I believe this is called FUD - lengthy "summarizing" of the facts, alternating with vague baseless allusions. The author condemns the bill for being 10k words long, while his own screed weighs in at 5.5k!

I am a bit wary of something that pops up out of the blue, looking helpful - "never let a good crisis go to waste" and all that. And I'm generally skeptical of "making more laws". But what are the specific flaws in this one?

The indictment seems to be focused on time, meaning there could be flaws we cannot find. But given this is an adversarial process, it also means there (hopefully) hasn't been much of a chance for every entrenched interest to compromise with each other at the people's expense!

The tech giants will eventually benefit from this type of legislation, because after the initial shock it will just help them consolidate. For instance (contrary to the linked FUD), "mom and pop [retail] stores" already don't have to worry about handling customers' information, as that's encapsulated by the payment processors.

So now every little business that wants to use surveillance against their customers will be pushed to go through some centralizer (eg Google). Though from the perspective of the unwillingly surveilled, this isn't really that bad either - eg gaining the ability to actually break up with clingy and histrionic Faceboot.

The big question is if this ability to delete the files being kept about ourselves will remain unneutered, or whether the surveillance industry will eventually succeed in eroding it under some guise of indefinite consent or nebulous mingling of orthogonal purposes.

Another big test will be if the law can be successfully applied against say Experian.