EDWARDS INTRODUCES THE TRANSPARENCY OVER TOYS SPYING (TOTS) ACT
WASHINGTON – Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) just introduced the Transparency Over Toys Spying (TOTS) Act (H.R. 413), Edwards’ first sponsored legislation in the 118th Congress.
The TOTS Act requires that so-called “smart toys,” which connect to Bluetooth and the internet and which – unbeknownst to parents – collect data on their children, be clearly labeled and have data security policies that parents can easily understand and access.
Most smart toys are manufactured in China. It is unclear what Chinese companies that make these toys do with the information collected on children and American households.
“Parents need to know what’s going on with the toys they buy their children,” said Edwards. “The Federal Trade Commission has allowed smart-toy manufacturers to fly under the radar with weak data security practices hidden in vague privacy policies, jeopardizing the privacy of our nation’s children and families.
“This lack of transparency leaves the door open for toy companies to literally spy on children, gathering information on the child’s likes, dislikes and lifestyle.
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 requires website and online service operators, including operators of smart toys, to provide direct notice and obtain verifiable consent from parents before collecting, using or disclosing personal information of children under 13.
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) current interpretation of COPPA only requires toy companies to post privacy policies online and accepts credit or debit card transactions as verifiable parental consent. Thus, parents are at risk of consenting to their child’s data collection without even knowing the toy can store information, placing the onus on parents to research and understand the data security and privacy protections of a toy prior to purchase.
The TOTS Act strengthens key shortfalls in notification standards under COPPA by:
– Requiring toy companies to clearly label the exterior of the toy’s packaging that the toy can collect and share personal information, and whether such information is kept by the toy, the manufacturer, or a third-party entity.
The TOTS Act does not expand the FTC’s power or authority.
The Supreme Court Stands Up For the Right to Self-Defense
The Supreme Court’s infamous 2007 decision DC vs Heller recognized the Second Amendment established a right to bear arms in self-defense. But in the years since, the high court has hardly taken any gun rights cases further fleshing out this precedent—leaving loopholes states have exploited to restrict citizens’ right to self-defense.
In a seismic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court just struck down a New York scheme that heavily restricted citizens’ right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.
The New York policy in question was its “may issue” approach to concealed carry permit applications, which allow citizens to carry a concealed pistol on their person for self-defense. Many states have a permitting process—others have “constitutional carry”—but New York’s was particularly extreme. Not only did it require a basic background check and gun safety certification like many states do, it allowed government officials to deny the application unless the applicant could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”
That’s right: It made a mockery of our rights and treated them as a privilege, only granting permits to celebrities or people who had explicitly been threatened. Living in a high-crime area or generally wanting to exercise your right to defend yourself wasn’t good enough. This was essentially a way the state worked around the Second Amendment to heavily limit our ability to bear arms.
Thankfully, Justice Clarence Thomas just took a flamethrower to this subjective, unjust system. The court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen strikes down the New York scheme and affirms that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home” without needing to accommodate the subjective whims of some bureaucrat.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Thomas writes. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” the majority opinion concludes.
This is a big win for liberty.
The right to life is an inherent human right, and the right to defend your own life from would-be violence is inherent to that right. This is exactly what the Second Amendment was meant to enshrine. It’s great that the Supreme Court is at long last standing up for our inherent right to self-defense—and standing against petty bureaucrats who would leave us at their mercy.
Click here to read/share this article online.
By Joanna Martin, J.D.
Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (i.e., the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.
Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.
The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. 1
Destruction of the World Economy
So, one way to destroy the World economy is to create a virus that shuts down most of the worlds production of food, energy, and production of product many people need, etc. to create a high inflation rate which makes the World economy worst. Supply and demand controls prices, high demand for product but a small supply of product causes prices to raise.
In the USA our government has taken many steps to make life worst for it citizens by shutting down pipelines and oil production and the building of Nuclear plants driving the cost of energy up for all. And then buying oil from the Communists and others that hate us. Therefore helping the Communists and others that hate us. Plus making all kinds of stupid rules that people have lived without just fine for years.
Most of the Worlds problems are created by stupid never held a REAL job government personal and leaders so they can claim to fix problems that would not be unless they created them. Just think of the laws, regulations and rules they make that only make things for you worst that the world did just fine without before they came along.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: What Really Happened in Wuhan
Check out NCCash.com
Unclaimed property consists of bank accounts, wages, utility deposits, insurance policy proceeds, stocks, bonds, and contents of safe deposit boxes that typically have been abandoned for one to five years. Funds become unclaimed because the company loses track of the consumer, due to an incorrect address or other missing information.
By law, these funds are escheated, or turned over, to the Department of State Treasurer for safekeeping. As new funds are added, the NC Cash database is updated, which means that your name could be listed right now.