The issue at hand is not that manufacturers are lying or misrepresenting their product, it is a lie by omission by not informing consumers that they are being filmed and recorded without consent.
a fringe or stove or a vacuum cleaner does not need a camera or Microphone to work. It does not even need to connect to the internet. Its ez Vote with your cash and do not Buy these things !
How about just passing a comprehensive right to privacy rights bill? Make it illegal for them to even collect information from your phone or from things in your home.
Collecting information is a soft way to say it. They have videos and recordings of your private life. The appliance companies have been doing it for years! It's absolutely insane. Your right, the law needs to make it illegal. Anything less is treason against the people that pay their salaries! We need to get tougher on these politico's!
@@Phloored Or do like Rand Paul said. Stop buying these devices with camera's and recording devices. If you feel like you're left with out options, remove/render inert recording and video devices. If I own something with a camera or recording device in it, I simply assume it's spying on me and fix it so it's unable to do so.
Most people don't read the fine print. That fine print waves your right to privacy and gives companies permission to make, keep, and sell your information. If you do read the fine print and say no to the collecting, maintaining, and selling of your data, most of these "smart" devices won't work properly... reference just about any app on your phone. They all require permissions for your camera, microphone, gallery, contacts, and half a dozen other things, or they don't work, making your smart phone an 8oz paper weight...
I believe it is but in this case it doesn’t apply because the information (knowledge) comes with the purchasing of the product. Any lack of knowledge would stem from a consumer’s failure to read about the product before, or after, they purchase it. Cruz wants to make those details more apparent than they tend to be.
Yea, i mean can i as private person put cameras and mics on people's home? Or if not breaking and entering is allowed, at least put camera on their window?
@@neopaboit’s real easy… don’t buy it. Do you really need legislation telling you not to buy something if you don’t trust the company selling it. Seems like Ted isn’t so small government after all.
maybe what he says is good. But what you need to know is how this corrupt biden admin will implement. What is needed is they MUST use a specific port. That way the consumer can block that port on their firewall so it can't tell anyone what it saw.
This is the first time I disagree with Rand Paul. I think terms and agreements are great for consumers. I don't want my appliances or my phone listening to me.
Debate is fine! People have no means to investigate all the technical details associated with this subject, or with any subject for that matter. This is why we elect senators, and give them $$$ and resources to manage wisely and extract the truth. We should avoid hastily criticizing Rand Paul until we know his real reasons.
I, like you, who is probably very pro-privacy and pro-small govt, being we both like Rand Paul. I Agree with Rand. My argument would be, don't buy a smart fridge or a smart thermostat. Limitations put on by govt, although often with good intentions, always snowball into something we don't want. Just my thoughts. "plus" any added regulation on any industry with automatically add cost to the product.
according rand paul, it's up to the consumers to figure out. by the same token, it's up to the consumer to figure out what the nutrition values are on the food they buy. rand paul has lost his mind. he is without a doubt corrupt
Because it would be redundant and unnecessary. Smart appliances and devices spy on us. We know this. The bill would cost a bunch of money to force companies to tell us something we already know,
We don't need daddy government protecting consumers. We need consumers to start protecting themselves. The government wants to keep their monopoly on surveillance.
@@kinskixii3943if the consumer isn’t informed, how will they protect themselves? Take apart every appliance they buy and look for hidden microphones and cameras? Even so the manufacturer wouldn’t face any penalty for spying on you without your consent under the current laws. That’s why Cruz was proposing this one.
@@kinskixii3943 The bigger question is why are companies even installing these to begin with. My only thought is its not for any of the ideas they are spewing but someone at a FBI or CIA field office telling them to do so.
Not an assumption and quite a few have it in the small print Americans are unwilling to read, kinda of like a student loan contract. They glean data for both marketing and to provides updates.
Totally less invasive than having direct sound and visual data though. And at least yes you know if it connects online then its granted whatever data it can collect will be sent away somewhere but what about hidden microphones and cameras that arent clearly disclosed?
Forcing companies to disclose this will help nothing. Do you read all of your user agreements? RAND PAUL is the embodiment of freedom and represents the REPUBLIC well. We can't legislate our way to freedom! Legislative freedom isn't freedom Mr. Cruz.
@@ahumanbeing6875 no one reads the criminal code either but we all are aware that we have to follow the laws. Should we get rid of the criminal code just because people don't read it? This isn't about removing any freedoms. It's about protecting them from foreign companies who may want to take and use our information for profit when we don't want them to or even when we aren't aware of it. And the idea isn't to just make companies add something to their user aggrements, your missing the entire point of the legislation. The point is to deter bad companies from doing things that go against our privacy. If the legislation passes then those companies are not going to want to write that into their user aggrements thus they would be deterred from adding any unnecessary tech that can invade people's privacy in their own homes.
Bank of America recently gave the FBI thousands of customers' financial information, not because they were suspected of a crime like money laundering, but because they made a legal purchase at a federally licensed business. Not because the FBI presented a warrant, but just because the FBI asked. Privacy, especially from unreasonable search is gone.
You think that’s bad? Just do research on the number of (?former?) federal agents (CIA, FBI, NATO) that work at Facebook, Twitter, and Tiktok in managerial positions. The amount would shock you. Logically, what job qualifications would working for the CIA give you to work at a social media company that shows videos on cats, makeup, and dancing? So ask yourself, why are they there? Why were they hired?
Agreed, same here in Canada too, but for our courts perspective, unreasonable search and seizure only applies when the data sought is used for a criminal investigation. Any civil matter is fair game.
Leaving out the critical information is a little bit disingenuous. The information was on individuals who purchased firearms. That being said, how about states trying to get your physician's records to even see if you had an abortion out of state. Which is federally legal, and the physicians typically need to have legal prescription rights for any controlled substances (Which most doctors do, there are a lot of controlled substances routinely prescribed out to schedule 5, which bluntly in most cases shouldn't be subject to DEA control). How about not tracking just have you made a $10,000 deposit, but have you made a series of deposits less than $10,000 since you are trying to circumvent the law. Unless you happen to have a successful small business, and your daily cash deposit is typically between let's say between $6,000 and $8,000. How about going after users of cannabis? The list goes on and on. What people on both the left and right don't understand is once you give the government the ability to nose around in someone's affairs, if it's something you disapprove of - The next time the other side gets into government, they now have those same tools to go after what they disapprove of. Which may include you. I happen to agree that them turning over that information is wrong. We should have strong privacy protections keeping businesses from sharing our personal information without notification. Financial and otherwise. But that means you need to support strong privacy protections for EVERYONE - firearm owners, cell phone owners (geofencing requests), medical treatment (HIPPA only applies to health care providers), search engine requests, etc.
@@snex000f a water company decided to put a certain amount of arsenic in their water should the company be required to tell people it has arsenic in it? Or should that just be on the consumer to test every bottle before they drink it if they don’t want to ingest the poison?
For every atom of freedom and privacy you have lost to 'smart' appliances -- the government (particularly republicans AND most particularly people people like Crus and Ronda Sanctimonius have taken TEN TIMES AS MUCH
I mean, apples and oranges are similar in shape I guess. Nobody is forcing you to have a cell phone contract. Noone should force manufacturers to adhere to the practices that "might" prevent devious 3rd party activity, you know the agreement you sign when you trade money for the service. More government in this case is just a friendly awareness campaign, where Rupublicans can discuss and vote on propositions.
@@Sanyu-TumusiimePaul is wrong. There is no free market anymore. Not since it's been proven that government is colluding with big tech to censor Americans. What if you need a camera in your house for security reasons, but no product on the market allows you to keep your privacy? Paul is naive on this one.
This discussion makes my think of all the iPhone updates that we get and how nobody could possibly read all their disclaimers and legalize. Companies could get 99.99% of the population to accidentally agree to become indentured servants by putting it in the small print. I’d rather they be forced to make their intentions to spy on me to be prominently displayed on the box.
and how does that help the consumer when EVERY box has the disclaimer on it? Now I could go with a notice, this device talks on port 1666, then the consumer could just block that port on their firewall. But a bill that says you MUST agree to it if you want to buy it is worthless when ALL of them will have it.
@@robertsmith2956 The issue is that some people DO actually read the small print. And they tell others about it. And some products would *not* spy on people, and that would become known, and that product would *sell better.* Then other companies would be *more likely* to make products that don't spy on people.
Forbes, straight forward and revealing. And not compromised... yet. Keep up the good work reporting for "we the people". And not for the highest bidder...
Any product in a persons home that is capable of watching you, recording you or in any way able to track you and in some way spy on you without you knowing it and you not being able to shut it down, should be illegal.
The o es who you speak to it and itdoes what you want. You can ask it questions. It listens to you all the time. It can watch you also. They say don't put it in your bedroom or your children!!!
OMFG - I have virtually never supported Ted Cruz, but in this case I've got to. Just for Rand Paul's staffers, I'm in Kentucky and I voted for him in his first primary against Mitch McConnell's selected candidate. Rand is making me regret this.
I am a die hard, registered, card carrying libertarian. And I absolutely agree with senator Cruz 100 percent. I think everyone in this country should have it be known to them, if they buy an appliance for their home that's capable of recording, or taking videos of them without their consent. That seems like a no brainer to me!
It seems like a no brainer, but what these devious politicians do is adding other stuff in the bill, that on their own merit would never pass. That's often what brings someone to block a bill, not for what it appears to propose on the face, but what it tries to pass without people knowing.
@@SisyphusOfSodomyeah, I was wondering what is the other side of this coin? It really seems we have no basis of trust for almost anyone. Why would Rand Paul not reveal it though? An example would have been helpful.
