Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#61

Post by bumby »

microcolonel wrote: post #37
bumby wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? Outside of unleaded gas, most externalities in the car industry seem to progress slowly in the absence of regulation. Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities

> Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities Many regulated risks in automobiles are not external , which is I think where they're out of bounds. I think a certain amount of regulation to ensure consumers are informed of the internal risks of an automobile is reasonable; but the government really oughtn't tell you how safe your car must be for you . Externalities , as you say, are the app…

I think the issue is one of pragmatism. CAFE standards are meant to be an average to allow some vehicles to be designed to meet very different end use needs. Same with the test beds. There's definitely room for improvement.

My point was that automotive manufacturers are not particularly incentivized to improve on areas that don't align with their bottom line. Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of performance parameters?

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#62

Post by bhupy »

dlp211 wrote: post #57
bhupy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP might have meant that weaker regulation/government is a necessary condition, not necessarily a sufficient one.

Then I would expect to see a counterexample to my point.

I don’t follow? It could be that your counterexamples include the necessary condition, but don’t have the sufficient conditions.

In the abstract, if conditions A, B, and C are stated as required to achieve a desired outcome, the fact there happen to be examples of undesirable outcomes with condition A (but implicitly lacking conditions B and/or C) is not enough to prove that condition A is NOT a necessary condition for a desired outcome.

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#63

Post by ilovetux »

djohnston wrote: post #50
Despegar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is literally the government protecting people's privacy and data. That's what this article is advocating for.

In practice, aren't FAANG giving same protections to Americans? I know they didn't have to, but I thought they would since it would be easier to maintain in long run

This argument only holds if it wouldn't affect their profit.

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#64

Post by claudiawerner »

blotter_paper wrote: post #60
claudiawerner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A parody for sure, but apparently not as "lulzy" as you're making it out to be. It's all well and good that you believe you have the faculty to distinguish improperly prepared fish from properly prepared fish, but many people do not, and improperly prepared fish will be sold cheaper than the prepared variety, which means that people who want fish but can't afford to pay much for it will be the ones buying the imprope…

> It's all well and good that you believe you have the faculty to distinguish improperly prepared fish from properly prepared fish, but many people do not, No, I don't believe that I neccessarily have that faculty. I just want to be able to bet on it anyway. > and improperly prepared fish will be sold cheaper than the prepared variety, which means that people who want fish but can't afford to pay much for it will be…

>Just don't take my freedom of self destruction. It's an important one to me, whether or not you feel the same.

You have that freedom regardless of whether the government allows deadly food to be sold or not. A famous libertarian economist once said that we can't only consider the ideal in isolation from the actual policies that are enacted toward that ideal - his main consideration was the capitalist idea of freedom, but mine is the idea of public health and harm due to negligence.

>I'm just trying to eat a hypothetical pufferfish, maaaan.

No you're not, you're arguing for society to be structured in such a way that companies are allowed to use dangerous products in what they sell to people. You can eat the pufferfish (and I must say that I urge you to) but that doesn't mean others should have to bear the cost of fearing if their next meal will kill them.

>No, that isn't a good reason to arrest me for buying or selling a fish.

This is about as reductionist as the claim that knife murder is simply the actuation of muscles and the thrusting of a metal object. How can you illegalise moving metal objects?

>The most ridiculous laws you people make are the ones that make parts of nature illegal

Plenty of things part of nature are illegal, including (but not limited to) rubbing the back of a frog that produces deadly toxins onto all the objects in your home.

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#65

Post by blotter_paper »

claudiawerner wrote: post #64
blotter_paper wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's all well and good that you believe you have the faculty to distinguish improperly prepared fish from properly prepared fish, but many people do not, No, I don't believe that I neccessarily have that faculty. I just want to be able to bet on it anyway. > and improperly prepared fish will be sold cheaper than the prepared variety, which means that people who want fish but can't afford to pay much for it will be…

>Just don't take my freedom of self destruction. It's an important one to me, whether or not you feel the same. You have that freedom regardless of whether the government allows deadly food to be sold or not. A famous libertarian economist once said that we can't only consider the ideal in isolation from the actual policies that are enacted toward that ideal - his main consideration was the capitalist idea of freedom…

> You can eat the pufferfish (and I must say that I urge you to)

Ahaha, just like a statist to wish death upon their enemies. You really took the high road there, buddy.

