Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker Weakens State Privacy Law On Biometric Data, Undermining Consumer And Employee Rights
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
While it tends to get buried by the press, one thing is very true: the U.S. is too corrupt to pass a federal privacy law. For as long as the internet has existed, policymakers have prioritized making money over the common good and public safety. The end result is exactly what you’d expect: a steady parade of scandals that get more and more dangerous as the scope and scale of mindless data collection expands.
Instead of passing new, better, smarter privacy laws for the internet era, we’re instead usually focused on weakening the ones we already have. Or prioritizing the interests of the wealthy. Like recently, when Congress included language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that made it harder than ever for the public to track private jet travel.
In Illinois, Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker has also signed off on a new privacy bill that also takes things in the wrong direction. SB2979 significantly curbs the penalties corporations face for improperly collecting and using fingerprints and other biometric data from workers and consumers.
The law reverses a 2023 Illinois Supreme Court ruling holding companies liable for each instance of privacy abuses related to the same data set. It also reverses a separate state court decision that gave impacted employees a five year window to sue over violations, instead of the one year window corporations preferred.
Pritzker knows it’s a shitty, corrupt choice that undermines consumer and employee privacy. He didn’t bother to announce the law, and wouldn’t respond to inquiries from outlets like Reuters.
The U.S. is awash in privacy scandals because corporations and executives aren’t afraid of the penalties of lax security and flimsy privacy standards. They view small class actions or fines — which are immensely disproportionate to the money made from abuses — as simply the cost of doing business. It’s why a company like T-Mobile can be hacked eight times in five years and never learn its lesson.
Meaningful, well crafted privacy laws (not that we’ve seen many of those in recent years) empower workers and consumers, and restore faith in markets. But instead of meaningful reform, there’s no shortage of well-lobbied politicians dedicated to taking things the wrong direction, who are then absolutely nowhere to be found when the real-world harms arrive.
Filed Under: biometric data, bipa, consumers, employees, illinois, j.b. pritzker, privacy, state law
Comments on “Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker Weakens State Privacy Law On Biometric Data, Undermining Consumer And Employee Rights”
“SB2979 significantly curbs the penalties corporations face for improperly collecting and using fingerprints and other biometric data from workers and consumers. ”
Well, when you have family that owns a huge corporation, you want to make sure you protect them. Fuck the little guy, unless it’s convenient.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker Weakens State Privacy Law
The title makes it look like it’s all the governor’s fault. It’s only when you read further that you find out he had lots of help from corrupt politicians all over his state.
On the other hand, I suppose it’s natural to blame the governor for the things that happen on his watch. And, in this case there is certainly enough blame to go around.
Re:
Disdain for consumer privacy, and privacy in general, is a bipartisan phenomenon.
Re:
Friend, not sure where you are from, but in the US, Governors are not dictators (as far as creating law goes). Any time a law is created, the autocrat at the top has to have the lords (well, state senators and/or representatives) “write” the law for him.
This includes famously influential governors like DeSantis from Florida. The distinction comes in whether the Senators et al are lackeys, or fellow travellers.
Re: Re:
Americans widely believe the president sets gas prices.
Re: Re: Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker Weakens State Privacy Law
It turns out that there are such things as gubernatorial executive orders. So, while they cannot single-handedly create laws, they can do various things short of that.
So, yeah, governors can do damage, even without senatorial support.
Re: Re: Re:
That has exactly fuck-all to do with this topic.
Re:
Didn’t have to sign it.
And this boys and girls, is why we don’t elect billionaires regardless of which side of the aisle they happen to stand on. Corporate interests is what they’re loyal to above all else. After all, you don’t become obscenely wealthy by caring about little silly things like ethics and regulations! That’s for suckers!
Re:
Yeah. No way Rauner, Bailey or Blago would have signed this LOL. And our whole legislature that passed it are billionaires too.
Or maybe that’s not true. Maybe this is a symptom of a much larger trend in American politics, perpetuated by billionaires and non-billionaires alike.
Is Pritzker perfect? Of course not. Is he better than the people against whom he ran? Without a doubt. They would have signed this too. The difference is that they would have thrown it on a pile with a whole bunch of other terrible things, whereas Pritzker as a whole is still overall positive.
This criticism smacks of the cynical weaponization of the Gaza conflict to attack Joe Biden, despite the fact that it would have effectively been unmitigated genocide under his alternative.
Can’t tell if it’s bad faith or just bad brain.
Re: Re:
Where did you see me say that non-billionaire politicians are inherently incapable of being similarly problematic? Slaves to corporate interests, whether it’s because they wish to please their wealthy donors or protect their own wealth are what’s wrong with politics. They’re one and the same. But electing literal billionaires is entering the lion’s den entirely of your own volition. Have fun with that.
Re: Re: Re:
No. In the elections where we’ve voted in JB, the lion’s den was actually represented by fascists like Rauner and Bailey. Rauner being a billionaire himself, that particular election had a 100% chance of seeing a billionaire in the governor’s seat. And while Bailey’s not a billionaire, I’m not going to sit here and pretend with you that would have made Bailey’s fascist ass a better pick.
I can look around the country and see plenty of states with non-billionaire governors doing a hell of a lot worse than us. You used a lot of words to add quite literally nothing. Your “point,” insofar as it exists, is idiotic nonsense. You’ve all but admitted that, despite desperately trying to save your “point.”
Your heuristic here is idiotic and leads to self-sabotaging voting behavior.
Re: Re: Re:2
I didn’t follow Pritzker’s primary campaign but those are often memorable in recent times
Re: Re:
The olde reverse tu quoque.
Broken Link
The link in this sentence:
“Like recently, when Congress included language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that made it harder than ever for the public to track private jet travel.”
Improperly leads to a “subscribe-to-thread” link instead of any article.
Might as well hang a neon 'Go Nuts and Collect It All!' sign on the building
In Illinois, Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker has also signed off on a new privacy bill that also takes things in the wrong direction. SB2979 significantly curbs the penalties corporations face for improperly collecting and using fingerprints and other biometric data from workers and consumers.
…
Pritzker knows it’s a shitty, corrupt choice that undermines consumer and employee privacy. He didn’t bother to announce the law, and wouldn’t respond to inquiries from outlets like Reuters.
In law you impose penalties when you want a certain behavior to be done less often.
Conversely if you reduce or eliminate penalties for an action you are making clear that at best you don’t object to the action, if not want to see it done more often.
Given the above I’m not surprised that he apparently tried to slip this one through and refused to answer questions as to why he signed it, because any honest defense of signing it would have to include an admission that he’s perfectly fine with companies grabbing as much biometric data as possible, and to hell with any privacy concerns or laws that might say otherwise.
Karl Bode is a liar
No, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the fact that such a law would be in violation of the first amendment. I get that there are some states that would love to milk companies, because they dont actually produce anything of value that people want to pay money for, but the US supreme court and various federal court of appeals have already held that there is no privacy right over information you willingly provide to third parties, and that such a regulation over ‘biometric information’ would be a content based restriction of speech outside of those types of restrictions that existed when the first amendment was made, and thus are facially invalid.
Re:
Please don’t stop being a stupid ass who thinks he understands the law, your posts are always a source of good laughs at our office.
Re:
The First Amendment has to do with expression and association, not gathering of personal data, but you do you, I guess.
Re:
The revenge porn man opposed a federal privacy law.
GOLLY FUCKING GEE, I WONDER WHY.