You dropped the ball on this Rand Paul. One of the PROPER functions of governmental regulation is to make manufacturers be TRUTHFUL THROUGH TRANSPARENCY. I don't want to have to go digging all over to find out my fridge has a microphone. They should be obligated to tell that information up front and center.
Bull crap it Google and the rest. But all the idis let it happen. They will buy beer just to throw it away but put their foot down on listening and recording products. Oh well
Bingo, there is a reason our budget filters through so many agencies. It's government money laundering. We are not free and have not been for some time. The illusion is potent...
I am with Ted Cruz. Considering how many DBI, DHS, CIA,etc go work at companies, we definitely need better laws to protect consumers. Shame on Rand Paul.
I'm with Cruz as well. I'm from Maryland, but have emailed Paul's office in the past thanking him for the work he has done, not just for his constituents, but for all of us. I respect him a lot, but I'm shocked at him on this one.
@@defendfreespeechdid no one listen to Rands response? Your the second one ive read where it sounds like you didnt. Rand clearly states why he objected. He wants the government to stay out of the free market. While I agree with a free market, the government's role of protecting the people should not be an issue. I see nothing wrong with making such technologies that can be used to spy on us consumers to be clearly disclosed for us to better make our own choices without later consequences of realizing a TV has a hidden microphone and camera in it the entire time without prior knowledge. As a libertarian myself. I agree to an extent with Rand but on this bill particularly, he got it wrong.
@@rotaryenginepete It’s not quite as simple as that, on every device. Your tv, is sitting there, waiting for you to pick up the remote and tell it to “turn on”? Isn’t it already on, since you tell it remotely, to come on? If it’s an instant on piece of electronics, chances are high, that it’s on already, it just isn’t powering the screen. To turn your phone completely off, you need to pull the battery. Well that isn’t easy on most of them.
rand overestimates the "sophistication" of the average person ring cam users didnt think their information was being collect, the average person doesnt even think alexa is spying on them when it obviously records their voice and despite all the stories about it calling police on people
but i don't think adding a label on it will solve that either. i worked at a retail store and the amount of times people would come up to me trying to get me to open the bathroom even though there was a huge sign indicating it was closed was astounding.
I TOTALLY agree with Senator Cruz on this (provided there's nothing shady & counter IN the bill - as is often the case). This is a no-brainer. What in the world is Senator Paul doing? Did he take Big Money on this?! 😧 🤦🏻♀️ ☹️ 🥺 We no longer seem to even agree about the most basic things.
@@selwynjacobs When you have one or two companies that stop making any product that does NOT spy on you,,, what are you supposed to do? Your comment would have been accurate in 1890 but not today. Our biggest danger is mega corporations,
I agree with Senator Cruz. The burden of putting a warning on packaging is minimal and serves the interest of the American people in allowing them to make informed decisions. The role of government in a free market economy is small, but it is to protect the people from predatory practices such as the espionage-esque behavior by big businesses recording, video taping, and taking pictures of people within their homes where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that Senator Paul as a libertarian is against a regulation that would protect individual liberty, which is the basis of libertarian policy, speaks volumes to the fact that he is more contrarian than truly libertarian. Mr Paul is so concerned about big government, but is giving power to big business that they would gladly sell to the government if asked to do so. I hope the people of Kentucky watch this and see Senator Paul objecting to individual liberty in the name of big business.
Did you read it? Politicians tell us that a piece of legislature will do something and always end up doing the contrary. If he was honest he will abolish FISA, the Patriot Act, the abuses from ATF, IRS, and all alphabet agencies. I have the option of not using smart appliances but cannot avoid the overreach of government.
@@mindyourbusiness4101 just out of curiosity since you’re acting like you have read it. Have you read it? I haven’t yet so I’m genuinely curious, what else is in this bill that you seem to be alluding to? Or is your comment more of a generalization without being directly relevant to this bill? If the latter, then you should clarify that.
@@richardchristensen4116 No. That is why I cannot agree or disagree with a project. But from previous experience at least I know for sure that politicians put a name on a project that makes it hard to vote against it. Like the patriot act, Affordable Care Act just to name two. The first erases our rights the second makes healthcare more expensive. Also remember Nancy's famous words of we have to vote to learn what's on the project. But you go ahead and keep trusting them.
Someone needs to tell Paul, American consumers will always make the right call if they know all the facts. Problem is no one tells them they are being spied on!
I work with AI & the gathering methods used to feed it. I tell people all the time just how bad it is for what's gathered about you. Every person says something along the lines of "Oh my gosh that's horrible!" then continues to use their smart devices, because they don't want to sacrifice the functionality. The functionality is the payoff of the listening, I can't answer which we should have. I have my own private cloud at my home, and block virtually everything that I don't know exactly what it's doing from coming into or leaving my network to give you an idea where I fall in this spectrum :)
@@ImaITman That is awesome but very few know how to do that. It really doesn't matter if people are told they will be spied on if they deem the product will help them. Look at Alexa products everyone knows they "spy" on you but people are still buying them. I don't think Cruz has followed his bill down the rabbit hole enough, and Rand has and thats why he is objecting. Great lets demand a company add in super small text that no one will read that it will collect your data or could. What is that going to solve but add expense to that or future products. Or give it another few months or years and then leaves the door open to now use this and demand a company add another label for someone else's pet project. Cruz should also know that you get a group of Libertarians together and each one will have a different idea on it. Ask them and each one will say they are the Libertarian and the others are not.
@@ImaITman True, but if they know before they buy the product, their less likely to make that sacrifice of privacy. In essence, buying the product and using it makes one attached to it, and less likely to part with it. Then again, there are a lot of people out there who don't think about the implications of such things
@@notthebeastinus2786 You make a great point about the upfront before money has exchanged hands. I'm a GDPR guy, I hate knowing that I've worked for companies and have pulled data that was never meant to see the light of day simply because it was on a company device. I love what GDPR has done for the tech industry and want to see us lean more heavily into it. The company I work for now has removed the ability for anyone to pull data in that way. They see the truth that not being transparent causes more harm than any good you might have from a business risk perspective.
It's your job to research products. You don't need all this smart shit. Don't buy things you can talk to. Don't buy things with cameras. Don't buy things with Bluetooth. It's pretty simple. Problem is people are legit idiots and want big govt to hold their hand.
It's more libertarian grandstanding and ideology pontification. He rarely authors any real world policy that passes and takes pride like his father in voting "no" for stupid ideological stances and I was and still am a huge fan of Ron Paul, I like his ideology on many issues but real world application has to apply. If we are laissez-faire about all these issues because "er, Libertarianism" then there's no stopping the progressive left. You can't fight dirty tricks, attacking the thread of Americanism like gender and the family and expect to win. In the Paul's world, we should allow evil to do evil using evil tactics while they sit around debating morality and constitutionality on the smallest of details. I agree, following the constitution is paramount but the other side is completely ignoring it so how does the right win a rigged game? By passing no policy unless it's perfect or so watered down it does nothing?
It was like that with his dad: I agreed with his premises but not with his conclusions. Ron Paul would say things like that the CIA shouldn’t be overthrowing foreign governments. I can agree with that. But his conclusion was that the entire CIA should be dissolved. 🤦♂️
Well, he is just against any government involvement. I doubt he's on the take. They cancelled him social media for being honest about the "cold" you can't talk about. He told people to stop listening to the "c 0 0 m i e s".
I’m usually a fan of Rand Paul, but not here. Why on earth would he block this law that allows us to know what equipment we have that spies on us. Am I hearing a RINO now?
Because you don't need a law to know that. All smart devices are capable of spying on you, it's part of their function. The law would let large corporations spy on you even further since "you agreed to the terms" and only harm smaller manufacturers with basic smart products.
If you use a smart phone, if you have any device that uses wi-fi, or just by logging onto the internet you have ceded any expectation of privacy. Senator Paul is right, we don't need another feel good law. We need protection from the very agencies and bureaucracy the constitution was written to shield us from.
Wow. This bill is already so weak as to be nearly meaningless, and yet it is opposed? Companies would simply add carefully crafted language to their terms of service and continue on their merry way. What is worse, and nearly never talked about, is that said data, once collected, belongs to these companies, or whatever data aggregators they sell it to.
Exactly what I thought. It makes me wonder if he's just doing this to undermine Cruz. Could be that he has legit reason to despise/suspect Cruz and knows the bill is pointless so why give him a nominal victory.
Sen. Rand Paul: "The assumption that the consumers aren't sophisticated enough..." They had to put warnings on Tide Pods not to drink/eat them. They're even having to put warning labels on liquid hand soaps and bleach saying "Not for drinking!". Paul really overestimates the masses.
Well, if I remember correctly, people were voluntarily eating tide pods, despite their danger, or precisely because they were dangerous. And weren't there already warning labels before those trends took place? Warning labels aren't gonna stop those people.. Anymore than drug laws are going to stop people from doing drugs. What will happen is that it will impose costs on millions of people in the false hope that it saves a few people from their foolishness.
@@dainschneck I agree in general, but if they tell us not to eat Tide pods because we are dumb enough to try, they should be able to tell us our electronics spy on us. Tide eaters are not necessary up on the ole watercolor discussions about how our phone sends us adverts because it saw us near a product.
@@rickysrighteyebrow8167Because what if you are okay with them spying on you? That would violate your liberty for government to ban it. That's between you and the manufacturer.
