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

171–180 of 215 posts

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

#171

Post by toss1 »

titzer wrote: post #51
johndhi wrote: post #18

Everybody acts like tech companies get tremendous value from analyzing PII. Almost all of tech (perhaps excluding fb) mostly just collects pii because it's easier to do so than not, and because everybody else is. If it were banned in a clear sensible way worldwide I don't think the tech would suffer much.

The revenue difference I have heard, ballpark, for targeted advertising (based on tracking) on the web, en masse is 2x. So the gajillion dollar online ad industry would only be set back by 4 or 5 years. So, 2018? Not bad. I say, do it. Ban targeted advertising on the web.

Yup - and we can go even further - the tech companies (& all companies) should by their own volition treat personalized data at what it is - highly toxic waste.

While it is mildly interesting, I've never read any articles, studies,or other info that the highly touted promise of PII to increase sales, effectiveness of advert spending, or ad relevancy for consumers is anything but a complete flop. Decades of effort by the top tech firms and investors, and contextual ads are still more relevant -just show ads quasi-related to what I'm reading/viewing right now.

Highly likely that Google could this afternoon vaporize every byte of PII they hold and be just fine. FB might suffer, but more because surveillance tech is their core worldview then that they couldn't survive.

If they are smart ,they'll vaporize it this week, without any legislation. But I'm not counting on it.

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

#172

Post by yummypaint »

karaterobot wrote: post #22

> A sudden gap in location data could itself be used as evidence in court. Google should drop visits to particularly personal locations, but they should also just ignore everything except the 10-15 places you visit the most. I have to believe they care much more about the fact that I go to the same Trader Joe's every week than that I went to a plumbing supply warehouse one time last year. This would provide a good sc…

How would you implement this in a way that doesn't require google to retain your full location history?

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

#173

Post by origin_path »

jdcarr wrote: post #49
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 ha…

Isn't that a contradiction? If it could have passed in the Obama years but was ignored, then it simply wasn't a priority to do so, which was the original point made. Obama years were pretty recent.

Does the court have an agenda here, or is this the removal of a previous agenda? I don't understand these claims that the court is simply doing the same as before but right wing instead of left. They haven't changed things to make abortion illegal at the federal level. They've just removed a ruling based on shaky legal reasoning and kicked the decision back to where it was meant to be all along, which would seem to be lack of an agenda.

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

#174

Post by StewardMcOy »

SllX wrote: post #165
StewardMcOy wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Court does not exist to “check” the States except where the laws of States conflict with the laws of the United States, in which case either party may be “checked”. This is arguably correct prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. However, Roe was decided on 14th amendment grounds. The 14th amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of cit…

Let’s take this from the top: 1. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America per the United States Constitution. 2. The 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution including the “privileges or immunities” clause. 3. Privileges or immunities is constrained by judicial jurisprudence post-Slaughter House which basically interprets it to mean that the States will not inf…

That's all correct. There's no precedent for the court using using the "privileges or immunities" clause as a rationale for jurisdiction, and Roe was decided on the due process clause. The privileges or immunities clause is indeed poorly written, and subject to lots of debate.

I should have quoted at least up to the due process clause, but omitted it for space. However, I still think there's a strong case that the due process provides jurisdiction for the court to "check" a state over abortion for the due process clause, and possibly the "privileges or immunities clause", though that's, as you pointed out, untested territory.

Post-Griswold, the due process clause applies to unenumerated rights in the constitution. Privacy, or even bodily autonomy, could easily be one of those rights.

Gun to my head, if I were forced to argue solely on privileges or immunities, I would attempt to argue that the wording was changed from or to and as a result of Corfield v. Coryell because Congress did not wish for it to be so limited, and given the context within which the 14th amendment was passed, the purpose was to bring the states within the power of the court with regards to individual liberty.

It wouldn't stand a chance with the current court, but I could see it flying on a modern court with a different makeup. After all, Corfield v. Coryell decided that New Jersey could prevent nonresidents from gathering clams. I can't see such state discriminatory laws passing muster post civil war.

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

#175

Post by kbelder »

Buttons840 wrote: post #117
maxerickson wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The interstate commerce clause is heavily abused, but not allowing states to control behavior in other states seems a pretty straightforward interpretation. The states were always intended to have different laws, from the beginning of the country.

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

#176

Post by heartbeats »

cogman10 wrote: post #124
heartbeats wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 majori…

> What am I missing, here? Genuinely curious. Population distribution. There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. Were the US populatio…

> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists.

> Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Even if >50% want a national abortion law, If people do not want it, then how can it happen? Cutting the filibuster only makes sense if you control the Senate, which is about 50/50 for both parties.

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

#177

Post by ars »

arolihas wrote: post #97
vorpalhex wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Yeah, this is one of the examples of the mother being prosecuted mentioned in the article, thanks for emphasizing my point!

That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it.

Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child?

I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.

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

#178

Post by heartbeats »

StewardMcOy wrote: post #157
heartbeats wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

> 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. Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political u…

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war.

> No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever.

Why not rethink it, then?

I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? If only the Democratic states participate, then the necessary consensus to make serious changes (e.g. European-style parliamentary democracy) would be much easier; the Republicans would maybe also tolerate it, given that it would allow them to introduce the laws that they wanted to.

How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going?

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

#179

Post by heartbeats »

falcolas wrote: post #140
heartbeats wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

FWIW, most rights you and I have are not codified in the constitution. That doesn't mean those rights don't exist. This whole debacle is two SCOTUS arguing over whether privacy, and thus bodily autonomy, is one of those rights. Ultimately the constitution is a, relative to the case law and interpretations the SCOTUS has generated from it, miniscule document.

Are there some other (non-politically controversial, not subject to heavy litigation) well-known uncodified rights in the USA?

I don't live in the USA, so certainly none of my rights are codified there.

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

#180

Post by dragonwriter »

heartbeats wrote: post #178
StewardMcOy wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political u…

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I u…

> I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now?

No, it doesn't. The idea that basic human rights are of subordinate priority to sovereignty and something that we will just agree to disagree on has less currency now than in the 1860s; secession as a means of handling this kind of disagreement made much more sense then than now, and it didn't make a lot then, either.

Post reply on HN