Microsoft Wants the US to Have Its Own GDPR

It’s been almost a year since GDPR went into effect in the European Union. GDPR forced companies to be transparent about the data they are collecting from users, how the data is being used, and provide users with complete control over their own data. And on the first anniversary of GDPR, Microsoft is calling for US government to introduce something similar.

Julie Brill, a CVP and Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft, called for a new framework for a privacy law that works for everyone. Brill is asking Congress to introduce new privacy laws based on the GDPR that puts the responsibility for privacy on tech companies. “Like GDPR, this framework should uphold the fundamental right to privacy through rules that give people control over their data and require greater accountability and transparency in how companies use the personal information they collect,” Brill said.

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Brill praised some of the state laws–like the upcoming California Consumer Privacy Act–that is coming into effect to protect user’s privacy, but believes federal law will be more effective at protecting user’s privacy by holding companies responsible for user data.

“This is important because the prevailing opt-in/opt-out privacy model in the United States forces consumers to make a decision for every website and online service they visit. This places an unreasonable—and unworkable—burden on individuals. Strong federal privacy should not only empower consumers to control their data, it also should place accountability obligations on the companies that collect and use sensitive personal information,” Brill wrote.

The idea for a privacy framework like the GDPR is very sensible, especially with companies like Facebook that aren’t really paying the price for essentially messing with users’ data. Microsoft’s Julie Brill is also calling for a unified system that works with GDPR so that companies do not have to build a separate system to abide by the new laws.

Tagged with

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 18 comments

  • dontbe evil

    21 May, 2019 - 7:26 am

    <p>Cant' wait to see this apply to scroogle</p>

    • jbinaz

      21 May, 2019 - 8:01 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#429570">In reply to dontbe_evil:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure that's half the reason MS is doing it.</p><p><br></p><p>It's pretty odd for a corporation to call for regulation, so they must think it will help them, or at least slow down a competitor. </p>

      • MikeGalos

        21 May, 2019 - 12:30 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#429572">In reply to jbinaz:</a></em></blockquote><p>Actually, it makes a lot of sense for Microsoft to call for this.</p><ol><li>They're having to do this already in the EU so having one similar set of site designs that complies with all the major markets makes sense</li><li>With state laws starting to add up having a single overarching US law means less versions to have to maintain</li></ol><p>Of course, since they, unlike Google and Facebook, don't base their profit margin on selling user data they're not losing their income source by complying so the cost of complying is much less of a problem than it is for companies that do use user targeting as their primary revenue source so Microsoft can afford to advocate for making their lives simpler rather than trying to hold back the tide as long as possible in as many markets as possible.</p><p><br></p>

  • provision l-3

    21 May, 2019 - 8:52 am

    <p>I’m guessing that Microsoft and Apple see writing on the wall. Regulation is coming and it makes more sense to get in front of it and have a voice in the process rather have it be some reaction to another Facebook privacy clusterf*ck. </p>

    • MikeGalos

      21 May, 2019 - 1:22 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#429576">In reply to provision l-3:</a></em></blockquote><p>And since neither Microsoft nor Apple base their revenue model on selling user data they want the regulations to be consistent rather than as minimal as each specific jurisdiction will allow.</p>

  • waethorn

    21 May, 2019 - 9:11 am

    <p>Just to be clear, "transparency" != "private control". </p><p><br></p><p>People will still click the "I agree" without reading the contract.</p><p><br></p><p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Strong federal privacy should not only empower consumers to control their data, it also should place accountability obligations on the companies that collect and use sensitive personal information"</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This only works if there are negative ramifications for the company RELATIVE TO THEIR REVENUES.</span></p>

