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

U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#41

Post by VRay »

putlake wrote: post #9

The cartoon playing out in the media once again reminds me of Gell-Mann Amnesia because I used to work at Alexa. The lengths that they go to for preserving consumer privacy actually seemed absurd to me. Alexa engineers and applied scientists' lives would have been much easier if they didn't take customer privacy -- and their right to request and delete their data -- so seriously. Yes, they are lobbying against regula…

And yet you're collecting insane amounts of data with little or no way to opt out of it, and storing that data in a country where the secret police can rifle through it any time with effectively no oversight.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#42

Post by emptycan »

LogonType10 wrote: post #21
Brendinooo wrote: post #13

A reminder that no one's making you use Amazon, especially the Alexa stuff. I invested in Mycroft to try and kickstart a privacy-focused alternative; the hardware isn't there yet but they've made good strides on the software side. You can invest too! https://www.startengine.com/mycroftai Make the world we want to live in.

Amazon delivery vans scan nearby WiFi networks for SSIDs and tag that with geolocation. Amazon knows all about your home network .

That's quite a leap from "scan SSID" to knowing "all about your home network" and sounds like hyperbole. What can I gather from just passively scanning SSID and possibly putting out some probes on a properly configured WiFi network? I imagine some things like number of hosts, MAC addresses, traffic stats - which is not ideal, but hardly what I would call knowing "all about it".

I'm quite the privacy nut, but I always think its ridiculous that people cry foul about what people do with data that is being broadcast over the airwaves. If you really care about privacy and don't trust WPA2 then don't fucking use WiFi!

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#43

Post by loteck »

whimsicalism wrote: post #39
loteck wrote: post #8

Despite the day to day situation in congress, it seems inevitable that in the short to mid term, the US will have to stand up new privacy legislation in order to maintain participation in the digital economy. The question will be how they define privacy, and who will write the law. If activism doesn't interest you and you're looking for a reasonable shortcut, follow the work/proposals of Sen. Ron Wyden. He employs ac…

I'm curious how you expect the random people on HN to affect change by "following" someone's proposals sans activism? It seems like a "reasonable shortcut" around activism would involve... actually accomplishing things? Otherwise I can just say staying at home is a "reasonable shortcut" to getting to work. It's certainly much shorter, but it doesn't really accomplish the task at hand, no?

I'm suggesting that folks not interested in following the developing activism around privacy instead follow Wyden's work on this as their primary source of information, so that they can be aware of the best work going on and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio on this topic.

When it comes time to actually accomplish things, there is no shortcut around action.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#44

Post by loteck »

systemvoltage wrote: post #30
loteck wrote: post #8

Despite the day to day situation in congress, it seems inevitable that in the short to mid term, the US will have to stand up new privacy legislation in order to maintain participation in the digital economy. The question will be how they define privacy, and who will write the law. If activism doesn't interest you and you're looking for a reasonable shortcut, follow the work/proposals of Sen. Ron Wyden. He employs ac…

> maintain participation in the digital economy. I think your logic is reverse. There is an asymmetrical advantage for companies like Google and Facebook.

I think you've expressed a US-centric perspective, where the US leads the world and the world reacts.

The rest of the world is advancing privacy legislation and making it difficult to do business in jurisdictions that don't enforce similar privacy concepts. This will increasingly become untenable for US businesses.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#45

Post by zucked »

nixpulvis wrote: post #38
x0x0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a de-facto national privacy law. It's the CPRA and it takes effect 1 Jan 2023.

Am I missing something? This is a California law, no? Who is this "we" you speak of? Defacto-laws degrade my concept of structure in society.

It is a California regulation, yes. I suspect that OP is making reference to the fact that as California goes, often so goes the national policy. Or, at least that's how it's played out with regularity in the past.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#46

Post by x0x0 »

nixpulvis wrote: post #38
x0x0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a de-facto national privacy law. It's the CPRA and it takes effect 1 Jan 2023.

Am I missing something? This is a California law, no? Who is this "we" you speak of? Defacto-laws degrade my concept of structure in society.

CA is 14.6 of US GDP and 12% of the population. It's hard to have a large business in the US that doesn't have $25m revenue or handle the information of 100k CA residents, so there is very broad applicability.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#47

Post by rileyphone »

ssklash wrote: post #28
loteck wrote: post #8

Despite the day to day situation in congress, it seems inevitable that in the short to mid term, the US will have to stand up new privacy legislation in order to maintain participation in the digital economy. The question will be how they define privacy, and who will write the law. If activism doesn't interest you and you're looking for a reasonable shortcut, follow the work/proposals of Sen. Ron Wyden. He employs ac…

Wyden is the single best tech-related legislator in Congress, in my opinion. A great all around senator as well.

> In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[55] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[56]

It amazes me how otherwise sensible legislators look like goons when it's AIPAC calling, approving bills that make free speech a crime.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#48

Post by hulitu »

loteck wrote: post #8

Despite the day to day situation in congress, it seems inevitable that in the short to mid term, the US will have to stand up new privacy legislation in order to maintain participation in the digital economy. The question will be how they define privacy, and who will write the law. If activism doesn't interest you and you're looking for a reasonable shortcut, follow the work/proposals of Sen. Ron Wyden. He employs ac…

> The question will be how they define privacy, and who will write the law.

Just like in Germany. The rich will define the legislation and will write the law. Privacy means "If i am rich you have no right to look at my personal belongings". "If you are poor we need your credit score and some account ballance at least".

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#49

Post by whimsicalism »

loteck wrote: post #43
whimsicalism wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how you expect the random people on HN to affect change by "following" someone's proposals sans activism? It seems like a "reasonable shortcut" around activism would involve... actually accomplishing things? Otherwise I can just say staying at home is a "reasonable shortcut" to getting to work. It's certainly much shorter, but it doesn't really accomplish the task at hand, no?

I'm suggesting that folks not interested in following the developing activism around privacy instead follow Wyden's work on this as their primary source of information, so that they can be aware of the best work going on and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio on this topic. When it comes time to actually accomplish things, there is no shortcut around action.

Fair enough - I misinterpreted the meaning behind your comment.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#50

Post by bllguo »

reaperducer wrote: post #15
putlake wrote: post #9

The cartoon playing out in the media once again reminds me of Gell-Mann Amnesia because I used to work at Alexa. The lengths that they go to for preserving consumer privacy actually seemed absurd to me. Alexa engineers and applied scientists' lives would have been much easier if they didn't take customer privacy -- and their right to request and delete their data -- so seriously. Yes, they are lobbying against regula…

no business wants to have to deal with 50 different laws in 50 states. Amazon already does this in a thousand ways, from labor laws to labeling laws to paying thousands of different sales tax rates to thousands of different states, towns, and other municipalities. If this was a startup, maybe you'd have a case. But it's a trillion-dollar company. Suck it up, buttercup. Or just do the simple thing: Follow the most res…

not wanting to deal with 50 sets of different rules is eminently reasonable. They have the resources to manage, so no improvement is necessary? Is that really the argument here?
Post reply on HN