I'm 37, I watched jetsons a ton as a kid/teen. As far as this bill/objection go we need to break everything down because a bill is never strictly about one thing, it's multiple, and that's what's wrong with bills in general. I like both of these people so something isn't being fully disclosed.
Bills have the ability to be solely about one topic - there are people in congress that lump everything together to try to weasel shit in which is where a lot of the gripes come in. If congress members would only put one topic in a bill there would be the possibility of a lot more being done in government, but that won't happen.
I agree with Sen. Cruz on the premise that social media has shown us “trojan horse” products: products and services consumers purchase or interact with under the false pretense of “what you see is what you get”. When consumer products are sold to a user, who then becomes a product for the original producer to sell to third parties, in the form of meta data, the consumer is misled and an un-willful commodity in a transaction they did not intend to partake in.
I agree with Rand. We don't need more government regulations. These devices aren't allowed to spy on people as it is. Amazon recently got sued and lost millions because their doorbell cams were doing it.
@@josephkostinko739 Less regulation can easily lead to tyranny of a different sort. There's not just one type of tyranny -- it's not just government, there's corporate tyranny as well. Keeping private businesses in check and ensuring they do not secretly exploit consumers is to the benefit of the common man.
Privacy within ones living quarters should be an absolute and should be the bottom line and in no way should it be a question of the merchants or of the consumer's needs but that of the right to the people to be secure in one's own home or living quarters and in life in general as to function without harassment and as far as the merchants or governments needs to track cell phones or any phones info should be out of the question with out a warrant what's going on is a monopoly on Rights we've been played by clever merchants and politicians with an agenda to capitalize there's more to Life then consumerism and fear mongering who wants there life dictated by a unknown 3rd or forth party or even an entity telling you it's in our best interest its beyond shameful our for father's would be ashamed as we should be
I hope it is not because a lot of products would suddenly be unable to sell as they are....or that people would have a choice. Honestly I can't figure out why myself!
I think it is a very necessary piece of legislation because we know people who declare that we are conspiracy theorists for stating that our cellphones are recording us even when they're turned off. We really need our government to insert itself into this mess. We don't need this monitoring and will be unfairly punished if we don't do everything Big Brother government tells us to just as the Chinese people are. It's all being recorded and we're seldom mindful enough.
Well, if he doesn't believe it will help, and he is against taxation without justification then it makes sense. I haven't read the bill, have you? Will it really accomplish anything? Will it do anything that people can't do for themselves? People need to become more tech savvy, there's not enough tax money to protect us from tech boogeymen, its just absurd to keep paying the government to fail.
Long time Libertarian here, someone who voted for Rand's father at one point. I have great respect for both of these men, and I've got respect for their opinions. After listening to both of them, I'm with Sen. Cruz on this one. I believe I have a right to know what I'm getting when I buy something. I'm also a computer programmer. I'd like to add that I know just how this technology can be concealed.
yeah, i'm with you... i dont know why there are so many libertarians who die on the hill of abstract ideals when the bigger picture is clearly going in a direction against the same ideal. Its like a lot of libertarians on the boarder issue... yes, ideally an open boarder would be the solution, but all the issues around that boarder have to be in ideal situations also before it can work properly. I don't trust these corporate conglomerates any more than i trust the federal government.... with all this ESG/DEI stuff going on, this kind of technology essentially feeds the same fascistic beast.
@@Robby_C I'm not in favor of open borders in the way that leftists are. I have two friends who are literal wetbacks. I have cautioned both about being open about this... as the tide can turn against them. Both are hard working. Every hard-working person in the country makes me wealthier. I suppose maybe in fractions of a penny individually, but it adds up. The open border policy of the left is to let in criminals, people who suck from the welfare teat and vote the leftists into power (presumably... not sure how it's guaranteed). Ah, well, not sure where to take this discussion. I'm not fully a Rothbard or Rand style Libertarian. My heroes are more Bastiat, von Mises, Thomas Sowell, Orwell, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman. My son once commented to my bro-in-law that "my dad is a little Libertarian." My bro-in-law was my college roommate and best friend. His response was "your dad is a LOT Libertarian." But I'll be the first to admit that truth isn't owned by a single ideology. The best Libertarian is one who still examines Libertarian thinking. The biggest issue with modern leftists is that there is NO self-awareness or self-examination: there is just the motion of force. I went to post this and UA-cam's algorithm tested me and asked if I was being respectful of you. I don't wear a hat, but if I did, I would take it off and thank you for a thoughtful comment for which I hope I replied thoughtfully. If this was MSN, I suspect my comment would be banned if I said that I like kittens. LOL
People need to be careful about smart home items. I know of somebody that just for fun hacked into his friends house and was able to turn on and off the lights, control the temperature of the house and other smart items in his friends home. Suffice it to say the guy got rid of all the smart items in his home. He was glad his friend hacked into his house to learn smart is not really smart
I'm with Cruz all the way on this one. We older citizens are NOT always as tech savvy nor suspicious of our appliances! Therefore the thought of being surreptitiously recorded by ANY device let alone a refrigerator, isn't something I would necessarily think to ask an associate, when buying appliances! For Sen Paul, a self described Constitutionalist, to go against this bill says a lot! The cracks are really showing in the Republican party and they better get it together before 2024!!!
They already tell you in the user agreement they will collect and sell your data. This bill is a waste of time it doesn’t prevent them from spying on you. This bill would only make companies put a sticker on the front of the item saying what’s already said in the user agreement.
@@TheCulturalCompass but do we need papa government to protect us from it? Are you not an adult capable of making your own buying decisions and doing your own research?
@@ThoughtCrimes420 exactly. If you have a smart device, you're being spied on. You either don't care and buy it anyway or you do care and don't buy it. We don't need government intervention on this.
Wow, this is freaky scary. What kind of country are we living in? How did we get so far off. Thank you Senator Cruz for educating me, and the many people who are watching this.
iRobot Roomba (now owned by Amazon) was caught taking pictures of people on the toilet, and then of course one of the human AI engineers that was reviewing footage posted photos of a woman from this footage on the internet.
If Rand Paul is blocking it. Then somewhere in this bill. Its doing more harm than help. On the surface I completely agree with what Cruz is wanting. I dont like spyware appliances. But if by changing this law limits the amount of products we can choose from. I do not support it. I rather there be as much competition in the market as possible.
It's not futuristic, the Communist Chinese have been using spy technology in everything for over a decade. Try informing yourself by looking for this information on the internet. There are many websites disclosing the spy technology. They have found it in baby monitoring devices made in China and things you would never expect. Check it out.
How about these licenses plate cameras that are popping up everywhere here in Houston? I looked up SB78 and from what I read this bill was shot down but cities just install these cameras regardless on the leg of safety? Years ago we had cameras at the traffic lights for traffic red light runners and those we removed. So how are these being legally installed? I need answers
My gosh! I can't believe it's Rand Paul. This is the first time I've heard him talk nonsense. Hope he wakes up; otherwise, he might be labeled at Brand Paul. :(
Rand is for SMALL government.... not government have their hands on every single thing in existence!!! Freedom of choice!! If you have no choice there is no freedom!
This is freaking insane I want to KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE A INFRINGEMENT ON OUR PRIVACY !!!!! AGAIN WHAT IS THE FREAKING REASON !!!!!!!
How about just not recording anyone in any form with devices they don’t know about and then we wouldn’t need a bill telling people they are doing it. 🤷🏽♂️
The point should be whether the investigation is "reasonable", because otherwise it is a violation of the Constitution's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure". The courts have long established that law enforcement agencies have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being committed or contemplated before engaging in an investigation. Far too often recently we see law enforcement agencies blowing right past that.
There is something very suspicious about this Rand Paul . Why would anyone in their right mind not care if they are being videotape or listen to in their home very suspicious . Rand Paul must have business relations with these companies that's the only reason he would support something so ridiculous .
Back in my day (not so long ago) if someone was spying on your home, we called that "a peeping tom" and a pervert, and they went to jail... if they didn't get shot first!!
As a software developer, it has come to the point where I am almost becoming a complete luddite. To quote uncle ted, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." Every new device grants those insatiable individuals who seek power more control over our lives.
sadly, I must admit I am not surprised to hear about the spying ability on our appliances. I am just wondering why it took so long for it to be discovered!
How about the internet tracking the websites I am on, giving me advertisements that match what I search? There's prob so much we're unware of in general, and once made aware, it get's allowed to continue either way.
Not only does it protect the consumer, it puts the burden on the producer. It saves everyone time and money being upfront about it. Contrast that with spending an hour or more on the phone with different companies to find products that don't spy on you.
All these devices are easily hacked so it doesn't matter if they're not spying on you at the point of purchase. Lay down with internet-connected dogs wake up with privacy-violating fleas. I'll keep my 'dumb' devices thank you very much.
He has this misguided attempt that the market can correct itself. If the market was truly FREE, yeah, it could. But it's not. It's already manipulated, and against the average citizen. He thinks we shouldn't do anything to interfere in the market. But it's already been done. Blocking a handful of bills isn't going to suddenly deregulate the markets.
Seems that what's needed is to recognize the necessity of informed consent in every transaction. If you don't know what you've consented to, the deal should be invalid in general. This would then cover everything, not only being spied on.
Well I agree, but most of these products have terms and conditions that you must agree to before using their services. While it's not all-encompassing, most companies already ask you to agree to their terms. Which most people don't even bother reading and continue anyway without a care in the world.
@@davidhubbard8353 Because those agreements are written in lengthy legalese. I believe I've read that there was a court case where the court ruled that agreeing to the EULA isn't consenting to whatever is written.