    • AnOldAmigaUser

      Premium Member
      21 May, 2019 - 2:33 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#429577">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Perhaps the contract should state in clear, concise terms, rather than legalese, what one is agreeing to. How about this for the boilerplate:</p><p><br></p><p class="ql-indent-1">We are going to suck up every bit of information you enter in this application.</p><p class="ql-indent-1">We are going to sell this information to third parties, and we have no idea what they will use it for.</p><p class="ql-indent-1">We, and said third parties, are going to combine this information with other data we collect or purchase from other public and private entities to create a data set that identifies you.</p><p class="ql-indent-1">We know where you live and the route you take home from work.</p><p class="ql-indent-1">We know where your children are.</p><p class="ql-indent-1">You cannot stop us</p><p class="ql-indent-1">All your bases are belong to us</p><p><br></p><p>…cue evil laughter.</p>

  • Rob_Wade

    21 May, 2019 - 11:50 am

    <p>NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! I'm am SO sick of ignorant initiatives to be more like Europe. SCREW THEM! </p>

    • warren

      21 May, 2019 - 12:04 pm

      <blockquote><a href="#429649"><em>In reply to Rob_Wade:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>"American Arguing Against His Own Best Interest"</p><p>Screed on Internet Forum. 2019.</p><p><br></p>

      • AnOldAmigaUser

        Premium Member
        21 May, 2019 - 2:14 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#429654">In reply to warren:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why not? Entire regions of the country vote against their own interests.</p>

        • codymesh

          21 May, 2019 - 4:43 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#429706">In reply to AnOldAmigaUser:</a></em></blockquote><p>truly this is hellworld.</p>

      • Greg Green

        22 May, 2019 - 8:11 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#429654">In reply to warren:</a></em></blockquote><p>That phrase has become a cliche rather than an actual thought. It’s usually used by people who don’t see both sides of the argument. Some prefer freedom and individual responsibility over security. One size does not fit all.</p>

        • AnOldAmigaUser

          Premium Member
          23 May, 2019 - 9:30 am

          <blockquote><em><a href="#429870">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>But then they ruin it by construing it as freedom for me and individual responsibility for everyone else.</p>

  • AnOldAmigaUser

    Premium Member
    21 May, 2019 - 2:22 pm

    <p><em>Amendment IV</em></p><p class="ql-indent-1">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</p><p>IANAL but I do not see where it says anything about this being restricted to the government, though that is how it is applied, except within 30 miles of the border and at ports of entry, where it is seemingly suspended.</p><p>Perhaps we already have the equivalent of GDPR but have not been enforcing it.</p>

    • Greg Green

      22 May, 2019 - 8:05 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#429710">In reply to AnOldAmigaUser:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem is the corporations aren’t taking the information, they’re asking for it. Then the consumers tosses them the keys to the house, vault, garage, family jewels and fortune. Repeatedly.</p>

      • AnOldAmigaUser

        Premium Member
        23 May, 2019 - 9:27 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#429869">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>Technically, they are not asking for it; they are stating that they will take it if one chooses to use the application. If I remember correctly, there has been some success in pushing back against onerous TOS and EULAs (sort of redundant as they are all onerous on the user and hold the publisher blameless) in courts.</p><p>I think though, that if the terms were stated in a way that actually explained what was happening, more people would decide the trade-off is not actually worth it. Then again I am probably being naive. One can never underestimate what people will agree to if something is "free".</p>

  • robinwilson16

    21 May, 2019 - 7:09 pm

    <p>I think one of the annoying things about this has been large alerts on websites telling me they use cookies which can sometimes be hard to dismiss. Generally I think a lot of smaller businesses are not really sure if they are complying with all of this, thinking making all their forms opt in is sufficient. Also it can be used as an excuse for councils not to share data between their own depts, a bit like health and safety being the reason no one is allowed to do anything such as drinking coffee in case they uncontrollably throw it over themselves and try to sue someone.</p>

  • melinau

    Premium Member
    22 May, 2019 - 11:12 am

    <p>About time too.</p><p>Companies like Google &amp; Facebook treat our data as though it were their property, rather than the other way around. If we are ever to control them we need proper respect for our data. GDPR is far from perfect, but better than the laissez-faire jungle we have at present.</p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC