cross-posted from: scribe.disroot.org/post/106098…

Hello all,

Hubzilla version 11.4 was released recently, now has a new docker image built and should be ready for use.

On a technical note, if your setup involves connection pooling regarding your database, you will need to set system.pdo_emulate_prepares to true within your htconfig.php. The 11.4 release of the docker image, has the appropriate line in the htconfig.php commented out, for your convenience; naturally if you edit your htconfig in other ways (CLI, etc) that will still work, as well. Whichever way you choose to deploy your instance, you have options available to you.

If you are unsure about connection pooling, techbuzz has a great article on the subject, that you can access via the link at the end of this post.

Special thanks to the Hubzilla devs, and contributors for their ongoing work.

You can find their work at:
framagit.org/hubzilla/core

Please review the new release at:
framagit.org/hubzilla/core/-/r…

And lastly, within the next hour or so, the docker image will be ready to go at:
hub.docker.com/r/dhitchenor/hu…

I hope this finds you all well; please stay safe.

EDIT:
Here is the TechBuzz Online article that I mentioned earlier
techbuzzonline.com/database-co…

🔴 A defense contractor is now selling technology that scans every electronic device in your car as you drive past a camera. It ties everything to your license plate. You cannot opt out.

It is called SignalTrace. Made by Leonardo, an Italian military contractor with existing U.S. Special Operations Command contracts. It sweeps your phone, smartwatch, Bluetooth headphones, your dog's RFID chip, tire pressure sensors, your car's infotainment system. Anything that broadcasts.

It bundles these into what Leonardo calls your "electronic fingerprint," timestamped and geotagged. Stored in an "Enterprise Operations Center for future queries and analysis."

Those are their words. Not mine.

You did not consent. You cannot opt out. Your devices broadcast by existing. In most places, this is perfectly legal.

If this sounds like something that will be abused: it already has been. Police have used existing license plate reader networks to stalk partners, verify school residency, run background checks, and monitor protests. At least 22 officers charged or resigned for ALPR stalking.

SignalTrace does not read your messages. It does not need to. It knows who you travel with, where you go, and when.

Sources: techdirt.com/2026/06/24/survei… and leonardocompany-us.com/lpr/els…

#surveillance #privacy #ALPR

Mastodon post.

The US-based nonprofit Privacy Guides recently covered in their podcast “This Week in Privacy“ episode 64 an article titled “Inside the dystopian world of Germany’s free speech crackdown” from UK-based publisher The Telegraph. The co-host (Nate) read off the notes while covering the story and said the original article is "definitely worth a read. Lots of good stuff in there.”

Disclaimer: This fact-check has been written on a best-effort basis with the time and resources available to me. I would have liked to dig deeper into the sources I’ve linked, the claims made, and the original article, but my current circumstances don’t allow for such a large-scale investigation. In contrast to Privacy Guides, which is funded by many supporters, Voxel is a single person who tries his best to educate people about data protection and cybersecurity and to fight for a better future with no funding whatsoever. If you find something that is inaccurate, please feel free to kindly correct me in the comments, I will adjust it ASAP.

I’ll cover the claims made in the episode and debunk them chronologically.

The first claim is about Rainer Zitelmann who, according to them, had been accused of violating § 86a StGB, which bans the display of Nazi symbols, slogans, and imagery, and could now face three years in prison if found guilty. He found out the offending social media post was a meme about Adolf Hitler, but it was one in which he compared the Nazi dictator and his invasion of Czechoslovakia to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I found news coverage from other sources that paints a similar picture, but was unable to independently verify R. Zitelmann’s claims.

All following quotes are by Nate from Privacy Guides (source) if not marked otherwise.

So basically, like, I'm saying Hitler is bad. Why is this? Yeah.

Objectively misrepresents the case and makes it seem as if Germany would fight negative speech about Hitler.

(…) is one of thousands of Germans who have been threatened with fines or prison sentences for social media posts that fall afoul of the country's political speech laws, which are unusually stringent for an EU member state.

Neither Privacy Guides nor the original article provides a source for this data. I was unable to find information about this.

They went on to cover the “Schwachkopf” (can be roughly translated as “weak head” in the cognitive/intellectual sense) case. They claim that the person who called Robert Habeck “Schwachkopf” got his home “raided.” This is false; the supposed raid was actually a search warrant to seize evidence. The accused voluntarily handed over the tablet used in the crime to officers; consequently, further measures were waived, not least for reasons of proportionality. So no actual home search was conducted.

In the case of the “Lügenfritz” (can be roughly translated to “lying Fritz”) insult, Nate says that the accused was fined two thousand euros. This is theoretically false. The court issued a fine of 30 days’ income. I was unable to find source that provides information on how much the accused earned. The accused didn’t object the ruling.

The number of investigations under Section 86a, the Nazi symbol ban that Dr. Z was investigated for has more than doubled over the past decade according to official police statistics. Investigations into the political insult law also reached a record level in 2025.

Neither Privacy Guides nor the original article provides a source for this data. I was unable to find information about this.

In one recent case, a pensioner was investigated under Section 188 for posting Pinocchio is coming on Facebook after he learned that Frederick Mertz, the chancellor, was visiting his hometown.

This is true, but the investigations were closed, “because this is a form of criticism of power covered by freedom of expression and is therefore permissible“ (automated translation). The original article and Nate fail to mention that.

In 2021, police raided a man's apartment in Hamburg after he told a senator, you're such a d.

That is partially true; his apartment was searched. I don’t think this is equal to being “raided,” but the original article, as well as Nate, fail to mention that the apartment search was deemed illegal by the court.

The surge in cases is so vast that the U.N. has launched an investigation into free speech violations in Germany, a step typically reserved for dictatorships and banana republics. (…) So and Germany needs to figure out what they're doing if they're getting investigated by the UN. I think that's pretty wild.

This is completely false. This misinformation was taken from the original article, which provides no source whatsoever. What is true, but wasn’t mentioned in the episode, is that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Ms. Irene Khan, undertook an official country visit to Germany to examine, in the spirit of cooperation and dialogue, the situation of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the country. But it’s important to highlight that (emphasis added):

Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

German free speech activists on the left and right, as well as the Trump administration, have also raised the alarm, and there are growing calls from some of the country's stricter laws to be scrapped.

No sources provided, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are some people who do. I can’t comment on the Trump administration.

The fur bears some similarities to the speech debate in Britain, where citizens have a knock on the door from police over opinions posted online.

I believe this is an extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of the current situation based on the data provided.

Conclusion: Privacy Guides seemingly did not verify the integrity of the article and the information they took from it and shared in their podcast. They spread lots of misinformation about Germany’s current status, left out important information, and even claimed that the UN would be investigating Germany for free speech violations.

My opinion: In addition to the conclusion above, I would like to point out that the article seems to be highly politically motivated and appears to manipulate readers through disinformation into specific beliefs; that Privacy Guides used the article without seemingly noticing this highly political intention behind it, and did not verify the integrity of the information provided, is very concerning. My appeal to Privacy Guides would be: accuracy over quantity. Covering more articles at the cost of the integrity of the information provided causes a lot of harm and allows misinformation to spread even further than it otherwise would. Privacy Guides also makes it very hard to investigate and check the integrity of the sources yourself, as they’re not provided or linked in the show notes of the podcast, and you have to manually go to their website, search for the blog entry for the podcast, and find the sources there; I believe putting the sources directly in the show notes allows for a healthier information flow and empowers listeners to investigate themselves.

#Review: Spider-Man: Brand New Day – A #Hero for the #Surveillance State?

source: themoviedb.org/movie/969681-sp…

At first, #Spider-Man: Brand New Day looks like another emotional #superhero #story. Peter Parker has lost everything. No one remembers him, not even MJ. He searches for his #identity while trying to protect #NewYork. The #film spends much of its time on #trauma, #loneliness, and #mental #health.

But behind this personal story lies a political #message. The film presents mass surveillance as something necessary and even heroic. This is where the #movie becomes much more interesting—and much more troubling.

Spider-Man uses powerful surveillance #technology to watch the city. He collects video from many security cameras. He scans every face to find criminals. Even the #police admit that this is probably #illegal. Still, the film treats these actions as acceptable because Spider-Man is one of the "good guys."

Jean Grey—now portrayed by Sadie Sink (She kept her role a huge secret beforehand for marketing reasons.) in the Marvel Universe—falls into the facial recognition trap set by Spider-Man's surveillance program. If, by the end, you feel sorry for Jean Grey because the script wants you to and you’ve let yourself be swept up in the drama, then please remember that at the beginning of the movie, Jean possessed an old man and sent him running into the street so he would be brutally run over. She’s a mass murderer who’ll stop at nothing to achieve her goal. She could easily achieve this goal with her incredible superpower, but she makes it unnecessarily complicated by first freeing the Scorpion, which is what draws Spider-Man's attention to her in the first place.

This idea has a long #history in popular culture. The strongest comparison is George Orwell's 1984. #Orwell imagined a #society where every citizen is watched. Surveillance is presented as a tool for #security, but it destroys #freedom. In Brand New Day, the situation is different because Spider-Man is a hero, not a dictator. Yet the basic question remains the same: Who watches the watchers? If one person can see everyone, who controls that person?

The film never really asks this #question. Instead, it assumes that surveillance is good as long as the right people #control it. This is one of its biggest #weaknesses.

Another interesting comparison is The Dark Knight. In Christopher Nolan's film, #Batman creates a machine that can monitor every mobile phone in Gotham. Lucius Fox calls it too dangerous because it gives one person unlimited power. Batman agrees. He uses the system only once to catch the #Joker and then destroys it immediately.

Brand New Day takes a very different approach. Spider-Man's surveillance technology is not treated as a #moral #problem. Instead, it becomes a normal #tool of #crime fighting. The ethical debate that makes The Dark Knight so powerful is almost completely missing.

The transcript also compares Spider-Man's work with modern surveillance technology. Peter Parker works closely with the Department of Damage Control and helps collect huge amounts of personal data. The review argues that this creates a positive image of a close relationship between #government institutions and powerful technology companies.

This makes the film feel surprisingly modern. Today, governments and private companies collect enormous amounts of digital information. Cameras, facial recognition, smartphones and artificial #intelligence make surveillance easier than ever before. The movie reflects this reality but rarely questions it.

One of the most interesting contradictions is #PeterParker himself. He wants #privacy for his own life. He hides his identity and wants to escape public attention. At the same time, he watches everyone else and scans thousands of faces. The film never fully explores this contradiction.

This creates an uncomfortable message. Privacy seems important for the hero but less important for ordinary citizens.

The citizens themselves hardly have a voice. They mostly watch, cheer and accept Spider-Man's actions without #discussion. They never decide whether they want to live in such a #society. They simply #trust the hero.

As #entertainment, Spider-Man: Brand New Day offers impressive visuals and emotional performances. However, its political ideas deserve much more attention. The film normalizes mass surveillance while presenting it as an act of kindness and #responsibility. It replaces difficult ethical questions with emotional storytelling.

Unlike 1984, it does not warn us about surveillance. Unlike The #DarkKnight, it does not seriously question its use. Instead, it asks the #audience to trust the hero completely.

That may be the film's most surprising message. The greatest danger is not an #evil government forcing surveillance on its people. The greater danger is that we willingly accept surveillance because it is carried out by someone we like.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day succeeds as an emotional superhero #drama. As a political film, however, it raises fascinating questions without giving convincing answers.

#cinema #criticism #fail #ethics #future #cybersecurity #ice #palantir #homelandsecurity #america #nyc #ny #humanity #humanrights #marvel #news #politics #policestate #police #bigbrother #propaganda #lawandorder #justice

govtrack.us/congress/bills/119…

www.thetechedvocate.org
This New Federal Data Privacy Act Is Changing Everything You Know About Your Data
Matthew Lynch
21 - 27 minutes

“`html

It’s official: the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a landmark piece of legislation that could fundamentally reshape how we interact with the digital world. On August 3rd, the House gave its nod to the ‘Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026,’ a bill designed to put individuals firmly in the driver’s seat when it comes to their personal information online. If you’ve ever felt like your data was floating around the internet without your say-so, this new federal data privacy act aims to change that perception, and potentially, the reality.

