Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by fny » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:07 PM UTC

hahaitsfunny wrote: post #35

fny wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy. It's not tied to "progressivism" or "conservatism". In short, it promotes free-market economics without borders.

Where did I mention progressivism or conservativism? Neoliberalism is intrinsically tied to politics because you can't affect economic policy without getting involved in the political system... Regardless, your implications surrounding my comment, and my intent by making it, are incorrect. Both movements have been disastrous for the United States.

Neoliberalism is entirely unrelated to neoconservatism. The "liberal" part refers entirely to free-market economics.

The two philosophies are similar only in name. It is possible to be both a neoliberal and a neoconservative.

For example, every Republican president from the 1980s up to Trump was a neoliberal. This includes Bush who you mention as a counterexample. Trump was the first anti-neoliberal president we have had in decades as he, unlike his predecessors, promoted tariffs.

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

#72

Post by cogman10 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

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 am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law?

The US constitution made leeway for rights to be unenumerated, or not explicitly spelled out (9th amendment [1])

Up until this current supreme court, a right has never been removed. That was not standard jurisprudence.

Now, however, we have radicals on the court who take the view that "if it's not in the text, it isn't protected" completely ignoring the 9th amendment and often only applying it when they favor the text ideologically (see: gun laws. Plenty of historical documents show that the 2nd amendment was about states being able to form militias and not arming individuals. It literally wasn't until about the 1990s that lobbying from the NRA successfully reinterpreted the amendment to mean "everyone gets a gun").

The next problem is that in order to pass new laws, you need to have a super-majority in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency to go along with the law. Pretty difficult when the republican party has decided they want absolutely no new laws and certainly no expansion of rights. (See: how hard they are fighting against the HR-1 the voter rights act [2])

But, of course, while abortion rights are wildly popular (~80% of the population supports them in some circumstances. ~50% in all circumstances [3]), we don't run the country as a democracy, but rather a representative republic. And that's the problem. While the people want this, the representatives do not. A combination of gerrymandering and voter suppression has angled them into a position where the population that elected them doesn't track with the general population.

This is exactly the same issue with climate change. 60% of the population view it as a dangerous problem and 40% of the population view it as overblown. [4] That 40% ends up with a larger portion of power in the senate because any action to realistically curtail climate change ends up being filibustered.

The issue america has is we have 1 party with the motto that "The scariest phrase is I'm from the government and I'm here to help" as such, they block any and all regulations and government actions they can feasibly stop. The setup of our government favors that strategy. Their voters don't CARE that they aren't passing laws, they prefer it that way. This kills the ability to compromise.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment

[2] https://cha.house.gov/hr-1-people-act

[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx

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

#73

Post by cato_the_elder » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #69

cato_the_elder wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a range of healthcare services Come on man, that's just muddying the water. The courts do care about intent, and Google's intent is clear in this case. Also, that's like saying there is no such thing as a gun shop, just a retail business providing access to various kinds of gear.

Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions. But they are not peeking at what sort of healthcare the women are seeking. There's a clear distinction. "Without regard to the purpose of their visit" is going to pass muster pretty much anywhere.

> Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions

And they just happen to think of that after the recent supreme court ruling?

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

#74

Post by vorpalhex » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

arolihas wrote: post #30

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.

Women have been prosecuted for miscarriages before, it's not baseless. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...

> One of California's senior legal officials has shown his support for a young mother charged with murder after her stillborn baby boy was found to have toxic levels of meth in his system, reports Daily Mail.

https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-u...

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

#75

Post by cogman10 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

Teknoman117 wrote: post #57

Toxygene wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] 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…

> that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. Unfortunately the 14th amendment does not explicitly say that. Therefore we've been operating off of the court's previous interpretation of the 14th amendment, which has now changed. So unless Congress can pass legislation legalizing it federally without any ambiguity, it's going to be left up to the states.

The 9th amendment says you don't have to explicitly state a right.

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

#76

Post by vorpalhex » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

swearwolf wrote: post #43

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.

Purvi Patel was sentenced for wrapping a live, viable baby in a plastic bag and then throwing it in a dumpster.

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

#77

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

cato_the_elder wrote: post #73

maxerickson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions. But they are not peeking at what sort of healthcare the women are seeking. There's a clear distinction. "Without regard to the purpose of their visit" is going to pass muster pretty much anywhere.

> Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions And they just happen to think of that after the recent supreme court ruling?

That doesn't matter!

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

#78

Post by adolph » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

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 leaving old laws in when they are ruled null by a court. As a result, many states' laws changed immediately after Dobbs was ... (issued? enrolled? made in force?).

It's like leaving data in memory such that a new pointer gets the old value. Pure crust.

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

#79

Post by core-utility » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:11 PM UTC

Teknoman117 wrote: post #67

core-utility wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas' situation is specifically worded for the state not to come after you. It's a citizen's matter. "this statute does not limit who can bring suit, so long as it is a private citizen" Additionally, in the Texas case you can't sue the mother, only those who aid in performing the abortion.

It's hard to say the state isn't coming after you in this case though. Why the hell does my neighbor get to care if a specific doctor performed an abortion? Why can they launch a civil case against and be compensated financially for something that doesn't affect them in any way?

So legally speaking, the person in a civil suit typically has to be the one harmed, or have some major interest in the harming of someone their connected to (if that person can't bring a suit themselves). Texas' working of this is that the baby/fetus/whatever you choose to call it was killed and can't bring suit itself, and they're explicitly allowing the society to bring suit on behalf of that.

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

#80

Post by Eric_WVGG » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #34

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.

The legal basis for the roe decision is "a general right to privacy" which was argued on the basis that the 10th amendment reserves unenumerated rights(0) to be regulated by the states, then preserved for the individual. Since the constitution makes no mention of privacy, if you believe it's a right, it would fall into the category of "unenumerated". IIRC prior to roe, there are no supreme court decisions about the r…

^ This. Roe vs. Wade wasn't about abortion, it was about privacy. That's why they're already talking about voiding gay and interracial marriage bans, they were based on that precedent.

Here's a consequence that should speak to tech-types: there are two arguments against mandatory NSA backdoors into encryption used by tech companies, 1) a fundamental right to privacy, and 2) these backdoors are intrinsically hackable.

The argument against #2 is "nuh-uh" and enough of our lawmakers are technically illiterate enough to believe that. #1 was based on judicial precedent that just went down the toilet.