@davidhubbard8353 These agreements are also forced to use 90% of products nowadays which is also another issue. What's the point in reading them (I sort of do) when you have to literally accept them by force? Can't even play majority of games nowadays without making an account and agreeing to a bunch of stuff and having no say in it outside of not using it in general
@bayouorkert don't set your smart TV to the internet!! Don't hook your appliances to your phone... common sense... don't need government to tell you how to think
You should have the option to turn off ALL of the surveillance devices and still get full function from the product you purchased. There has to be an off button.
You can simply turn off the wifi to each smart thing. Not for a smart meter though I don't think. Honestly, anyone who has to be told explicitly that their privacy is being invaded probably naively think that it doesn't matter because "I don't do anything wrong".
@@TC-eagleseyethey can’t override it if you never connect it to the wifi in the first place. These aren’t standalone devices like phones so literally the only way communication comes in or out is through wifi. Your phone is a completely different story: even if it’s powered off it can still be used.
I am certainly in favor for less government regulation. What about a system where for every new regulation that goes in place, two antiquated regulations must be removed? There are enough laws regulating the definition of "ketchup" to allow for a common-sense regulation such as notifying consumers of surveillance equipment in their appliances. If the government has any purpose, it could at the very least be to allow Americans to not live in fear if their toaster. This is the United States not Soviet Era Russia
This is what Musk said was the biggest problem with the government. There is no regular process in place to review and repeal old rules that are no.longwr relevant. They just pile up.
When I buy a refrigerator I am not interested in being deceived or forced to alow a spy device into my home. I feel the same way about my phone as well.
@@jevsor557so let's all go back to living without electricity while big tech, banks and every corporation is in the middle of a communist takeover, censoring Americans, abolishing cash and installing a central digital currency? Where will you get your news? Newspapers? Those don't exist anymore and even if they did, they're full of leftist propaganda. Paul is naive thinking free market still exists. ESG proves the free market doesn't exist anymore and all corporations are basically in on destroying the country.
He agrees very strongly with the principle. What he disagrees with -also very strongly- is the method to insure no spying is done. If someone is so concerned about spreading word about the privacy invasion, so please GO OUT AND INFORM THE PUBLIC , but please do NOT EVER involve the government when unnecessary.
there was a comedian who had a routine about protecting people from their own stupidity. He had a line that went something like "have you even noticed that the government requires a label on a curling iron that says do not hold by the hot end" Anyone who needs that label to know that is either too stupid to heed the warning or to stupid to actually read it or to stupid to even know how to read or to stupid to know how to use a curling iron". That is Rand Paul's point. Legislation like this sounds good, but on its face its basically just telling people something they should intuitively get from say buy something that connects to the internet and has a camera. And under the guise of consumer protection, they will just slip 10 other things that have nothing to do with the stated purpose and of course enabling legislation for lawsuits.
Who would want anyone listening to them in the privacy of their own homes? Personally I did not know this and it's infuriating. So, Rand Paul cares more for the rights of businesses than individual privacy? That is a bit revealing.
no he cares about letting people make their own decisions instead of the government becoming involved and adding another disclaimer that most people don't pay attention to anyways. i worked at a retail store and the amount of times people would still come up to me asking for the bathroom even though there was a huge sign that said it was closed was astounding. at this point we should think almost every tech product is spying or is connected to some other app that is spying.
I’m surprised at rand Paul. Just as organizations will let you know things about a product, they tend to hide the negative stuff unless forced to disclose it.
@@kevinhowe543 Or consider all the laws and regulations they pass only have to be followed by the peasants commen sense should let you know they listen all the time
I’m with Mr Cuuz 100 % .
The issue at hand is not that manufacturers are lying or misrepresenting their product, it is a lie by omission by not informing consumers that they are being filmed and recorded without consent.
Spying from the enemy .
a fringe or stove or a vacuum cleaner does not need a camera or Microphone to work.
It does not even need to connect to the internet.
Its ez Vote with your cash and do not Buy these things !
not to mention the person selling is going to lie or avoid talking about any negative aspect to get the sale
Absolutely 😅
@@CDWCAULDRONthat's right 😅
How about just passing a comprehensive right to privacy rights bill? Make it illegal for them to even collect information from your phone or from things in your home.
Phones are not included in this bill. It's a 5 page bill and I object to this nonsense too
Collecting information is a soft way to say it. They have videos and recordings of your private life. The appliance companies have been doing it for years! It's absolutely insane. Your right, the law needs to make it illegal. Anything less is treason against the people that pay their salaries! We need to get tougher on these politico's!
@@Phloored Or do like Rand Paul said. Stop buying these devices with camera's and recording devices. If you feel like you're left with out options, remove/render inert recording and video devices. If I own something with a camera or recording device in it, I simply assume it's spying on me and fix it so it's unable to do so.
Already exists in the EU, but ofc the lobbyists are in charge here, also why artificial flavors and high fructose corn syrup are only prominent here
yeah, so long 'them' includes the NSA, which will make such legislation impossible to pass.
How is it not already against the law to record someone in their own home without them knowing. A human right is the right to privacy.
That's true for Europe and many other countries. The USA has a very different privacy tradition.
Most people don't read the fine print. That fine print waves your right to privacy and gives companies permission to make, keep, and sell your information. If you do read the fine print and say no to the collecting, maintaining, and selling of your data, most of these "smart" devices won't work properly... reference just about any app on your phone. They all require permissions for your camera, microphone, gallery, contacts, and half a dozen other things, or they don't work, making your smart phone an 8oz paper weight...
I believe it is but in this case it doesn’t apply because the information (knowledge) comes with the purchasing of the product. Any lack of knowledge would stem from a consumer’s failure to read about the product before, or after, they purchase it. Cruz wants to make those details more apparent than they tend to be.
Yea, i mean can i as private person put cameras and mics on people's home? Or if not breaking and entering is allowed, at least put camera on their window?
It absolutely should be!!
I totally agree with Ted Cruz.
I agree with Paul. Cruz is a POS.
I've never heard of kitchen appliances with cameras... Wouldn't blocking smart devices from scanning the network and "phoning home" be more important?
Only example I can think of is robo vacuums.
@@neopaboit’s real easy… don’t buy it. Do you really need legislation telling you not to buy something if you don’t trust the company selling it. Seems like Ted isn’t so small government after all.
maybe what he says is good. But what you need to know is how this corrupt biden admin will implement.
What is needed is they MUST use a specific port. That way the consumer can block that port on their firewall so it can't tell anyone what it saw.
You are doing an awesome job, Senator Cruz.
This is the first time I disagree with Rand Paul. I think terms and agreements are great for consumers. I don't want my appliances or my phone listening to me.
Debate is fine! People have no means to investigate all the technical details associated with this subject, or with any subject for that matter. This is why we elect senators, and give them $$$ and resources to manage wisely and extract the truth. We should avoid hastily criticizing Rand Paul until we know his real reasons.
I, like you, who is probably very pro-privacy and pro-small govt, being we both like Rand Paul. I Agree with Rand. My argument would be, don't buy a smart fridge or a smart thermostat. Limitations put on by govt, although often with good intentions, always snowball into something we don't want. Just my thoughts. "plus" any added regulation on any industry with automatically add cost to the product.
according rand paul, it's up to the consumers to figure out. by the same token, it's up to the consumer to figure out what the nutrition values are on the food they buy. rand paul has lost his mind. he is without a doubt corrupt
@@jaegerpaul he already objected to it and you still want to know what his reasons are?
You should see the data mining on you just for walking into walmart, facial recognition/ “face first”technology
I'm still trying to understand why this Transparency should not be a requirement to companies spying on us.
Because it would be redundant and unnecessary. Smart appliances and devices spy on us. We know this. The bill would cost a bunch of money to force companies to tell us something we already know,
We don't need daddy government protecting consumers. We need consumers to start protecting themselves. The government wants to keep their monopoly on surveillance.
@@kinskixii3943if the consumer isn’t informed, how will they protect themselves? Take apart every appliance they buy and look for hidden microphones and cameras? Even so the manufacturer wouldn’t face any penalty for spying on you without your consent under the current laws. That’s why Cruz was proposing this one.
@@1195JTM Well you already have to take it apart to put scope leads on every wire just to be able to fix it WHEN it breaks.
@@kinskixii3943 The bigger question is why are companies even installing these to begin with. My only thought is its not for any of the ideas they are spewing but someone at a FBI or CIA field office telling them to do so.
We all seem to be sleepwalking into 1984 in the name of convenience. That certainly seems to be a very good hook.
If you have a device in your home that connects to the internet... assume it is transmitting data about you.
Not an assumption and quite a few have it in the small print Americans are unwilling to read, kinda of like a student loan contract. They glean data for both marketing and to provides updates.
Totally less invasive than having direct sound and visual data though. And at least yes you know if it connects online then its granted whatever data it can collect will be sent away somewhere but what about hidden microphones and cameras that arent clearly disclosed?
I'll take it one step further, if it uses electricity assume it spies on you.
No the government needs to tell you everything for you to function
I'm with ya Cruz!! This is not a bad regulation and will not harm businesses. This is a good regulation that I support.
Forcing companies to disclose this will help nothing. Do you read all of your user agreements? RAND PAUL is the embodiment of freedom and represents the REPUBLIC well. We can't legislate our way to freedom! Legislative freedom isn't freedom Mr. Cruz.
