Consumer Reports and the American Conservative Union urged House Speaker Chris Sprowls and Senate President Wilton Simpson to support a bill (HB 9) that would give consumers more control over their personal data, including the right to request companies delete or stop selling it.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Fiona McFarland, would give consumers the right to determine what information has been collected, request the data be deleted or corrected, and opt out of the sale or sharing of that personal information.
Sprowls has already made known his support for the bill, which passed the full House last week with a 103-8 vote. However, the Senate version, SB 1864 by Republican Sen. Jennifer Bradley, has not been heard in committee.
“HB 9 would strengthen the rights of Floridians with regard to how large technology companies use their personal information. Too many big tech companies make it difficult for consumers to protect their privacy. Selling our private information when we choose to opt out is not unlike the theft of personal property. Indeed, in the 21st century, data rights should be protected in the same way as property rights are,” American Conservative Union General Counsel David Safavian wrote.
Consumer Reports senior policy analyst Maureen Mahoney, meanwhile, lauded the bill and said the protections it contains “are long overdue.”
“Consumers are constantly tracked, and information about their online and offline activities are combined to provide detailed insights into a consumers’ most personal characteristics, including health conditions, political affiliations, and sexual preferences. This information is sold as a matter of course, is used to deliver targeted advertising, facilitates differential pricing, and enables opaque algorithmic scoring — all of which can lead to disparate outcomes along racial and ethnic lines,” she wrote.
Mahoney praised the bills’ provisions on targeted advertising, authorized agents and data security backed by a “strong enforcement.”
“We applaud you for including a private right of action. Given the AG’s limited resources, a private right of action is key to incentivizing companies to comply. Further, it’s appropriate that consumers are able to hold companies accountable in some way for violating their rights,” Mahoney wrote.
Consumer Reports, however, would like to see the bill go a step further by requiring companies “to honor browser privacy signals as opt outs,” as is required by legislation passed in California and Colorado.
Polling shows voters hold a similarly positive view of the legislation.
A poll published last week found that 96% of Florida voters are opposed to businesses collecting and selling personal data and that 79% support legislation that would provide consumers more control over their personal data.
Criticism of the bill has largely come from businesses and industry associations — such as the Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Retail Federation and Florida TaxWatch. They have warned the measure could be financially crippling.
Supporters of the legislation, however, say the bill is needed in order to curb predatory data mining and the potential costs would be shouldered only by companies that actively trade in consumer data — businesses that do not sell, buy or share data would not be impacted and those that contract with third-party vendor for data services could avoid running afoul of the law by prohibiting the vendor from selling customer data.
4 comments
Seems to become the nightmare
March 7, 2022 at 8:46 am
America 1 million dollars for the home. Others 45,000
Suzie
March 8, 2022 at 11:20 am
This would be a great bill to get passed! Everyone please contact your senator and ask them to vote yes on SB9: https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/Find
John Loffredo
March 9, 2022 at 6:29 pm
What about FFW unconditional land grab for animals being manicured for commercial profits. Owls and tourists are given a pass with thousands home development however private land owners unjustly burdened with rules and regulations that I sight within as unjust not by my word but the constitution of the United states of America. This is corruption and no property owner should be burdened with especially when they ar NOT endangered.
False environment is being created by trespassing and zoo like conditions creating favorable environment in unfavourable areas.
Third, when government acts not to secure rights but to provide the public with goods like wildlife habitat, scenic views, or historic preservation, and in so doing prohibits or “takes” some otherwise rightful use, then it is acting, in part, under the eminent domain power and does have to compensate the owner for any losses he may suffer. The principle here is quite simple: the public has to pay for the goods it wants, just like any private person would have to. Bad enough
Elaine Simon
March 10, 2022 at 10:01 am
I have not been getting my food stamps from Florida Access. Some people have not been getting them for 3 months. I have called Fla. Dept of Children & Families and was told they would be coming. There is a huge mixup going on there. People are hungry!
Comments are closed.