Opinion piece from The Hill on the American Data Privacy and Protections Act (ADPPA)
The American Data Privacy and Protections Act is being considered in Congress. Florida Action Committee wants to make sure that our members are aware of what it entails.
This bill would allow individuals (no excluded groups) to force companies to delete information about them.
As stated by Kevin Metcalf, opinion contributor for The Hill – 03/02/23, “The reality is that if enacted as currently drafted, the bill will hinder our ability to not only prevent human trafficking and track down child predators but…The primary issue with ADPPA is that it grants individuals the right to control and limit the use of their personal data, which may result in the removal of vital information from databases…This could impede investigations and make it easier for child predators and other criminals to go off the radar.”
Members of Congress say that this bill will not impede criminal investigations.
The same defense is being used by Metcalf that we always hear: If it saves just one child…… All of us want to save that one child, but what about the hundreds of thousands of people on the registry who are law-abiding citizens, who have never sexually reoffended and never will? Do their lives not matter?
With the intellectual abilities possessed by many people in this country along with the available data/research, there are ways to “save this one child” without punishing registrants who have already served their sentence. But we continue to be a country that ignores prevention that would reduce the number of victims, preferring to let the crime be committed so that our politicians can boast about the mass incarceration rates helping to “keep society safer.” Think about it. If we had a massive number of crimes that were prevented from ever occurring, would politicians still have the same level of bragging rights?
By not allowing registered citizens to be included in this bill, law enforcement would still not have the personal data for the 90+% who will be committing the FUTURE sex offenses. What does Metcalf not get?
Metcalf is a former federal agent who is now a prosecutor.
Contact information for those who would like to contact members of Congress about this bill:
Senator Marco Rubio
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
202-224-3041
Senator Rick Scott
502 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
202-224-5274
Go to congress.gov to fill out email forms for Senators Rubio and Scott. You can also locate your representative at this site along with their contact information.
Are we for or against this bill? I’m confused.
Well, that would be up to each individual FAC member to decide. Personally I feel that if others have the right under this bill to force companies to delete information about them, then all people should have that right as U. S. citizens.
Kevin Metcalf disagrees.
If this bill passes, do you want registered citizens to be excluded?
Does the bill carve out an exception for sex offender registrations? Or is the columnist just proposing to amend it that way?
for the bill, it would allow us to get our info removed from those 3rd party “vigilante” sites
Funny how lawmakers are not particularity interested in saving “just one child” in a schoolroom setting.
That proves right there how dishonest and manipulating the intentions of lawmakers are. They only care if it benefits them financially.
This right here. This should be the de facto go to response when anyone invokes that infamously lame argument. It’s nothing more than a base appeal to emotion, and it often works to cause most of the audience to lose all logical objectivity.
Barack Obama did explicitly tweet “If we save even one life from gun violence, it’s worth it.” That tweet still hasn’t been deleted.
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/304979538927046656
You got that right. The creation of “gun free zones” was the most stupid law ever passed. Do people really think criminals care about the consequences of carrying a gun into a gun free zone? Its basically advertising to criminals that the area they are entering cannot defend themselves. I’m all for allowing properly trained school officials to have guns in schools. It certainly would stop a threat much faster than waiting for the police to arrive. Don’t even get me started on how the cops responded to the Uvalde incident.
They only use ‘If it saves one child’ for the registry and never to stiffen fentanyl or opioid laws and never stiffen drunk driver laws. ‘If it saves one child’ should go across the board for ALL offenses that endanger children NOT just one type.
This proves that they evoke only one agenda for saving children and that’s the registry, because that’s the agenda they can get people to easily buy into.
As long as they can keep people focused on the registry why bother with anything else.
Not enacting useless legislation and diverting those funds into better abuse prevention education, post abuse counseling, etc. would save much more than “one child”. Think about it.
you know what the answer from congress should be to Kevin Metcalf? FIND ANOTHER WAY!!
simple as that!
I’ve always hated the phrase, “if it saves just one child.” Its like saying the lives of all the rest of the children do not matter and its ok to sacrifice them. How wrong is that? Its no different than this scenario: A group of terrorists storm an elementary school in some foreign country. That country’s government sends in a strike team to take out the terrorists. They storm the building and gunfire erupts and the strike team fires back wildly. When the smoke clears, all the terrorists are dead, but in the process, 499 of the 500 child hostages are also dead. The government goes on live TV praising itself for a job well done and says, “at least we saved just one child.”
How ignorant is that statement now?
Yes, “if it saves one child” is such an out-of-touch, tone-deaf statement. Same goes for the response to Uvalde made by the Texas governor: “it could have been worse.”
E.g. : “The world is ending, but hey! It could have been the whole Universe!”
It’s lazy and low-effort placating. It works because most voters that are activated by sentimental jingles tend to have zero emotional intelligence.