This isn’t just another piece of tech legislation; it’s a seismic shift that has everyone from privacy advocates to corporate lawyers buzzing. On one side, you have consumer groups cheering, calling it a long-overdue victory for individual rights in an age where our digital footprints are constantly being tracked, analyzed, and monetized. On the other, many businesses, particularly the tech titans and e-commerce giants, are sounding the alarm, warning of compliance costs that could stretch into the billions and a chilling effect on innovation. So, what exactly does this new federal data privacy act mean for you, and for the businesses you interact with daily? Let’s break down the key elements and the heated debate surrounding them.
1. Explicit Consent Mandate: Taking Back Control of Your Information

One of the most significant provisions of the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 is its explicit consent mandate. This isn’t just about a tiny checkbox you might accidentally click while signing up for a new service; it’s a fundamental shift in how companies must approach data collection and sharing. Under this new federal data privacy act, businesses will be required to obtain clear, affirmative consent from individuals before collecting any of their personal data. Furthermore, that consent isn’t a one-time thing; it also applies to sharing that data with third parties.

Think about what that means for your everyday online life. No more vague terms of service buried in legalese that implicitly grant companies permission to do whatever they want with your information. Instead, you’ll likely see more granular controls, specific requests for permission, and clearer explanations of how your data will be used. This empowers you to make informed decisions, giving you a genuine ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option, rather than simply accepting a predetermined fate for your digital identity. It’s about restoring agency to the individual, ensuring that your data isn’t just a commodity to be traded without your direct and understanding involvement.
2. The Right to Access and Correction: Knowing What’s Out There

Beyond simply giving consent, the new federal data privacy act bestows upon individuals the fundamental right to access their personal data that companies have collected. Ever wondered what a social media platform or an online retailer truly knows about you? This legislation aims to pull back that curtain. You’ll have the ability to request a copy of all the data a company holds on you, offering unprecedented transparency.

But it doesn’t stop there. The act also includes a crucial right to correction. If you find inaccuracies or outdated information in your data profile, companies will be obligated to rectify it. This is vital for everything from ensuring your credit score isn’t hampered by incorrect entries to making sure your online identity accurately reflects who you are. This dual right — access and correction — forms a powerful mechanism for individuals to maintain the integrity and accuracy of their digital selves, moving us closer to a world where our online profiles aren’t just passively compiled, but actively managed by us.
3. The Right to Deletion (‘Right to Be Forgotten’): Erasing Your Digital Footprint

Perhaps one of the most talked-about aspects of modern data privacy is the ‘right to be forgotten,’ and this new federal data privacy act incorporates a robust version of it. Under the Consumer Data Protection Act, you will have the right to demand that companies delete your personal data. This is a game-changer for many, offering a way to erase past digital missteps, remove information you no longer wish to be associated with, or simply reduce your overall digital footprint.

Imagine being able to tell a company, ‘I no longer want you to hold my information,’ and have them legally bound to comply. This could have profound implications for everything from old social media accounts to past purchasing histories. While there will undoubtedly be carve-outs and exceptions, particularly for data that companies are legally required to retain, the general principle is clear: your data, your choice, even when that choice is to make it disappear. This provision underscores the idea that data, once shared, isn’t necessarily shared forever, giving individuals a powerful tool for digital reclamation.
4. Data Minimization Principles: Less Is More

The Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 also emphasizes a principle known as ‘data minimization.’ This isn’t just about what companies can’t do; it’s about what they shouldn’t do in the first place. The idea here is that businesses should only collect the absolute minimum amount of personal data necessary to provide a service or fulfill a specific purpose. They shouldn’t be hoovering up every conceivable piece of information about you just because they can.

This shifts the burden of proof, in a sense, onto the companies. Instead of you having to opt-out of excessive data collection, they’ll have to justify why they need a particular piece of your data. This proactive approach aims to limit the sheer volume of personal information floating around, reducing the risk of breaches, misuse, and unauthorized sharing. It’s a pragmatic recognition that the less data collected, the less data there is to potentially compromise, creating a safer digital environment for everyone. (See: Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026.)
5. Enhanced Data Security Requirements: Protecting What’s Collected

It’s not enough to control data collection and deletion; the new federal data privacy act also beefs up requirements for how companies must protect the data they do collect. The legislation mandates that businesses implement robust security measures to safeguard personal information from unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction. This isn’t just good practice; it’s now a legal obligation.