@@ahumanbeing6875 no one reads the criminal code either but we all are aware that we have to follow the laws. Should we get rid of the criminal code just because people don't read it? This isn't about removing any freedoms. It's about protecting them from foreign companies who may want to take and use our information for profit when we don't want them to or even when we aren't aware of it. And the idea isn't to just make companies add something to their user aggrements, your missing the entire point of the legislation. The point is to deter bad companies from doing things that go against our privacy. If the legislation passes then those companies are not going to want to write that into their user aggrements thus they would be deterred from adding any unnecessary tech that can invade people's privacy in their own homes.
@@ahumanbeing6875 It will help consumers.
Horrible!!!! Does that make him a traitor?
Bank of America recently gave the FBI thousands of customers' financial information, not because they were suspected of a crime like money laundering, but because they made a legal purchase at a federally licensed business. Not because the FBI presented a warrant, but just because the FBI asked. Privacy, especially from unreasonable search is gone.
WTH!
T-Mobile had an information breach and their data ended up in the internet, with everyone's name, Birthdate & Social Security number.
You think that’s bad? Just do research on the number of (?former?) federal agents (CIA, FBI, NATO) that work at Facebook, Twitter, and Tiktok in managerial positions. The amount would shock you. Logically, what job qualifications would working for the CIA give you to work at a social media company that shows videos on cats, makeup, and dancing? So ask yourself, why are they there? Why were they hired?
Agreed, same here in Canada too, but for our courts perspective, unreasonable search and seizure only applies when the data sought is used for a criminal investigation. Any civil matter is fair game.
Leaving out the critical information is a little bit disingenuous. The information was on individuals who purchased firearms. That being said, how about states trying to get your physician's records to even see if you had an abortion out of state. Which is federally legal, and the physicians typically need to have legal prescription rights for any controlled substances (Which most doctors do, there are a lot of controlled substances routinely prescribed out to schedule 5, which bluntly in most cases shouldn't be subject to DEA control).
How about not tracking just have you made a $10,000 deposit, but have you made a series of deposits less than $10,000 since you are trying to circumvent the law. Unless you happen to have a successful small business, and your daily cash deposit is typically between let's say between $6,000 and $8,000.
How about going after users of cannabis? The list goes on and on. What people on both the left and right don't understand is once you give the government the ability to nose around in someone's affairs, if it's something you disapprove of - The next time the other side gets into government, they now have those same tools to go after what they disapprove of. Which may include you.
I happen to agree that them turning over that information is wrong. We should have strong privacy protections keeping businesses from sharing our personal information without notification. Financial and otherwise. But that means you need to support strong privacy protections for EVERYONE - firearm owners, cell phone owners (geofencing requests), medical treatment (HIPPA only applies to health care providers), search engine requests, etc.
Ted is absolutely right on this one. Americans don’t realize how much privacy and freedom we’ve lost over the years.
And more government is how to make them realize it, or how to get it back? Delusional.
@@snex000f a water company decided to put a certain amount of arsenic in their water should the company be required to tell people it has arsenic in it? Or should that just be on the consumer to test every bottle before they drink it if they don’t want to ingest the poison?
For every atom of freedom and privacy you have lost to 'smart' appliances -- the government (particularly republicans AND most particularly people people like Crus and Ronda Sanctimonius have taken TEN TIMES AS MUCH
I mean, apples and oranges are similar in shape I guess.
Nobody is forcing you to have a cell phone contract. Noone should force manufacturers to adhere to the practices that "might" prevent devious 3rd party activity, you know the agreement you sign when you trade money for the service.
More government in this case is just a friendly awareness campaign, where Rupublicans can discuss and vote on propositions.
I thought the GOP was small government? Why is this the government’s business? Paul is absolutely right on this one.
This is so off brand for Rand Paul...
Two very great leaders of this nation. Much respect to both of you & all you do for the American people. Ted is truly right on this one.
Paul is right. IF YOU DONT WANT A SPY CAMERA IN YOUR HOUSE, DO NOT BUY ONE
@@Sanyu-TumusiimePaul is wrong. There is no free market anymore. Not since it's been proven that government is colluding with big tech to censor Americans.
What if you need a camera in your house for security reasons, but no product on the market allows you to keep your privacy?
Paul is naive on this one.
This discussion makes my think of all the iPhone updates that we get and how nobody could possibly read all their disclaimers and legalize. Companies could get 99.99% of the population to accidentally agree to become indentured servants by putting it in the small print. I’d rather they be forced to make their intentions to spy on me to be prominently displayed on the box.
At the least
and how does that help the consumer when EVERY box has the disclaimer on it?
Now I could go with a notice, this device talks on port 1666, then the consumer could just block that port on their firewall. But a bill that says you MUST agree to it if you want to buy it is worthless when ALL of them will have it.
@@robertsmith2956 The issue is that some people DO actually read the small print. And they tell others about it. And some products would *not* spy on people, and that would become known, and that product would *sell better.* Then other companies would be *more likely* to make products that don't spy on people.
One sure fire way to opt out of that contract = 2A
@@Wanderer_Rogue and how will you get that 2a device into china to shoot the server?
Do you even speak enough chinese to ask where it is?
Forbes, straight forward and revealing. And not compromised... yet. Keep up the good work reporting for "we the people". And not for the highest bidder...
Any product in a persons home that is capable of watching you, recording you or in any way able to track you and in some way spy on you without you knowing it and you not being able to shut it down, should be illegal.
The o es who you speak to it and itdoes what you want. You can ask it questions. It listens to you all the time. It can watch you also. They say don't put it in your bedroom or your children!!!
What if you know it but youre forced to have it but you dont agree to having it?
@ryneagheilim9782 I am so sorry can you find out why or do you know why?
We don't know the details of the bill. When you buy one, make sure it has an OFF button 😊
Should be disclosed but not mandated...
Avoid! Exactly!!
I am disappointed in Rand Paul. I want to KNOW if something is recording me in my own home!!!
OMFG - I have virtually never supported Ted Cruz, but in this case I've got to. Just for Rand Paul's staffers, I'm in Kentucky and I voted for him in his first primary against Mitch McConnell's selected candidate. Rand is making me regret this.
I am a die hard, registered, card carrying libertarian. And I absolutely agree with senator Cruz 100 percent. I think everyone in this country should have it be known to them, if they buy an appliance for their home that's capable of recording, or taking videos of them without their consent. That seems like a no brainer to me!
These damn phones have ruined society
You're a card carrying libertarian? So you vote for the lesser of evils? Still evil!
It seems like a no brainer, but what these devious politicians do is adding other stuff in the bill, that on their own merit would never pass. That's often what brings someone to block a bill, not for what it appears to propose on the face, but what it tries to pass without people knowing.
That. Is why you fail
@@SisyphusOfSodomyeah, I was wondering what is the other side of this coin? It really seems we have no basis of trust for almost anyone. Why would Rand Paul not reveal it though? An example would have been helpful.
You dropped the ball on this Rand Paul.
One of the PROPER functions of governmental regulation is to make manufacturers be TRUTHFUL THROUGH TRANSPARENCY.
I don't want to have to go digging all over to find out my fridge has a microphone.
They should be obligated to tell that information up front and center.
Knowing is one thing, having the ability to turn it off is another.
No, they’re connected. You won’t do something unless you
Know to do it.
Today, what’s happening commonly in our households is surveillance by our own NSA and likely federal agencies we don’t even know of.
he's talking about China, where the products are made, you dunce.
That's right
Bull crap it Google and the rest. But all the idis let it happen. They will buy beer just to throw it away but put their foot down on listening and recording products. Oh well
Bingo, there is a reason our budget filters through so many agencies. It's government money laundering. We are not free and have not been for some time. The illusion is potent...
Because of contracts with with the private industry
I am with Ted Cruz. Considering how many DBI, DHS, CIA,etc go work at companies, we definitely need better laws to protect consumers. Shame on Rand Paul.
I'm with Cruz as well. I'm from Maryland, but have emailed Paul's office in the past thanking him for the work he has done, not just for his constituents, but for all of us. I respect him a lot, but I'm shocked at him on this one.
WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH LAWS LETS GET RID OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!!!
I like both these Guys. I agree with Cruz, but Knowing Rand, he’s gotta have a good reason. I think u also gotta carefully read the bill.
@@defendfreespeechdid no one listen to Rands response? Your the second one ive read where it sounds like you didnt.
Rand clearly states why he objected. He wants the government to stay out of the free market. While I agree with a free market, the government's role of protecting the people should not be an issue. I see nothing wrong with making such technologies that can be used to spy on us consumers to be clearly disclosed for us to better make our own choices without later consequences of realizing a TV has a hidden microphone and camera in it the entire time without prior knowledge.
As a libertarian myself. I agree to an extent with Rand but on this bill particularly, he got it wrong.
Yes, laws stop crimes, right? We'll have no more crime any day now, just need to pass a few more laws.
first time I can remember disagreeing with rand paul
We need to be able to control those devices, such as shut them off, as well as being informed about their existence.
Yeah - I didn’t know they had surveillance, we should be able to know about it and turn it off.
I found out a couple of months a go Smart phones can listen to us even when turned off.
You can, don’t buy them
you do control it. turn the power off lol
@@rotaryenginepete It’s not quite as simple as that, on every device. Your tv, is sitting there, waiting for you to pick up the remote and tell it to “turn on”? Isn’t it already on, since you tell it remotely, to come on? If it’s an instant on piece of electronics, chances are high, that it’s on already, it just isn’t powering the screen. To turn your phone completely off, you need to pull the battery. Well that isn’t easy on most of them.
rand overestimates the "sophistication" of the average person
ring cam users didnt think their information was being collect, the average person doesnt even think alexa is spying on them when it obviously records their voice and despite all the stories about it calling police on people
but i don't think adding a label on it will solve that either. i worked at a retail store and the amount of times people would come up to me trying to get me to open the bathroom even though there was a huge sign indicating it was closed was astounding.
