Statement ahead of House E&C hearing on privacy legislation

The following statement can be attributed to Lia Holland (they/she), Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future:

“Congress has some great bills to consider this week that would make every single American’s digital life safer. We wholeheartedly support the DELETE Act, the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act, and the Algorithmic Accountability Act. It’s far past time for Congress to make powerful moves for the human rights of everyday people, and these bills are it. 

Unfortunately, some of the other bills under consideration are falling far short of their stated purpose and would actually make things worse, particularly for LGBTQ+ youth. We remain opposed to KOSA, which has yet to have its fundamental flaw of threatening content currently under political attack addressed, and object to laws like the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act and the SCREEN Act, which would force people to submit to invasive age verification measures that risk their digital privacy and censor lifesaving online resources for marginalized kids.

A comprehensive federal data privacy law is the number one piece of legislation that we need to push back on the abuses of Big Tech and surveillance capitalism. We’re grateful to see progress on this front, but the privacy law we’ve been calling for all this time needs serious teeth. Looking at where APRA falls short has us concerned—it needs to be stronger in order to be a net positive for our human right to privacy.”

Fight Stances & Concerns

H.R. __, the American Privacy Rights Act  

While we are encouraged to see interest in comprehensive privacy regulations, Fight is concerned about several aspects of APRA. We believe that a strong comprehensive data privacy law that protects everyone is the best way to address the harms of Big Tech and surveillance capitalism. But the details matter, and we have concerns about APRA that include: 

• Preemption removes the ability for state governments to be responsive to evolving threats to our digital privacy and safety—and ends important state privacy laws like BIPA and CCPA. 
• We oppose terminating the FTC’s current commercial surveillance rulemaking effort, and see APRA’s current unfunded mandates to the FTC as empty promises for an already underfunded agency. 
• Any opt-out registry should cover future data collection and delete past data collected in one form and include penalties for violation beyond the current $10,000 a year, which would just be a cost of doing business. 

H.R. 7891, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) (Reps. Bilirakis, Castor, Houchin, Schrier) 

Fight opposes the current draft of KOSA. While we believe that recent changes are a step in the right direction, the bill still has not had its fundamental flaw addressed: it threatens content that is currently under political attack, like resources concerning gender-affirming healthcare and abortion. This threat would be neutralized if KOSA were made explicitly content neutral, as Fight has continually pushed for. We maintain that focusing on comprehensive privacy for all is a better way to protect kids online—rather than opening the door for censorship. 

19th News: ‘Why Some LGBTQ Groups Oppose the Current Kids Online Safety Act’ https://19thnews.org/2024/03/why-some-lgbtq-groups-oppose-the-current-kids-online-safety-act/

H.R. 7890, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) (Reps. Walberg and Castor)  

Fight is neutral on COPPA 2.0. While this is a better child protection bill than KOSA, with much less risk for unintended consequences, we aren’t enthusiastic because it doesn’t protect everyone. We deserve comprehensive privacy legislation.

H.R. 5628, the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 (Rep. Clarke)

Fight supports bills like the Algorithmic Accountability Act that would provide valuable oversight over machines that make decisions impacting people’s lives. To reduce the harm of Big Tech, Congress should focus on ending the use of discriminatory algorithms and abusive surveillance practices. Surveillance and automation is at the root of Big Tech companies’ power and dominance.

Joy Buolamwini: ‘How the Federal Government Can Rein In A.I. in Law Enforcement’ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/opinion/ai-police-regulation.html 

H.R. 4311, the DELETE Act (Rep. Trahan)

Fight strongly supports the DELETE Act as an organizational priority, and urges members to preserve its strong consumer protections against industry carveouts. 

Fight for the Future: ‘Human Rights & Consumer Protection Groups Call on the FTC to Launch a Do Not Call Registry for Data Brokers’ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2024-03-27-human-rights-consumer-protection-groups-call-on-the-ftc-to-launch-a-do-not-call-registry-for-data-brokers/ 

H.R. 4568, the TLDR Act (Rep. Trahan)

Fight supports transparency laws like the TLDR Act that allow not only closer-to-informed user consent when it comes to dense and misleading terms of service and privacy practices, but also improved standards that enable study and comparison of the abuses of tech companies including around user data, AI training, and privacy.

New York Times: ‘We Read 150 Privacy Policies. They Were an Incomprehensible Disaster.’ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/12/opinion/facebook-google-privacy-policies.html 

H.R. 5534, the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act of 2023 (Rep. Eshoo)  

Fight strongly supports the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act, which would end a data-collection and user-manipulation -based business model that is fundamentally incompatible with a democratic society. Surveillance advertising puts user safety and privacy at risk while opening the door to social media echo chambers and misinformation silos.

Cory Doctorow for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: ‘To Save the News, We Must Ban Surveillance Advertising’ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

H.R. 6149, the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act (Reps. James and Ryan) 

Fight unequivocally opposes measures that force people to submit to invasive age verification measures that risk their digital privacy and fence marginalized kids away from the resources they need. This bill abandons kids who live in unsafe or unaffirming environments and use the internet to access life-saving resources that are under attack across the country—whether information on sex education, gender-affirming healthcare, reproductive health, etcetera. 

The Trevor Project: ‘LGBTQ Young People of Color in Online Spaces’ https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-young-people-of-color-in-online-spaces-jul-2023/ 

H.R. 6429, the SCREEN Act (Rep. Miller)

Fight opposes age verification laws like the SCREEN Act because they create privacy and security issues that threaten users. Additionally, the bill includes “obscene” in the definition of harmful to minors. There is a long history of obscenity laws being deployed against LGBTQ people. 

Hofstra Law: ‘When Obscenity Discriminates’ https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=faculty_scholarship