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

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

#111

Post by notacoward » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:52 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…

> Not a priority according to democratic politicians.

Hindsight (or the view from the sidelines) is always 20/20, isn't it? It wasn't codified into law because it didn't seem necessary while Roe v. Wade was still in place and there were so many other issues that also needed addressing. You know - wars, pandemics, economic downturns, that kind of thing. Which of these other issues would you have let slide so you could pass a highly contentious law with no immediate practical effect in an environment of razor-thin vote margins and staunch opposition? The Democrats would have gotten plenty of "friendly fire" for that too. Sure, in retrospect it seems like a giant missed opportunity, but we shouldn't pretend there weren't reasons at the time.

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

#112

Post by heartbeats » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

cato_the_elder wrote: post #82

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 Because a large part of the country is against late-stage abortions, and there is a need to keep a semblance of democracy?

But in that case, what's the problem? If you can't get the legislation through because it isn't popular enough, that seems like a pretty solid case of "Won't fix: working as intended".

Congress still has the ability to pass those laws, should they want to.

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

#113

Post by klyrs » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:56 PM UTC

cato_the_elder wrote: post #82

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 Because a large part of the country is against late-stage abortions, and there is a need to keep a semblance of democracy?

It's a federation, not a democracy. States themselves are federations of legislative districts, the borders of which are drawn by the same legislature (without, thanks to today's supreme court, the checks and balances of judicial oversight). In a democracy, sensible legislation that appeases a large majority is possible.

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

#114

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:56 PM UTC

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #80

throwawaymaths wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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.

This is factually untrue in the case of interracial marriage and deceptive in the case of gay marriage.

Loving v. Virginia, (which predates Roe) prohibiting bans on interracial marriage, was based on marriage as a fundamental right and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not privacy and substantive due process like Roe. A Roe-like substantive due process argument was raised in Loving but not resolved by the Court because the EPC argument was sufficient.

Obergefell v. Hodges, prohibiting same-sex marriage bans, had two independent bases, an EPC basis resting on Loving and a substantive due process bases resting on Roe and related cases. (In Obergefell the Court didn't choose not to resolve the substantive due process argument despite the EPC being sufficient, unlike Loving.)

In strictly reasoning-of-the-case terms, Roe (or even, as Justice Thomas has suggested, the line of substantive due process cases on which Roe relies) being struck down has no impact on Loving and no decisive impact on Obergefell.

The real reasons these and other cases are talked about as targets isn't legal reasoning, it is power politics: both the left and right see an activist Court that has proven multiple times recently that it is willing to ignore settled precedent to write right-wing preferences into law, and one side is afraid of that and one side wants to maximize the benefit they can extract from that situation while it lasts.

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

#115

Post by adolph » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:58 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #100

adolph wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That the surveillance apparatus might know you visited a doctor, and what you discussed, does not grant the government the ability to prosecute you based on that information - because it is considered to be a matter of the private activities of a citizen. I'd be swayed by this except that post-Snowden we know that the surveillance apparatus can be used for "parallel construction" where the evidence to charge/try/co…

You've managed to completely miss the point: the issue is not whether someone knows about it. The issue is that it is your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with. This would include surveillance, but also includes legislation and prosecution on matters which do not involve anyone but the parties they pertain too. "p…

> your personal private business - the government can be aware of it all it wants, but

> the "right to privacy" is the right not to be interfered with

Ok, yes, I'm confused. In what way are the above two statements not completely opposite world-states? Is "information collection" (by government or others) not antithetical to the "right to privacy?"

Again I will refer to 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0]:

The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power).

0. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

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

#116

Post by heartbeats » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

StewardMcOy wrote: post #92

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…

American here. I think it's important to not characterize judicial review in the Row case as lawmaking. Although lots of anti-abortion advocates criticized Roe as legislating from the bench, the court was actually doing was checking the power of various state governments to take away individual rights. Judicial review has certainly been misused by the court in other cases to legislate, and the concept is anti-democra…

> In Roe, the court didn't write a law saying abortion was legal. It struck down laws stating that it was illegal. That's an important difference.

I don't get it - this seems like sophistry. Isn't the end result the same, i.e. nationally permitting abortion?

> It's also worth remembering that there was never a realistic chance of a nationwide right to abortion being passed through congress. There are a few reasons for it. Only about 15% of the country is against abortions in all circumstances, but they're a loud minority. Similarly, 20-30% of American are pro-choice under any circumstance. But the majority of Americans support abortion only in certain circumstances, and they tend not to care as much about it. [1]

Isn't this how the system is designed to work? And if that's not desired, why not change the system instead? "The SCOTUS gets to make the rules" only works about half of the time, and it seems mostly like a matter of dumb luck as for when it does and doesn't.

Using the courts to enforce uncodified abortion rights is like using a shoe to beat a nail in; it's pointlessly brutal, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. I get that it may be expedient for a specific purpose, but why do people celebrate it as a good system in the abstract?

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

#117

Post by Buttons840 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #105

cato_the_elder wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states in which the abortion clinics are already starting to close due to the ruling. [1] [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61933814

Yes, this measure would be to protect people that travel out of state to seek healthcare from later persecution and prosecution in their home states.

This debate seems headed towards the question of whether or not one state can control what people do in another state, or restrict the free travel of people who intend to do things which are legal in other states? Utah doesn't allow gambling, can Utah build a wall to keep Utah residents inside so that they can't gamble in other states?

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

#118

Post by heartbeats » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #72

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" compl…

> 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])

Why isn't this abolished, then? Does a majority of the U.S. electorate actually want to abolish the filibuster and so on? If not, then it seems like a logical series of propositions:

1. A majority of the U.S. population want >60% majorities to pass laws.

2. A majority, but less than 60%, support nationally permitting abortion.

3. Therefore, while a majority of the U.S. support abortion, they don't support any system that would actually allow it to become law.

"The federal government is hopelessly useless" and "the states shouldn't get to decide anything" seem to me like two contrary positions. Either:

1. The current federal system is fine, and there is no need to change anything.

2. The current federal system is not fine, but it can be changed. Therefore, it should simply be reformed.

3. The current federal system is not fine, but it can't be changed. Therefore, the states should have the power instead.

What am I missing, here? Genuinely curious.

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

#119

Post by Eric_WVGG » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

buchoo wrote: post #106

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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 interracial marriage ban precedes Roe v. Wade by over 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

My mistake, thank you for the correction.

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

#120

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #90

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #7

Eh, this is the one thing I hoped would push non-tech people like my wife into a more active stance. I showed her one of the related articles discussing apps tracking menstrual cycles and poor HIPAA protections in today's world, but the result was sadly the opposite to what I hoped for. In that particular case, addiction to her favorite games clearly outweighed espoused concern of Roe vs Wade impact. It is odd. I was…

> addiction to her favorite games clearly outweighed espoused concern of Roe vs Wade impact I’m curious, how are the two related?

Ahh, sorry, I assumed the connection is clear. Addiction to a set of casual games is preventing her from even considering dropping Facebook or, should we went that route, downgrading to a feature phone. Separately, she is unwilling to log into FB from PC, where there would be more control over what is done that machine. In this case, games are holding her hostage from adopting healthier privacy habits.

Now, privacy habits are related to Roe vs Wade in a more nuanced way. Some of the recent articles indicated that some data that could be used to identify women one way or another and puts tech sector in its sights as a result.

Hope it makes is a little more clear. I am a little sick so odds are my thoughts are not clearly expressed.