The New York Times - 19.09.2019

THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 NY F7

New revelations seem to emerge every

month or so about privacy violations by

the internet’s biggest platforms. With

concerns over online privacy increasing,

United States regulators and lawmakers

are scrambling to create laws and regula-

tions to protect internet users.

The result so far has amounted to a

fractured and often dizzying regulatory

landscape for businesses trying to navi-

gate the limits of their ability to collect,

share and protect user data.

It has been a striking turn of events for

Silicon Valley, which Democrats and Re-

publicans had for years sought to bolster

by limiting laws that could curb the

growth of America’s brightest engine of

economic growth. But with Europe’s im-

plementation last year of a privacy law

known as the General Data Protection

Regulation and issues like Facebook’s

mishandling of data harvested by the

political consulting firm Cambridge Ana-

lytica, the question for lawmakers is not

whether to regulate, but how forcefully.

Members of Congress have promised a

new comprehensive federal privacy law to

keep in step with Europe’s groundbreak-

ing law. There are even state and federal

proposals to put a price on the value of

personal data, and internet companies

would have to pay users in order to profit

from their information. CECILIA KANG

Recommendations

PASS A COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL LAWThe

law would pre-empt (or nullify) one in

California that is about to go into place,

because the existence of state and federal

laws creates a confusing regulatory land-

scape. This federal law must create base-

line standards on the kind of data col-

lection companies can pursue.

BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS A

federal law should include greater enforce-

ment abilities on the federal level, specifi-

cally at the Federal Trade Commission.

The F.T.C. should be given more resources

with a bigger budget from Congress, as

well as rule-making authority. States

should still be able to enforce a federal law.

Disputes

One member, Gabriel Weinberg, the

founder and chief executive of Duck-

DuckGo, proposed a law called Do Not

Track that would enable consumers to limit

data tracking, giving them more control

over their data and also solving a problem

with competition in the tech industry,

where Google and Facebook command the

online advertising industry. Several mem-

bers disagreed with Mr. Weinberg’s pro-

posal because they said it was too narrow

and could defeat the broader goal of a

comprehensive federal law.

TASK FORCEModerator:Cecilia Kang, national technology correspondent, The New York Times. Participants:Michael

Beckerman, president and chief executive, Internet Association; Patrick Berlinquette, search engine marketer, Berlin

SEM; Lindsey Finch, executive vice president, global privacy & product legal and chief privacy officer, Salesforce; Joan

Khoury, chief marketing officer, Oppenheimer & Company; Nicola McCormick, general counsel, GroupM Worldwide; Laura

Pirri, senior director, legal — privacy, product & regulatory, Fitbit; Kalinda Raina, head of global privacy, LinkedIn; Jessica

Rich, former director Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission; Julian Sanchez, senior fellow, Cato

Institute; Susan Shook, global privacy officer, director — associate general counsel, The Procter & Gamble Company;

Gabriel Weinberg, founder and chief executive, DuckDuckGo.

Data and Privacy

Cannabis legalization in the United
States and Canada was promoted as a
radical social experiment that would
tame the illegal trade and usher in a new
era of responsible drug use.
However, the results have been mixed.
Hundreds of illegal dispensaries in
California continue to proliferate, and
the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom,
recently ordered National Guard troops
near the Mexican border to go after
black market cannabis farms. And pot
regulations have been unevenly applied.
While major cities like Los Angeles and
San Francisco host cannabis retailers, 80
percent of California’s nearly 500 mu-
nicipalities do not.
In Canada, it has been nearly a year
since the country became the first major
world economy to legalize recreational
cannabis — a seminal moment akin to
ending Prohibition in the United States.
Yet a black market that has previously

been estimated at 5.3 billion Canadian

dollars continues to thrive, and legal sales

are far below what proponents of legaliza-

tion had hoped for.

Six months after Canada legalized pot

for recreational use, more than 40 percent

of Canadian cannabis users said they

bought it from illegal sources, according

to a recent report from Canada’s national

statistics office. Proponents of legalization

argue that it is far too early to pass judg-

ment; it took several years for legal sales

in Colorado to surpass 70 percent, for

example. DAN BILEFSKY

Recommendations

BETTER EDUCATION ABOUT RISKSAmid the

notion that legalization has not been met

by adequate education about risks of use,

the industry should be required to fund a

campaign to educate people on the risks

of cannabis, but not be involved in writing

the literature. Education should have a

strong focus on youth to try and delay the

onset of teen use.