This means companies will likely need to invest more heavily in cybersecurity infrastructure, employee training, and incident response plans. For consumers, this translates to a greater degree of confidence that their information, when shared, is being held to a high standard of protection. While no system is perfectly impenetrable, these enhanced requirements aim to significantly reduce the likelihood and impact of data breaches, holding companies accountable for the digital trust placed in them.
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Holding Businesses Accountable

No law is effective without teeth, and the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 certainly has them. The legislation includes significant penalties for businesses that fail to comply with its provisions. While the exact figures and enforcement mechanisms are still being ironed out, the intent is clear: non-compliance will be costly. This could involve hefty fines, potentially tied to the number of affected individuals or the severity of the violation, along with other enforcement actions.

These penalties are designed to be a powerful deterrent, encouraging businesses to take their data privacy obligations seriously. For smaller businesses, these fines could be crippling, while even large corporations could face substantial financial hits. This aspect of the federal data privacy act is particularly concerning for industry groups, who worry about the financial burden of both compliance and potential litigation. However, for privacy advocates, it’s a necessary measure to ensure the law is respected and consumer rights are upheld.
7. The Business Backlash and Compliance Costs: A Billion-Dollar Headache?

Naturally, a law with such sweeping implications hasn’t been met with universal acclaim. While consumer advocacy groups are celebrating, many businesses, especially those in the tech and e-commerce sectors, are voicing serious concerns. Their primary worry centers around the estimated compliance costs, which they project could run into the billions of dollars. Implementing new systems for explicit consent, managing access and deletion requests, overhauling data storage practices, and enhancing cybersecurity all require substantial investment.

These companies argue that such a heavy financial burden could stifle innovation, particularly for startups and smaller enterprises that lack the deep pockets of tech giants. They suggest that the complexity of the regulations might make it harder to develop new products and services that rely on data analysis, potentially putting U.S. companies at a disadvantage globally. It’s a valid concern, and navigating the balance between robust consumer protection and fostering a dynamic business environment will be a delicate act for regulators. There’s a fuller look at student data protection.
8. Innovation vs. Privacy: The Ongoing Debate

This tension between business innovation and individual privacy isn’t new, but the federal data privacy act brings it to a head. Tech companies often argue that the free flow and analysis of data are essential for developing personalized experiences, improving AI, and creating cutting-edge services. They believe that overly restrictive privacy laws can hinder this progress, leading to less user-friendly or less advanced products.

On the other hand, privacy advocates counter that true innovation shouldn’t come at the cost of fundamental human rights. They argue that companies can still innovate responsibly within a framework of strong privacy protections, and that users are more likely to trust and engage with services that clearly respect their data. This debate isn’t easily resolved, as both sides present compelling arguments. The Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 represents a legislative attempt to draw a new line in the sand, prioritizing individual control while hopefully still allowing for responsible technological advancement.
9. The Global Context: Learning from GDPR and CCPA

The U.S. isn’t operating in a vacuum when it comes to data privacy. This federal data privacy act draws inspiration from, and will inevitably be compared to, existing robust privacy frameworks around the world. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enacted in 2018, set a global benchmark for consumer data rights. It introduced concepts like explicit consent, the right to access, and the right to be forgotten on a broad scale, fundamentally altering how companies handle data for EU citizens.

Closer to home, California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), have also provided a blueprint. These state-level laws introduced similar rights for Californians, influencing companies nationwide to adopt better privacy practices, even if just to comply with California’s market demands. The Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 aims to unify these disparate state efforts into a single federal standard, ideally simplifying compliance for businesses operating across state lines while still providing comprehensive protection for all Americans. The hope is to learn from the successes and challenges of these prior regulations, creating a framework that’s both effective and adaptable.
10. Impact on Specific Industries: Who Feels It Most?

While the federal data privacy act has broad implications, certain industries are bracing for a more significant overhaul than others. Ad-tech companies, which thrive on collecting and analyzing vast quantities of user data to deliver targeted advertisements, will face immense pressure to re-evaluate their entire business model. The explicit consent mandate alone could drastically reduce the data available for personalized ad campaigns, potentially impacting revenue streams. (See: Privacy laws and regulations.)