@@idorus and yet we have street lights
its not about eradicating the practice, its about reducing victims
There's no practical purpose for any refrigerator to video or record you. It's about government getting deeper into your home.
I TOTALLY agree with Senator Cruz on this (provided there's nothing shady & counter IN the bill - as is often the case). This is a no-brainer. What in the world is Senator Paul doing? Did he take Big Money on this?! 😧 🤦🏻♀️ ☹️ 🥺 We no longer seem to even agree about the most basic things.
He is irrelevant
Those two are in cahoots!
What ever happened to truth in advertising. This needs to be the law again.
This is the first time I’ve heard stupid stuff from Senator Paul. Thank you Senator Cruz for your efforts to protect our privacy!
listen to yourself. "please big government save me from big bad corp products" SMH
@@selwynjacobs When you have one or two companies that stop making any product that does NOT spy on you,,, what are you supposed to do? Your comment would have been accurate in 1890 but not today. Our biggest danger is mega corporations,
protect your own privacy..are you not an american?
Makes one wonder who bought rand Paul off this week...hate to say.
@@elaineburgess9265 I doubt it, he is scrupulously honest. I think he is just an extreme libertarian; caveat emptor.
Wait what? Rand Paul??? Why? I am perplexed.
I agree with Senator Cruz. The burden of putting a warning on packaging is minimal and serves the interest of the American people in allowing them to make informed decisions. The role of government in a free market economy is small, but it is to protect the people from predatory practices such as the espionage-esque behavior by big businesses recording, video taping, and taking pictures of people within their homes where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that Senator Paul as a libertarian is against a regulation that would protect individual liberty, which is the basis of libertarian policy, speaks volumes to the fact that he is more contrarian than truly libertarian. Mr Paul is so concerned about big government, but is giving power to big business that they would gladly sell to the government if asked to do so. I hope the people of Kentucky watch this and see Senator Paul objecting to individual liberty in the name of big business.
I agree with Senator Cruz on this bill absolutely.
Did you read it? Politicians tell us that a piece of legislature will do something and always end up doing the contrary. If he was honest he will abolish FISA, the Patriot Act, the abuses from ATF, IRS, and all alphabet agencies. I have the option of not using smart appliances but cannot avoid the overreach of government.
@@mindyourbusiness4101 just out of curiosity since you’re acting like you have read it. Have you read it? I haven’t yet so I’m genuinely curious, what else is in this bill that you seem to be alluding to? Or is your comment more of a generalization without being directly relevant to this bill? If the latter, then you should clarify that.
@@richardchristensen4116 No. That is why I cannot agree or disagree with a project. But from previous experience at least I know for sure that politicians put a name on a project that makes it hard to vote against it. Like the patriot act, Affordable Care Act just to name two. The first erases our rights the second makes healthcare more expensive. Also remember Nancy's famous words of we have to vote to learn what's on the project. But you go ahead and keep trusting them.
Rand isn't getting this.
@@JaseRadford exactly
Someone needs to tell Paul, American consumers will always make the right call if they know all the facts. Problem is no one tells them they are being spied on!
I work with AI & the gathering methods used to feed it. I tell people all the time just how bad it is for what's gathered about you. Every person says something along the lines of "Oh my gosh that's horrible!" then continues to use their smart devices, because they don't want to sacrifice the functionality. The functionality is the payoff of the listening, I can't answer which we should have. I have my own private cloud at my home, and block virtually everything that I don't know exactly what it's doing from coming into or leaving my network to give you an idea where I fall in this spectrum :)
@@ImaITman That is awesome but very few know how to do that. It really doesn't matter if people are told they will be spied on if they deem the product will help them. Look at Alexa products everyone knows they "spy" on you but people are still buying them. I don't think Cruz has followed his bill down the rabbit hole enough, and Rand has and thats why he is objecting. Great lets demand a company add in super small text that no one will read that it will collect your data or could. What is that going to solve but add expense to that or future products. Or give it another few months or years and then leaves the door open to now use this and demand a company add another label for someone else's pet project. Cruz should also know that you get a group of Libertarians together and each one will have a different idea on it. Ask them and each one will say they are the Libertarian and the others are not.
@@ImaITman True, but if they know before they buy the product, their less likely to make that sacrifice of privacy. In essence, buying the product and using it makes one attached to it, and less likely to part with it. Then again, there are a lot of people out there who don't think about the implications of such things
@@notthebeastinus2786 You make a great point about the upfront before money has exchanged hands. I'm a GDPR guy, I hate knowing that I've worked for companies and have pulled data that was never meant to see the light of day simply because it was on a company device. I love what GDPR has done for the tech industry and want to see us lean more heavily into it.
The company I work for now has removed the ability for anyone to pull data in that way. They see the truth that not being transparent causes more harm than any good you might have from a business risk perspective.
It's your job to research products. You don't need all this smart shit. Don't buy things you can talk to. Don't buy things with cameras. Don't buy things with Bluetooth. It's pretty simple. Problem is people are legit idiots and want big govt to hold their hand.
Why did you block this bill?
The revelation of truth and the side in which people land on continues!
I can understand Paul's argument, but I think he has missed the mark on this on.
It's more libertarian grandstanding and ideology pontification. He rarely authors any real world policy that passes and takes pride like his father in voting "no" for stupid ideological stances and I was and still am a huge fan of Ron Paul, I like his ideology on many issues but real world application has to apply. If we are laissez-faire about all these issues because "er, Libertarianism" then there's no stopping the progressive left. You can't fight dirty tricks, attacking the thread of Americanism like gender and the family and expect to win. In the Paul's world, we should allow evil to do evil using evil tactics while they sit around debating morality and constitutionality on the smallest of details. I agree, following the constitution is paramount but the other side is completely ignoring it so how does the right win a rigged game? By passing no policy unless it's perfect or so watered down it does nothing?
It was like that with his dad: I agreed with his premises but not with his conclusions.
Ron Paul would say things like that the CIA shouldn’t be overthrowing foreign governments. I can agree with that. But his conclusion was that the entire CIA should be dissolved. 🤦♂️
@@BeraltofBivia I agree
The elites in government think the American people are stupid and cannot determine for themselves what is safe or not,
@@zakkenwasser65 And if China makes a product and doesn't inform the American consumer? What then? How do you even enforce it? Ask nicely?
It goes further than just watching, it’s a doorway to information I’m sure we can all agree with that, it’s a threat to our national defense.
Don't our phones already do this shit?
Never would have imagined there would be an issue of privacy that I would side with Ted Cruz over Rand Paul...
I usually respect what Paul has to say. This position he's taken makes me question if he's in someone's pocket
I didn't think about that. Good point.
Well, he is just against any government involvement. I doubt he's on the take. They cancelled him social media for being honest about the "cold" you can't talk about. He told people to stop listening to the "c 0 0 m i e s".
This is really odd of Paul.
I’m usually a fan of Rand Paul, but not here. Why on earth would he block this law that allows us to know what equipment we have that spies on us. Am I hearing a RINO now?
Your wifi can now be used to spy on you and tell other people where the location of you and furniture are in your own house
Because you don't need a law to know that. All smart devices are capable of spying on you, it's part of their function. The law would let large corporations spy on you even further since "you agreed to the terms" and only harm smaller manufacturers with basic smart products.
If you use a smart phone, if you have any device that uses wi-fi, or just by logging onto the internet you have ceded any expectation of privacy. Senator Paul is right, we don't need another feel good law. We need protection from the very agencies and bureaucracy the constitution was written to shield us from.
Theres no need for a microwave to have a dang camera in it. This is sick. Im disgusted by Sen Paul.
Being against regulation makes him a RINO? Umm, okay.
Privacy is Very Important And Should Be Passed!
Wow. This bill is already so weak as to be nearly meaningless, and yet it is opposed? Companies would simply add carefully crafted language to their terms of service and continue on their merry way.
What is worse, and nearly never talked about, is that said data, once collected, belongs to these companies, or whatever data aggregators they sell it to.
Exactly what I thought. It makes me wonder if he's just doing this to undermine Cruz. Could be that he has legit reason to despise/suspect Cruz and knows the bill is pointless so why give him a nominal victory.
Sen. Rand Paul: "The assumption that the consumers aren't sophisticated enough..." They had to put warnings on Tide Pods not to drink/eat them. They're even having to put warning labels on liquid hand soaps and bleach saying "Not for drinking!". Paul really overestimates the masses.
Well, if I remember correctly, people were voluntarily eating tide pods, despite their danger, or precisely because they were dangerous. And weren't there already warning labels before those trends took place? Warning labels aren't gonna stop those people.. Anymore than drug laws are going to stop people from doing drugs. What will happen is that it will impose costs on millions of people in the false hope that it saves a few people from their foolishness.
I have found that it is impossible to underestimate the abilities of the common man to be able to think...
We used to complain about the nanny state and red tape. That's what this law creates.
@@dainschneck I agree in general, but if they tell us not to eat Tide pods because we are dumb enough to try, they should be able to tell us our electronics spy on us. Tide eaters are not necessary up on the ole watercolor discussions about how our phone sends us adverts because it saw us near a product.
those people that thought tide pods were candy should have been eliminated by natural selection long ago.
Why would he block this bill
He opposes government regulation
Only leftist would advocate for better "product labeling" just sayin.
