On the recordApril 17, 2013
I thank the gentleman. This bill, unfortunately, hurts what it purports to help. It's detrimental to job growth, innovation, and privacy. {time} 1520 We talked a bit about the process whereby a number of amendments that would have improved it were not allowed to be discussed or voted on on the floor. And there are still enormous flaws with this bill which need to be addressed. Look, to the extent that companies believe that information-sharing is important, it should be done in a way that's consistent with sanctity of contract. If there's something that gets in the way of information-sharing, we need to identify it. That hasn't been identified. Clearly, the answer is not to say whatever a company agrees upon with a personal user, even if explicitly it says we're going to keep your information private, the minute after that's agreed to by a user, the company would be completely indemnified by turning all this information, personal information, credit card information, address, everything, over to the government. Now, why not remove anything? Why not just pass along the parts that are related to cybersecurity? There's no incentive to do so. Had there been a requirement that reasonable efforts were taken to delete personal data, that would have been a step in the right direction. But, again, it's an extra cost with no benefit for the company to delete personal data because they're completely indemnified with regard to this matter without the consent of the user himself.…