CONNECT BANKS WITH LEGAL DISTRIBUTORS

Pass the Safe Banking Act, which would

destigmatize financial relations between

banks and businesses that might have an

ancillary relationship with cannabis com-

panies.

Normalizing banking industry relations

with cannabis companies, growers and

retailers will help bring businesses out of

the illicit market.

Disputes

Some members of the panel did not agree

that cannabis should be legal, given its

illegality at the federal level. While most

people agreed with the necessity of some

amnesty, as the criminal justice system

disproportionately affects people from

marginalized communities, there was little

agreement on what decriminalization

should look like.

Drug Policy

TASK FORCEModerator:Dan Bilefsky, Canada correspondent, The New York Times. Participants:Alex Berenson, author of “Tell Your Children”; Hilary Black, chief advocacy officer, Canopy Growth Corporation; David Damschen, state treasurer, Utah; Kassandra Frederique, New York
State director, Drug Policy Alliance; Sion Harris, director of Center for Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Research, Boston Children’s Hospital; Steve Hawkins, executive director, Marijuana Policy Project; Rob Nichols, president and chief executive, American Bankers Association;
Emily Paxhia, co-founder and managing director, Poseidon; Michelle Peace, associate professor department of forensic science, Virginia Commonwealth University; Kevin Sabet, president, SAM; Steve White, chief executive, Harvest Health & Recreation; Hope Wiseman, chief execu-
tive, Mary and Main.

Americans owe nearly $1.6 trillion on stu-
dent loans. The debt has tripled in less
than 15 years and eclipsed the amount due
on credit cards, auto loans and all con-
sumer debts outside of mortgages. For a
generation of students — and, in many
families, their parents — the cost of college
has become a crisis. One in four adult
Americans has student loan debt; the
typical borrower owes more than $20,000.
The federal government is the primary
lender for those who borrow for college,
and the Education Department has effec-
tively become one of the nation’s biggest
banks. It directly holds more than $1.2
trillion in loans owed by 34 million people.
There are signs that the burden is
weighing on the broader economy. Home-
ownership rates among those under 32
dropped significantly over the last decade,
which is partly attributable to their student
loan debts, Federal Reserve researchers
said in a recent report. The increase in
debt has also hindered small business
formation, reduced young adults’ retire-
ment savings and contributed to lower
marriage rates, economists have found.
The issue has become a signature policy
point for some 2020 presidential hopefuls.
STACY COWLEY

Recommendations

EXPAND TARGETED DEBT RELIEFMost pan-
elists agreed that some portion of the $1.6
trillion owed on student loans needed to be

written off. The government’s current

income-based repayment plans on federal

student loans (which can culminate in debt

forgiveness) should be improved and may

also need to be paired with outright debt

elimination for some borrowers.

EXPAND FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION; ASK MORE

OF STATES AND BUSINESSESStudents are

guaranteed a free education from kinder-

garten through high school, but that educa-

tion is no longer sufficient for many jobs.

Offering free higher education — as more

than a dozen states have done, to varying

degrees — can keep students out of debt

and improve the nation’s work force. But

successful outcomes require a sustained

and nuanced commitment from states and,

ideally, from employers, too.

Disputes

The panel broadly agreed that student

lending should be restructured to make the

amount students repay for higher educa-

tion more contingent on their post-college

income. But there was strong disagree-

ment about whether the approach should

focus on improved income-based repay-

ment options or should shift to income-

share agreements, in which students agree

to pay a portion of their future income to a

financier in exchange for an education.

Some panel participants said they wanted

the federal government to exit student

lending entirely.

Student Debt

TASK FORCEModerator:Rebecca Blumenstein, deputy managing editor, The New York Times. Participants:Mary
Clare, policy analyst, The Heritage Foundation; Sheila Bair, director, Volcker Alliance; Sandy Baum, nonresident fellow,
Urban Institute; Rachel Carlson, chief executive and co-founder, Guild Education; Seth Frotman, executive director,
Student Borrower Protection Center; Ashley Harrington, senior policy counsel, Center for Responsible Lending; Drew
Holler, senior vice president of associate experience, Walmart; Farnam Jahanian, president, Carnegie Mellon University;
Geoff Lewis, founder and managing partner, Bedrock; Yvette Mozie-Ross, vice provost for enrollment management and
planning, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Gov. Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island; James Runcie, president and
executive director, The Education Finance Institute; Mark Schlissel, president, University of Michigan; Benjamin
Wiseman, director, office of consumer protection, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia; Daniel
Zibel, vice president and chief counsel, National Student Legal Defense Network.