BREAKING NEWS: Ted Cruz Privacy Bill Blocked By Rand Paul, Then Cruz Responds 

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...

@@craigentrekin5883 The fine print is vague if you do read it. I've never seen any that specifically stated what they would send or collect just that they do under the guise of product improvement. If your savvy there are privacy focused smart phone operating systems for certain phones. Of course if your going to use it to log into FB etc it would be pointless to install one.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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 😅

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

​@@RPGryphusyeah, 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.

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?

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

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

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.

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%

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

​@@rosariomoschitto4037did 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.

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.

This is the case, but how crazy would that sound with him saying this to a Republican Bill, from a republican.

@@Semi_Successful Not particularly, it would be exactly the kind of unintended consequence vetting we want congress to do.

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

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 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.

Rand is a RINO, or at least turning into one. He is not like his Dad.

Because people don't care about being surveilled. No one stopped using facebook after they learned their data was being tracked and sold. Majority of people didn't care after snowden showed the world how they are being recorded, tracked and surveilled. The consumers don't care at all.

Exactly, people seem to be under the illusion that they’re going to be able to choose whether to buy these ‘smart’ appliances or not. There will be no other option at a certain point. Except to somehow disable its abilities somehow (and void the warranty).

It's not the governments job.

@@sowhat184 I'm sure they read your comment and are currently raising your social credit score. Well done 👍

He is irrelevant

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.

What do these people think? That Keurig has millions of hours of audio files and they just have a team listening to personal conversations 24/7 I'm hopes they find a way to improve profits?

@@jacobawojtowicz More likely it is a computer program listening in, just like every phone conversation is monitored by computers listening for phrases and words about such things as bombs, or killing prominent politicians.

@@jacobawojtowicz The info is transmitted to Alphabet Agencies.

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

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,

No. Paul is right. Simply inform people that anything connected to the internet might be spying on them. Doing more is overkill and needlessly expands government. It's good practice to assume all your electronic communications are monitored. Been doing that for decades.

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.

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.

The updates occur if you want them or not. Please share if there is a way to completely stop all upgrades to cell phones if any make and model

@@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

Their normally is at least two versions of each product. That's what the market is all about. But people mostly vote with their wallets and they mostly don't care.

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.

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.

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".

If you are recording your phone call, you don't have to disclose unless the other party is located in one of the few states that do not permit it. It is called one party consent. But as to putting a recording device in someone's home without agreement or knowledge, there should be a warrant to it. Otherwise it violates reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not understand how those companies are not being dragged to courts by our governments and instead they are trying to make a law so the existing law is enforced? I know Ring was "punished" for letting their employees watch video recordings of customers even in their bedrooms. Employees were watching each other in their homes and their contractors also had access to all the videos of subscribers. I believe FTC made or makes them pay a fine.

That’s the law for normal people, individuals (depending on which state you live in), but not for huge multinational corporations!

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? 😂😂😂👉🤡

I believe Rand Paul is Independent.

​@@annetteb.9031he's a liberal...

They literally advertise them. They have a camera inside to track what's in there and can recommend or auto repurchase. They essentially have a basic laptop built into a front touch screen for note, search, reorder, controlling other smart products. You better believe it's got wifi and voice activation. These fridges have been out for years now

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

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!

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

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.

Are you going to stop buying ipads? Thats the point. Did you stop using facebook when it became public knowledge their data was being harvested and sold? People vote with their wallets.

I can’t understand your logic. Why do you need a camera in your TV? Who uses it? Who asked for it? Do you think the majority of consumers want a camera in their TV?

@@eviebob08 they don't care enough to stop buying those products - thats how the market decides. People vote with their wallets.

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.

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.

My newer Sony TV has a camera. It has a flip to block it... it also has software to block the feature and legal agreements to, in my case, not use it since I did not agree to it. It is made for many reasons including gaming... it is just an option. But I like this 2 leaders having an actual commonsense argument with 2 valid points of view for the People and that is what the nation needs and less of the forced looney garbage of late, that in a few months after the damage is done they backtrack because they lost votes and people ramble again about the "agenda"... but the damage is done.

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.

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

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%

Most people aren't aware and all people unaware of the extent. Why would you be opposed to privacy transparency? What possible benefit is there to not disclosing what data is being taken? Do you work for tik tok or something?

@@longshot5866 im against government regulations and red tape that will by and large accomplish nothing. Even if people are made aware the overwhelming majority will change absolutely nothing. Not to mention as it is without the mandated forewarning people may have some legal resources in the court sueing companies for fraud or data theft. All this bill does is mandate that these companies protect themselves beforehand at some nominal cost. A good example is online TOS agreements both youtube, and Facebook have horrible exploitative, anti free speech TOS yet here we all are anyways.

​@@longshot5866They should be making it a law to force companies to opt out of these things if anything. I see plenty of websites that do it where they give you the option to disable cookies, only required ones (have to read them) or none but the site will load slower. More companies need to take this approach

They are spying on you in your home... Using cameras and microphones...