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

American Data Privacy and Protection Act

congress.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#51

Post by shadowgovt »

shishy wrote: post #29
cyral wrote: post #3

I see they are also annoyed at cookie banners: > SEC. 210. UNIFIED OPT-OUT MECHANISMS. For the rights established under sections 204(b) and (c), and section 206(c)(3)(D) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish one or more acceptable privacy protective, centralized mechanisms, including global privacy signals such as browser or device privacy settings, for indiv…

Was scanning for this thanks for pointing it out. Some of these banners are infuriating, and if I use firefox containers sometimes I see them over and over, especially if I'm clearing my cookies. It is insane to me that this isn't already a standard.

Standardization was attempted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

the tl;dr for that story is that it wasn't mandated to be honored, the industry didn't voluntarily adopt it widely, and when IE 10 tried to turn it on by default and the standard's lead supporter responded by submitting a patch to Apache web server to ignore the DNT signal coming from IE 10 because "does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization," that situation pretty much killed it in the crib.

The problem is technologically simple to solve; all the challenges are social and legal.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#53

Post by colpabar »

michaelmior wrote: post #28
colpabar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy request shouldn't enable mechanisms of denial of service type attacks against companies. How would this even happen? I genuinely don't understand what you mean.

Users don't like a company, they automatically spam the company with large numbers of requests for personal information which they would legally be required to provide.

Does the same logic apply to FOIA requests?

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#54

Post by [deleted] »

bin_bash wrote: post #34
ortusdux wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, "reasonable" is subjective. Things like this need to be tethered to something. "The fee may not exceed 50% of the hourly federal minimum wage."

That’s just not true. “Reasonable” is a binding term used in contracts all of the time. The court system is extremely experienced in determining what is and is not reasonable.

[deleted]

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#55

Post by greyface- » 

  SEC. 203. INDIVIDUAL DATA OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL.

  (e) Verification And Exceptions.—

  (1) REQUIRED EXCEPTIONS.—A covered entity shall not permit an individual to exercise a right described in subsection (a), in whole or in part, if the covered entity—

  (C) determines that the exercise of the right would require access to or correction of another individual’s sensitive covered data; or
Simple: store all your user data in an intermingled fashion, such that a read or update of any individual record necessarily involves a read or update of one or more unrelated records. Now you don't need to act on data access requests.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#56

Post by [deleted] »

bin_bash wrote: post #34
ortusdux wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, "reasonable" is subjective. Things like this need to be tethered to something. "The fee may not exceed 50% of the hourly federal minimum wage."

That’s just not true. “Reasonable” is a binding term used in contracts all of the time. The court system is extremely experienced in determining what is and is not reasonable.

[deleted]

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#57

Post by guerrilla »

weberer wrote: post #42
borbulon wrote: post #25

If we can let lobbyists write bills, we should be able to let privacy advocates write bills. We can do better than this.

Privacy advocates such as the ACLU and EFF do have lobbyists as well.

but not tens of billions of dollars between them.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#59

Post by noasaservice »

guerrilla wrote: post #52
weberer wrote: post #27

You can also see which companies sent lobbyists to work on this bill. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/summary?c...

That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?

So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies... which already likely do the bare minimum.

I'm not sure of the term. It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#60

Post by MerelyMortal »

jesuspiece wrote: post #32

Quoted post unavailable.

Maybe politics would be better if people didn't jump to stereotypes (which don't always hold true, as evidenced by your comment and the replies pointing out your error), and instead of blaming/attacking each other, we could focus more efforts on making things better.
Post reply on HN