absolutely right about the number of scams out there! I’ve finally come to an honest website just when I was about to give up. I realize that nothing worth having comes easy and I am prepared to work hard to develop a business I can be proud of:)
Comment by Logan Friday, Apr 28, 17 @ 2:18 am