Similarly, social media platforms, which often rely on user data to drive engagement and personalize feeds, will need to redesign their data collection processes and user interfaces to provide clearer consent options. E-commerce platforms will also need to be meticulous about how they collect and use browsing and purchasing history, ensuring they have affirmative consent for any data processing beyond what’s strictly necessary for a transaction. Healthcare and financial institutions, which already operate under strict privacy regulations (like HIPAA and GLBA), might find the transition less disruptive, but will still need to align their existing practices with the new federal standard, especially regarding data sharing with third parties. We covered understanding privacy policies in more detail.
11. The Role of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Enforcement and Guidance

A significant piece of any federal data privacy act is identifying the primary enforcement body. In the case of the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to play a central role. The FTC already has a mandate to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, which often includes data privacy violations. This new legislation would significantly expand their authority and resources in this area.

The FTC’s responsibilities would likely include developing detailed regulations and guidance to help businesses understand and comply with the act, investigating complaints, and levying penalties for non-compliance. This means the FTC will become a crucial player in shaping the practical application of the law, influencing how businesses interpret their obligations and how individuals can exercise their rights. Their approach to enforcement – whether aggressive or more conciliatory – will largely determine the true impact of the federal data privacy act on the digital economy.
12. Public Awareness and Education: Making Rights Real

A law, however robust, is only as effective as the public’s awareness and understanding of it. For the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 to truly empower individuals, there will need to be a substantial effort in public education. Many people are still unaware of the extent to which their data is collected and used, let alone their new rights under this federal data privacy act.

Government agencies, consumer advocacy groups, and even businesses themselves will have a role in informing the public. This could involve public service campaigns explaining the rights to access, correction, and deletion, clearer privacy notices from companies, and readily available resources for filing complaints or requesting data. Without this widespread understanding, the theoretical protections offered by the law might not translate into real-world change for the average internet user. The success of this federal data privacy act hinges not just on its passage, but on its practical adoption by both businesses and individuals.
What’s Next for the Federal Data Privacy Act?

With the House having passed the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026, the legislative journey isn’t over. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it will undoubtedly face further scrutiny, debate, and potential amendments. The discussions there will likely be just as fervent, if not more so, as various industry lobbies and advocacy groups intensify their efforts to influence the final text.

Even if it passes the Senate and is signed into law, the real work of implementation begins. Businesses will have a period to adapt, but the clock will be ticking. This means we’re likely to see a surge in demand for cybersecurity software, legal consulting services specializing in data privacy, and educational courses designed to help companies understand and comply with the new regulations. For you, the internet user, it means a potentially significant shift in how your online data is treated, offering a new era of digital autonomy.

The passage of this federal data privacy act is more than just a legislative milestone; it’s a cultural one. It signals a growing societal expectation that individuals should have genuine control over their digital lives, rather than being passive participants in a data economy. How this balance between individual rights and corporate interests ultimately plays out will shape the future of the internet as we know it.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Federal Data Privacy Act
Q1: What is the main goal of the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026?

The core objective of this federal data privacy act is to grant individuals greater control and transparency over their personal data collected by businesses online. It aims to shift power from companies to consumers regarding how data is used, shared, and stored, creating a more secure and accountable digital environment. (See: Impact of data privacy legislation.)
Q2: How is “personal data” defined under this act?

While the exact definition will be refined in the final text and subsequent regulations, “personal data” generally refers to any information that can directly or indirectly identify an individual. This includes names, addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, browsing history, purchasing habits, biometric data, and location data. It’s broadly encompassing to cover various forms of digital footprints.
Q3: Does this federal data privacy act replace state-level privacy laws like CCPA?

The intent of a federal data privacy act is often to create a single, uniform standard across the U.S. If passed as a comprehensive law, it would likely supersede many aspects of existing state-level privacy laws, aiming to reduce the patchwork of regulations businesses currently navigate. However, the final bill might allow states to enact stricter protections in certain areas, so the exact relationship will be crucial to watch.
Q4: What types of businesses are affected by the Consumer Data Protection Act?

The act is expected to apply to most businesses that collect, process, or share personal data of U.S. consumers, regardless of their physical location, if they meet certain thresholds (e.g., revenue, number of consumers whose data they process). This means tech companies, e-commerce sites, social media platforms, advertisers, and many other online service providers will need to comply. There might be exemptions for very small businesses, but the scope is intended to be broad.
Q5: What should I do if a company doesn’t comply with my data request (e.g., deletion)?