> Plenty of things part of nature are illegal, including (but not limited to) rubbing the back of a frog that produces deadly toxins onto all the objects in your home.

See, this is what I'm talking about; you guys wanna take all of the coolest frogs away!

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#66

Post by microcolonel »

bumby wrote: post #61
microcolonel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities Many regulated risks in automobiles are not external , which is I think where they're out of bounds. I think a certain amount of regulation to ensure consumers are informed of the internal risks of an automobile is reasonable; but the government really oughtn't tell you how safe your car must be for you . Externalities , as you say, are the app…

I think the issue is one of pragmatism. CAFE standards are meant to be an average to allow some vehicles to be designed to meet very different end use needs. Same with the test beds. There's definitely room for improvement. My point was that automotive manufacturers are not particularly incentivized to improve on areas that don't align with their bottom line. Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of perform…

> Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of performance parameters?

I'm saying I'd prefer consistent (between vehicle classes) regulation of performance parameters which have externalities; and the abolition of non-normalized fleet-based targets (since they privilege the largest manufacturers). If the goal is to reduce external risk, the threshold of acceptable risk should be the same for all motorists as a matter of fairness.

A possible alternative to CAFE is a specialized cap and trade market. I get that they did think a bit about this stuff when they implemented it, but I feel like it has weird effects in practice, especially when gaming it enters medium-long term corporate strategy.

I think it would be spectacular if inefficiency was purchased on a per-vehicle or per-lot basis from manufacturers who exceed the target, and efficiency was sold in turn to those. Not sure how these transactions would be cleared, but I'm sure something reasonable could be worked out. This would do away with adjustments/exemptions based on vehicle footprint (CAFE targets currently differ based on mean vehicle footprint).

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#67

Post by bumby »

microcolonel wrote: post #66
bumby wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is one of pragmatism. CAFE standards are meant to be an average to allow some vehicles to be designed to meet very different end use needs. Same with the test beds. There's definitely room for improvement. My point was that automotive manufacturers are not particularly incentivized to improve on areas that don't align with their bottom line. Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of perform…

> Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of performance parameters? I'm saying I'd prefer consistent (between vehicle classes) regulation of performance parameters which have externalities; and the abolition of non-normalized fleet-based targets (since they privilege the largest manufacturers). If the goal is to reduce external risk, the threshold of acceptable risk should be the same for all motorists as a…

I think I agree in an idealized sense, but also think if this approach was taken it would decimate the ability to create certain vehicles, especially those used in heavy-duty applications. I don't know the history of CAFE standards but it may very well have been a practical choice...either get some form of progress or dig our heels in on an idealized version that never gets adopted.

Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?

#68

Post by pstuart »

tomohawk wrote: post #55
pstuart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP is anti-government and spares no chance to demonstrate that. That doesn't forgive the failure, but instead of saying "let's fix it then", the answer is always: private enterprise!

Other than Trey Gowdy being a member of the GOP, not sure what you're criticizing here. His line of questioning was not partisan, and got to the heart of the matter - their lack of competence and ability to follow regulations and/or written contracts. The OPM had a serious data breach, and demonstrated a marked lack of ability to do their job. To date, they have not been held accountable, unless you count the stern q…

The NSA ostensibly provides "cybersecurity" support and services -- they should be partners in securing government infrastructure. Maybe they were with OMB (but clearly not enough).

Accountability is good and should happen. Thus far we've seen very little accountability for data breaches in the private sector, so they're not alone.

I don't know the answer as to how to make accountability really work in general -- because it becomes game theory of how to create that space without becoming paralyzed by fear to act.

Post reply on HN