Please daddy gov save me from spying corporations by requiring them to tell me first and they can continue to do so
How about passing a bill that says that they cannot spy on you versus informing you that they may be.
@@rickysrighteyebrow8167Because what if you are okay with them spying on you? That would violate your liberty for government to ban it. That's between you and the manufacturer.
I'm 37, I watched jetsons a ton as a kid/teen. As far as this bill/objection go we need to break everything down because a bill is never strictly about one thing, it's multiple, and that's what's wrong with bills in general. I like both of these people so something isn't being fully disclosed.
Bills have the ability to be solely about one topic - there are people in congress that lump everything together to try to weasel shit in which is where a lot of the gripes come in. If congress members would only put one topic in a bill there would be the possibility of a lot more being done in government, but that won't happen.
@@NastyyNate 100%
I agree with Sen. Cruz on the premise that social media has shown us “trojan horse” products: products and services consumers purchase or interact with under the false pretense of “what you see is what you get”. When consumer products are sold to a user, who then becomes a product for the original producer to sell to third parties, in the form of meta data, the consumer is misled and an un-willful commodity in a transaction they did not intend to partake in.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU RAND? I am shocked and disappointed in you. Thank you Ted for protecting us Americans GOD BLESS🙏🙏🙏
Amen 🙏
@@maxinemcelroy8902 💖🙏💖🙏💖
Cruz wants more regulation. Paul is for less government and less regulation. Paul is right.
I agree with Rand. We don't need more government regulations. These devices aren't allowed to spy on people as it is. Amazon recently got sued and lost millions because their doorbell cams were doing it.
@@josephkostinko739 Less regulation can easily lead to tyranny of a different sort. There's not just one type of tyranny -- it's not just government, there's corporate tyranny as well. Keeping private businesses in check and ensuring they do not secretly exploit consumers is to the benefit of the common man.
Privacy within ones living quarters should be an absolute and should be the bottom line and in no way should it be a question of the merchants or of the consumer's needs but that of the right to the people to be secure in one's own home or living quarters and in life in general as to function without harassment and as far as the merchants or governments needs to track cell phones or any phones info should be out of the question with out a warrant what's going on is a monopoly on Rights we've been played by clever merchants and politicians with an agenda to capitalize there's more to Life then consumerism and fear mongering who wants there life dictated by a unknown 3rd or forth party or even an entity telling you it's in our best interest its beyond shameful our for father's would be ashamed as we should be
Why, Senator Paul? I don't get it? If course, we consumers have a right to know when we are being spied on!
Why? Apparently Mr. Paul is in bed with big Corp. and the government. Why else would he object?
Write to his office and ask. Don't just complain on the internet
Russian Randy is owned by Ruzzia so this bill wouldn't allow them to spy on Americans
@@prunabluepeppernobody in his office reads the letters sent. Some intern will just read it and throw it away.
@@jacobaguirr3I left a message for my rep and one of her employees called me and talked to me for a while.
Very strange to see Dr Rand Paul object to this bill
I hope it is not because a lot of products would suddenly be unable to sell as they are....or that people would have a choice. Honestly I can't figure out why myself!
That's what I thought, Rand Paul is super legit I just don't get it
I think it is a very necessary piece of legislation because we know people who declare that we are conspiracy theorists for stating that our cellphones are recording us even when they're turned off. We really need our government to insert itself into this mess. We don't need this monitoring and will be unfairly punished if we don't do everything Big Brother government tells us to just as the Chinese people are. It's all being recorded and we're seldom mindful enough.
Well, if he doesn't believe it will help, and he is against taxation without justification then it makes sense. I haven't read the bill, have you? Will it really accomplish anything? Will it do anything that people can't do for themselves? People need to become more tech savvy, there's not enough tax money to protect us from tech boogeymen, its just absurd to keep paying the government to fail.
Right!? Why can't we let thr government tell us what we can and cannot buy. Who needs a free market when big gov can do all the deciding for us? 😂😂😂👉🤡
Rand Paul made an idiotic argument on such an important issue of U.S citizens' right to privacy.
Spy fridges and you wonder why so many kids go missing.
Oh wow I never knew it was that sophisticated
Great point
You never know they use to put their pics on milk containers they always show what they do
Long time Libertarian here, someone who voted for Rand's father at one point. I have great respect for both of these men, and I've got respect for their opinions. After listening to both of them, I'm with Sen. Cruz on this one. I believe I have a right to know what I'm getting when I buy something. I'm also a computer programmer. I'd like to add that I know just how this technology can be concealed.
Well say something. HOW CAN IT BE DISMANTLED.
yeah, i'm with you... i dont know why there are so many libertarians who die on the hill of abstract ideals when the bigger picture is clearly going in a direction against the same ideal.
Its like a lot of libertarians on the boarder issue... yes, ideally an open boarder would be the solution, but all the issues around that boarder have to be in ideal situations also before it can work properly.
I don't trust these corporate conglomerates any more than i trust the federal government.... with all this ESG/DEI stuff going on, this kind of technology essentially feeds the same fascistic beast.
@@Robby_C I'm not in favor of open borders in the way that leftists are. I have two friends who are literal wetbacks. I have cautioned both about being open about this... as the tide can turn against them. Both are hard working. Every hard-working person in the country makes me wealthier. I suppose maybe in fractions of a penny individually, but it adds up. The open border policy of the left is to let in criminals, people who suck from the welfare teat and vote the leftists into power (presumably... not sure how it's guaranteed).
Ah, well, not sure where to take this discussion. I'm not fully a Rothbard or Rand style Libertarian. My heroes are more Bastiat, von Mises, Thomas Sowell, Orwell, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman.
My son once commented to my bro-in-law that "my dad is a little Libertarian." My bro-in-law was my college roommate and best friend. His response was "your dad is a LOT Libertarian." But I'll be the first to admit that truth isn't owned by a single ideology. The best Libertarian is one who still examines Libertarian thinking. The biggest issue with modern leftists is that there is NO self-awareness or self-examination: there is just the motion of force.
I went to post this and UA-cam's algorithm tested me and asked if I was being respectful of you. I don't wear a hat, but if I did, I would take it off and thank you for a thoughtful comment for which I hope I replied thoughtfully. If this was MSN, I suspect my comment would be banned if I said that I like kittens. LOL
We all have smartphone's and it's Listening all the time 😓
Cruz retort to Paul’s opining was spot on.
People need to be careful about smart home items. I know of somebody that just for fun hacked into his friends house and was able to turn on and off the lights, control the temperature of the house and other smart items in his friends home. Suffice it to say the guy got rid of all the smart items in his home. He was glad his friend hacked into his house to learn smart is not really smart
I trust Rand Paul more than Ted Cruz.
We'll see what's up when the dust settles.
I'm with Cruz all the way on this one. We older citizens are NOT always as tech savvy nor suspicious of our appliances! Therefore the thought of being surreptitiously recorded by ANY device let alone a refrigerator, isn't something I would necessarily think to ask an associate, when buying appliances! For Sen Paul, a self described Constitutionalist, to go against this bill says a lot! The cracks are really showing in the Republican party and they better get it together before 2024!!!
I believe Rand Paul is Independent.
@@annetteb.9031he's a liberal...
I want to read this bill. Normally Rand Paul says these things for a reason.
no, he's a paid shill too
Yeah they're called Special interests 😅
@@luzmitchell5033That would be Cruz. Paul has no interest in War, so I'll go with Paul everytime.
Ted Cruz is a slimeball. This bill is probably loaded with pork, and Rand is generally opposed to regulation.
@@lastsecondhero87 good for you
I can't believe that Senator Paul objected to that.
Yeah how dare a small government conservative advocate for less government intrusion.
@@temporaryscarsLike covert mass data collection isn’t big gov’t
They already tell you in the user agreement they will collect and sell your data. This bill is a waste of time it doesn’t prevent them from spying on you. This bill would only make companies put a sticker on the front of the item saying what’s already said in the user agreement.
@@TheCulturalCompass but do we need papa government to protect us from it? Are you not an adult capable of making your own buying decisions and doing your own research?
@@ThoughtCrimes420 exactly. If you have a smart device, you're being spied on. You either don't care and buy it anyway or you do care and don't buy it. We don't need government intervention on this.
Wow, this is freaky scary. What kind of country are we living in? How did we get so far off. Thank you Senator Cruz for educating me, and the many people who are watching this.
It would be nice if they actually posted the Bill.....
So they can film you on things in your own house with people walking around nude ?? That is definitely illegal.
Nobody cares about you being naked I can assure you that. It’s more about tracking your thoughts and behaviors.
iRobot Roomba (now owned by Amazon) was caught taking pictures of people on the toilet, and then of course one of the human AI engineers that was reviewing footage posted photos of a woman from this footage on the internet.
@john- impossible!
intercourse scenes being captured, by and large, are there any gadgets in those equipment mention to spy on users?
It is a pity that two very respected Republicans can not find a common ground on this futuristic issue.
If Rand Paul is blocking it. Then somewhere in this bill. Its doing more harm than help. On the surface I completely agree with what Cruz is wanting. I dont like spyware appliances. But if by changing this law limits the amount of products we can choose from. I do not support it. I rather there be as much competition in the market as possible.
It's not futuristic, the Communist Chinese have been using spy technology in everything for over a decade. Try informing yourself by looking for this information on the internet. There are many websites disclosing the spy technology. They have found it in baby monitoring devices made in China and things you would never expect. Check it out.
Cruz isn't respected.... lol
Competition is a SIN REMEMBER??