Under the new federal data privacy act, if a company fails to honor your data rights requests (like access, correction, or deletion) within a specified timeframe, you will likely have avenues for recourse. This could include filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or potentially pursuing private legal action, depending on the final provisions of the law. The act aims to provide clear mechanisms for individuals to enforce their rights.
Q6: Will this act make the internet less personalized or convenient?

This is a major point of debate. Critics argue that stricter consent requirements and data minimization could reduce the ability of companies to offer highly personalized services or targeted ads, potentially impacting user experience. However, advocates believe that while some personalization might change, services will still be able to innovate responsibly. The trade-off is often seen as a necessary one for greater privacy and control, allowing users to choose the level of personalization they’re comfortable with.
Q7: How long do companies have to comply once the act becomes law?

Typically, a major federal data privacy act like this includes a grace period for businesses to adapt their systems and practices. This period could range from 12 to 24 months after the effective date of the law. This transition time is crucial for companies to implement new technologies, train staff, update privacy policies, and ensure full compliance before penalties come into effect.
Q8: Does the act protect children’s data specifically?

While the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 provides general protections for all individuals, it’s highly probable that it will include enhanced protections for children’s data, building on existing laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This could mean stricter consent requirements for minors’ data, limitations on targeted advertising to children, and clearer deletion rights for data collected from underage users.

“`

Trending Now

This One Amino Acid Is Quietly…
more on this topic
the complete explanation
more on this topic
Unseen Threat: This Silent Killer Is Wrecking Fintech Security

The Consumer Data Protection Act of 2026 is a new federal legislation aimed at enhancing individual control over personal data. Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, it mandates explicit consent from individuals before companies can collect or share their data, marking a significant shift in data privacy standards.
How does the new federal data privacy act affect businesses?

The act imposes strict requirements on businesses regarding data collection and sharing, including obtaining clear consent from individuals. This could lead to increased compliance costs for companies, particularly in the tech and e-commerce sectors, and may impact their data management practices.
What are the key provisions of the Consumer Data Protection Act?

Key provisions include an explicit consent mandate, requiring companies to obtain affirmative consent from individuals before collecting their data. It also ensures ongoing consent for data sharing with third parties, fundamentally changing how businesses handle personal information.
Why are privacy advocates supporting this legislation?

Privacy advocates support the Consumer Data Protection Act because it empowers individuals with greater control over their personal data. They view it as a necessary step to protect individual rights in an era of extensive data tracking and monetization by corporations.
What are the potential impacts of the Consumer Data Protection Act on innovation?

While the act aims to protect consumer rights, some businesses warn that compliance costs may hinder innovation. They argue that the stringent data privacy requirements could create barriers for new technologies and services, potentially slowing down advancements in the tech industry.

What's your take on this? Share your thoughts in the comments below — we read every one.

Sometimes it just hits me how different my relationship with technology really is compared to others.

I've grown up in a family that valued privacy, and then my very first friend group from early on exclusively consisted of gay – later #trans – autistic furry hackers. I've never known a life of being careless about #technology and #privacy, and a DIY mentality wasn't counterculture, it was just the way #tech worked.

To me it had been completely normal that my phone would obviously have some #degoogled #LineageOS on it (or rather, #CyanogenMod back in the day). It was just part of the setup process. Same with some #Linux flavour everywhere.

Self-hosting services was just the way to get those services. I never had any cloud accounts anywhere. I had always been on my girlfriend's Nextcloud or e-mail infrastructure or whatever, later my own. I always self-hosted my game servers. My websites would never be on any random hoster.

This came with a bunch of habits and quirks I just accepted as part of the tech experience. I am used to not getting any notifications on mobile, for example. I always have cookies and site data disabled out of habit.

I don't buy smart devices that I haven't vetted and rather choose the 'dumb' version, i. e. an infrared remote instead of a bluetooth one. My first instinct when looking for software is to check the repos or the Arch Wiki/FSF Directory and such sites. I haven't used Google in forever.

All this isn't to brag or whatever at all, it's just to illustrate what my worldview is like and how I grew up. I'm not even super intense about all this; I still watch YouTube videos for example and I (have to) use some proprietary software, e. g. for work. I'm not RMS, yknow?

...

But imagine growing up like this, and now it's 2026 and you see someone use a phone. The sheer contrast??

