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

Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 215 posts

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#41

Post by core-utility »

itsoktocry wrote: post #28
core-utility wrote: post #15

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

> but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest I disagree, this is an example of why data collection can be scary. Data that was perfectly inane yesterday can be used against people tomorrow. How much data do the powers-that-be have access to that can be used similarly in the future? The dystopian view is that they'll be able to paint any narrative if you fall in their cross…

But that's always been true, data can always be used against you regardless of what the laws are.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#42

Post by adamc »

fallingknife wrote: post #9

As much as I don't like laws against abortion, I like tech companies picking and choosing which laws they help the government enforce even less. What we really need is a blanket ban on law enforcement access to private mass collected databases in general.

That won't happen. There are too many cases where it helps law enforcement in reasonable ways.

I'm OK with tech companies choosing data retention practices that make them unable to answer certain kinds of questions, and, in fact, suspect this will be mandated in some locales. Until there is some law that prevents it, anyway.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#43

Post by swearwolf »

core-utility wrote: post #15

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana for inducing a miscarriage through abortion drugs. Indiana also charged Bei Bei Shuei with murder and attempted feticide after her baby died following her suicide attempt.

Not every state seems intent on charging women, but I think it’s hopelessly naive to believe that none will.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#45

Post by fny »

XorNot wrote: post #17
fny wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be a little more accurate and say extreme neoliberalism has exacerbated the failings of the USA.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's something that has been part of the US since the beginning, but the more people are left behind economically, the more they are swayed by these narratives.

See red pilling, incel types as an example.

Fascism does not appear in a vacuum.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#46

Post by Toxygene »

mvdwoord wrote: post #25

Plenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake…

> [...] why was it never codified in law?

The findings of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. [1]

In other words, *the SCOTUS finding said* abortion was codified in law -- the U.S. Constitution.

Edit: clarified the summary to attribute the finding to the SCOTUS and not to my opinion

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#47

Post by hef19898 »

mvdwoord wrote: post #25

Plenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake…

Also Europe based, I see that as big over sight. I am absolutely sure, so, that the republicans will use there judicative power to fullest extent together with a majority in the House should they get said majority. And they will throw out the filibuster in the senate with the blink of an eye if it serves them.

The democrats on the other hand are way to tame.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#48

Post by maxerickson »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #39
maxerickson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A blanket rule on data collection isn't tampering with evidence. They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence.

> They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence. Of course they are, unless I am misunderstanding what they are doing. It seems that they are specifically deleting location data with regards to visits to abortion clinics. [1] [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1...

There is no such thing as an abortion clinic, there are facilities that provide a range of healthcare services, potentially including abortions.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#49

Post by jdcarr »

mvdwoord wrote: post #25

Plenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake…

I think there’s more preventing the passage of a law protecting an individuals right to abortion than whether it was a matter of political priority.

To pass such a law would require 60 votes in the senate AIUI. Given that this has been a massive part of the republican platform there’s no way ten senators would flip in the current senate.

It could have been passed in the Obama years but I wonder if the public would have had the appetite for it with the assumption that Roe vs Wade would have remained. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that

What this shows to me is the intentional inability for the senate to pass anything but the least offensive bipartisan bills and force other institutions such as the courts to intervene. However as we’ve seen the courts have their own agenda too

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#50

Post by hef19898 »

Toxygene wrote: post #46
mvdwoord wrote: post #25

Plenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake…

> [...] why was it never codified in law? The findings of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade was: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. [1] In other words, *the SCOTUS finding said* abortion was codified in law -- the U.S. Constitution. Edit: clarified the summary to attribute the findin…

Except it was not as the SCOTUS just ruled.
Post reply on HN