Fielding Criticism, Senate Commerce Expects Follow-Up Privacy Hearings
The Senate Commerce Committee’s privacy hearing Wednesday will be the first in a series with various stakeholders, a Senate aide said Friday, responding to criticism for announcing an all-industry witness panel (see 1902210055). The committee received similar criticism last year when then-Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., hosted an all-industry panel (see 1809260050) before holding a follow-up hearing with privacy experts.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Public interest advocates expect to see similar now from Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss. They want to see real legislative advancement instead of “hearing after hearing,” said Common Cause Media & Democracy Program Director Yosef Getachew. He has questions about civil rights and rulemaking and civil penalty authorities for the FTC or related agencies.
A GAO report House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., recently released (see 1902130058) recommends Congress consider developing comprehensive, “overarching” privacy legislation that grants rulemaking and civil penalty authorities. Some expect the report to be discussed during the House Consumer Protection Subcommittee’s privacy hearing on Tuesday, which Pallone and subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., called a starting point for legislation.
One question is whether parties can agree on federal pre-emption of state privacy laws like that in California, said American Action Forum Director-Technology and Innovation Policy Will Rinehart. Recent comments from Pallone and ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., suggest federal pre-emption isn't going to be an easy compromise (see 1902130058). Republican lawmakers are going to demand pre-emption, Rinehart said. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro agreed federal pre-emption is going to be a “must-have” for GOPs.
World Privacy Forum Executive Director Pam Dixon agreed with Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. He recently said Democrats have leverage in the privacy debate because they're willing to live with a patchwork of state privacy laws if there’s no federal-level agreement. Pre-emption will be the “linchpin” for federal legislation, Dixon said. Expect major players from the healthcare and financial sectors to help drive the pre-emption conversation, she said. Those sectors are governed by federal laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which any new federal privacy law would affect.
Public interest groups are against pre-emption, arguing a federal law should establish a floor, not a ceiling, Getachew said. Pre-emption is the single strongest incentive for federal legislation, said Future of Privacy Forum Vice President-Policy John Verdi. Privacy is a bipartisan issue, so the two chambers should be able to reach consensus, he added.
Dixon anticipates another privacy hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, given the all-industry panel: “Best to hear a deep dive from industry, and then hear from civil society.” Verdi expects additional hearings with advocates, academics and government officials. With more than 120 privacy laws passed domestically and internationally, the U.S. has a menu to determine best practices, she said.