@@artificial-everything exactly
Rand Paul is being a fool!
No, he isn't
How about these licenses plate cameras that are popping up everywhere here in Houston? I looked up SB78 and from what I read this bill was shot down but cities just install these cameras regardless on the leg of safety? Years ago we had cameras at the traffic lights for traffic red light runners and those we removed. So how are these being legally installed? I need answers
My gosh! I can't believe it's Rand Paul. This is the first time I've heard him talk nonsense. Hope he wakes up; otherwise, he might be labeled at Brand Paul. :(
Rand is for SMALL government.... not government have their hands on every single thing in existence!!! Freedom of choice!! If you have no choice there is no freedom!
This is freaking insane I want to KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE A INFRINGEMENT ON OUR PRIVACY !!!!!
AGAIN WHAT IS THE FREAKING REASON !!!!!!!
This law only gives the government extended reach. It doesn’t prevent these companies from spying on you
The purpose is that selling personal data makes companies billions. It's always about the money.
How about just not recording anyone in any form with devices they don’t know about and then we wouldn’t need a bill telling people they are doing it. 🤷🏽♂️
If law enforcement wanted to use this to listen in on people they have under investigation, and you know they would.
The point should be whether the investigation is "reasonable", because otherwise it is a violation of the Constitution's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure". The courts have long established that law enforcement agencies have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being committed or contemplated before engaging in an investigation. Far too often recently we see law enforcement agencies blowing right past that.
Just don't buy "smart" products. It's that simple.
It's going to be default
@@WilsonBradleyTheOfficial doubtful. People eat up cheap appliances. Especially in Asia.
Do you have a job?
@@brianfarkas8172 ?
@@brianfarkas8172 yes?
There is something very suspicious about this Rand Paul . Why would anyone in their right mind not care if they are being
videotape or listen to in their home very suspicious . Rand Paul must have business relations with these companies that's the only reason he would support something so ridiculous .
Wait until people find out that their wifi network can be used like radar inside their home.
BINGO!
Speeding past refrigerator? How much is the ticket ?
Back in my day (not so long ago) if someone was spying on your home, we called that "a peeping tom" and a pervert, and they went to jail... if they didn't get shot first!!
Those Big Tiny Camera lobbyists got to Rand
As a software developer, it has come to the point where I am almost becoming a complete luddite. To quote uncle ted, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." Every new device grants those insatiable individuals who seek power more control over our lives.
I had to look up what Luddite meant.
Same here. Hard to keep up with every new insidious attempt to pull us in. And I didn't have to look up the word!
Surely, as a software developer, you can appreciate how pointless this legislation is if the devices in question are easily hacked (which they are).
Exactly, 100%
sadly, I must admit I am not surprised to hear about the spying ability on our appliances. I am just wondering why it took so long for it to be discovered!
How about the internet tracking the websites I am on, giving me advertisements that match what I search? There's prob so much we're unware of in general, and once made aware, it get's allowed to continue either way.
Not only does it protect the consumer, it puts the burden on the producer. It saves everyone time and money being upfront about it. Contrast that with spending an hour or more on the phone with different companies to find products that don't spy on you.
All these devices are easily hacked so it doesn't matter if they're not spying on you at the point of purchase. Lay down with internet-connected dogs wake up with privacy-violating fleas. I'll keep my 'dumb' devices thank you very much.
And hoping they aren't lying to you. I wouldn't trust anything made in china
When I watch this, I can't help but ask myself. WHO paid off Rand Paul?
He has this misguided attempt that the market can correct itself.
If the market was truly FREE, yeah, it could.
But it's not. It's already manipulated, and against the average citizen.
He thinks we shouldn't do anything to interfere in the market. But it's already been done. Blocking a handful of bills isn't going to suddenly deregulate the markets.
Its a problem to enforce, and likely would be applied to body worn recording devices.
Bingo. My thoughts exactly.
@@ulfsark78no truer words said, wisdom personified 🙏
@@ulfsark78 But adding another one isn't going to solve anything either. Deconstructing government is the only true solution.
Seems that what's needed is to recognize the necessity of informed consent in every transaction. If you don't know what you've consented to, the deal should be invalid in general. This would then cover everything, not only being spied on.
Well I agree, but most of these products have terms and conditions that you must agree to before using their services. While it's not all-encompassing, most companies already ask you to agree to their terms. Which most people don't even bother reading and continue anyway without a care in the world.
@@davidhubbard8353 Because those agreements are written in lengthy legalese. I believe I've read that there was a court case where the court ruled that agreeing to the EULA isn't consenting to whatever is written.
@davidhubbard8353 These agreements are also forced to use 90% of products nowadays which is also another issue. What's the point in reading them (I sort of do) when you have to literally accept them by force? Can't even play majority of games nowadays without making an account and agreeing to a bunch of stuff and having no say in it outside of not using it in general
Don't want appliances spying don't log them in on Wi-Fi better yet don't get one with the capability
Exactly.... you don't need the government to tell you how to live!!!
@bayouorkert don't set your smart TV to the internet!! Don't hook your appliances to your phone... common sense... don't need government to tell you how to think
Until the WiFi connection is "necessary" for the product to operate. It's a slippery slope.
You should have the option to turn off ALL of the surveillance devices and still get full function from the product you purchased. There has to be an off button.
You can simply turn off the wifi to each smart thing. Not for a smart meter though I don't think. Honestly, anyone who has to be told explicitly that their privacy is being invaded probably naively think that it doesn't matter because "I don't do anything wrong".
@@lindylou726They can override it.
@@TC-eagleseyethere’s got to be something you can rip out of them to render them ‘dumb’
@@TC-eagleseyethey can’t override it if you never connect it to the wifi in the first place. These aren’t standalone devices like phones so literally the only way communication comes in or out is through wifi. Your phone is a completely different story: even if it’s powered off it can still be used.
Rond is a trader. For teck. He needs to go
I am certainly in favor for less government regulation. What about a system where for every new regulation that goes in place, two antiquated regulations must be removed? There are enough laws regulating the definition of "ketchup" to allow for a common-sense regulation such as notifying consumers of surveillance equipment in their appliances. If the government has any purpose, it could at the very least be to allow Americans to not live in fear if their toaster. This is the United States not Soviet Era Russia
This is what Musk said was the biggest problem with the government. There is no regular process in place to review and repeal old rules that are no.longwr relevant. They just pile up.
Yes but Musk wants to put a chip in your brain what do you think will happen when he does that
When I buy a refrigerator I am not interested in being deceived or forced to alow a spy device into my home. I feel the same way about my phone as well.
RUTROW
I guess the libertarian view is you can choose not to buy smart devices but you can't force producers to change their products which I get
@@jevsor557so let's all go back to living without electricity while big tech, banks and every corporation is in the middle of a communist takeover, censoring Americans, abolishing cash and installing a central digital currency?
Where will you get your news? Newspapers? Those don't exist anymore and even if they did, they're full of leftist propaganda.
Paul is naive thinking free market still exists. ESG proves the free market doesn't exist anymore and all corporations are basically in on destroying the country.
Sen. Paul is the most principled man in the Senate. God bless him for standing on the right side of this issue.
What the hell is wrong with rand paul? Can’t believe he would object to this bill. Protecting peoples privacy is the upmost importance.
He agrees very strongly with the principle. What he disagrees with -also very strongly- is the method to insure no spying is done.
If someone is so concerned about spreading word about the privacy invasion, so please GO OUT AND INFORM THE PUBLIC , but please do NOT EVER involve the government when unnecessary.
Probably 50% of your electronics devices listen to you. One more Federal bill of regulation is going to help you how exactly?
Ted Cruz literally just called you an idiot, and you think something is wrong with Rand Paul?🤣
there was a comedian who had a routine about protecting people from their own stupidity. He had a line that went something like "have you even noticed that the government requires a label on a curling iron that says do not hold by the hot end" Anyone who needs that label to know that is either too stupid to heed the warning or to stupid to actually read it or to stupid to even know how to read or to stupid to know how to use a curling iron". That is Rand Paul's point. Legislation like this sounds good, but on its face its basically just telling people something they should intuitively get from say buy something that connects to the internet and has a camera. And under the guise of consumer protection, they will just slip 10 other things that have nothing to do with the stated purpose and of course enabling legislation for lawsuits.
The left wants to control and spy on you without you ever knowing. That's Rand Paul for you. Traitor to the US citizens.
Who would want anyone listening to them in the privacy of their own homes? Personally I did not know this and it's infuriating. So, Rand Paul cares more for the rights of businesses than individual privacy? That is a bit revealing.
no he cares about letting people make their own decisions instead of the government becoming involved and adding another disclaimer that most people don't pay attention to anyways. i worked at a retail store and the amount of times people would still come up to me asking for the bathroom even though there was a huge sign that said it was closed was astounding. at this point we should think almost every tech product is spying or is connected to some other app that is spying.
I live in Kentucky and Rand Paul will not be the one I'll be voting for and my family will not vote for either.
Good. Primary him!
Thank you, Senator Cruz!!
I’m surprised at rand Paul. Just as organizations will let you know things about a product, they tend to hide the negative stuff unless forced to disclose it.
Makes me curious if there was some fluff in the bill
Same problems different day, republicans won’t stick together, democrats do. It’s the very reason they don’t accomplish anything
This is more government regulations... the government isn't your mommy. Take care of yourself.
Rand has never been a rational person.
@@kevinhowe543 Or consider all the laws and regulations they pass only have to be followed by the peasants commen sense should let you know they listen all the time