I see people live a life where their most used app on their phone is now ChatGPT or Gemini or whatever. They use it more often than a search engine, they micromanage chats so it 'remembers' all of their emotions and thoughts. They ask for life advice, questions, make it write e-mails, everything.

They are on Whatsapp, Instagram, Snapchat, Tiktok and whatnot and actually use all of those features I've only ever heard of second hand, such as a "for you page".

They have YouTube accounts and actually are able to comment, like and subscribe – that's something that feels weird to even think about to me as someone resigned to passive use of such sites!

They have all the flashy features just available to them, like these live notifications, voice control, smart connectivity and whatnot that I accepted long ago I just "couldn't get".

It's such a different life to live, it's almost like a different culture.

🔌 Slate Auto's electric truck ships with no modem at all, and that's the privacy story.

The startup's $24,950 EV pickup has no built-in cellular connection, so the company physically can't track your location, remote-access the car, or pull data from it. A phone app handles settings and charging info, but it only works standing next to the truck, and Slate says app data is opt-in and never sold. Their words: "We collect data to make ownership better, not to turn the owner into the product."

The context matters. Mozilla's 2023 review called cars the worst product category it has ever reviewed for privacy, with 84% of brands sharing or selling driver data. The FTC banned GM from selling driver data in 2025 after OnStar collected location every 3 seconds. Meanwhile Ford published a patent application for in-car cameras that can read lips and facial expressions.

A policy can be rewritten next quarter, but hardware that doesn't exist can't be switched on. That's the durable part. One caveat from the EFF: the app data policy can still change as the company scales.

arstechnica.com/cars/2026/06/s…
mozillafoundation.org/en/priva…

#privacy #EV #cars

cross-posted from: lemmy.ca/post/68754751

There was a time I chose Firefox over the Chromium browser without a second thought. But nowadays, installing and opening Firefox seems like a time-consuming, very bloated experience.

Too many unnecessary features, promotions, sponsored links, and widgets are filled on the homepage. Firefox no longer allows deleting default search engines like google, perplexity, etc but can disable it. What kind of privacy feature is that? Also, all the data collection options are ticked by default. Users are needed to manually tweak it their own. Update after update instead of improving they make all the settings more complex, and there is a lot to set up after a fresh installation.

When I compare modern Firefox with 4–5 years behind Firefox, I feel like I am using browsers like Vivaldi or Opera instead of Firefox. Once we praised Firefox for its ram management in Linux but nowadays, it's bloat causes using more ram and not a lightweight option anymore. Seriously, Firefox must consider releasing a browser like Brave Origin (Firefox Origin or something).

Isn't anybody else frustrated with the new Firefox changes? If yes, what practical solutions exist? Debloat using any script or install any forks (no forks seem to be good; some are outdated, some are too much hardened, some are just not for daily browsing, etc.).

I'm just looking for a browser like Ungoogled Chromium but for Firefox (Unmozilla Firefox).

cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/50169738

All about the safety of the kids¹ they said,
All about the safety of users² they said,
All about the safety of the citizens³ they said,
All about the money, control & power⁴ they left unsaid.

¹ mastodon.social/@madeindex/116…
² arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/0…
³ mastodon.social/@madeindex/113…
⁴ gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-u…
mastodon.social/@madeindex/116…

Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta’s $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech - Gadget Review

Meta funneled $2B through nonprofit shells to push age verification laws targeting Apple and Google while exempting its own platforms from surveillance requirements.

^{C. da Costa (Gadget Review)}

MadeInDex 📰🌎

2026-07-21 19:01:46

However you look at it, #ageverification is a major change to the internet and our freedoms.

We've seen all kinds of legislation pushed through in the past, often even against major resistance.

What makes me suspicious this time is the speed at which some of the slowest bureaucracies in the world are adopting it and how it's happening in 20+ countries in parallel.

It's like they're all in a group chat, fast-tracking this before resistance can even form.

france24.com/en/france/2026072…

#Privacy #EU

'Major step forward': French lawmakers approve social media ban for children under 15

France's parliament on Tuesday approved a social media ban for children under 15. President Emmanuel Macron immediately hailed the "major step forward", saying in a video posted on social media that "France is leading the way in Europe when it comes …

^{FRANCE 24}