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

61–70 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#61

Post by Ragnarork »

donatj wrote: post #50

Now if we could just get a bill that actually limited the governments ability to collect data on its citizens. I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations. You talk to people and ask them why they are worried about companies collecting data, and a certain percentage will tell you they don't like that the government could get it with a court order. That'd be a HUGE improvement…

You need both.

Companies collecting data on you directly or indirectly is a problem, even if they don't do anything malevolent with it (and some already do). The issue is that eventually they'll be breached, and then that data can end up in the hands of malicious actors that might use it in a way that could harm you (e.g. identity theft, compromising other accounts thanks to peronal info, etc.).

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#62

Post by jedberg »

noasaservice wrote: post #59
guerrilla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regulatory capture.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#63

Post by lolinder »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #8

Lol.. gotta love when they propose acts before even understanding technology. Things like this need to be collectively written by some of the best privacy advocates. Not a bunch of interns that have no clue how technology works.

If there's a piece of the bill that illustrates your objection, please do share. As is this feels like a canned response based on a stereotype, not a substantial objection.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#64

Post by riversflow »

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.

I don’t want to have to go to court to not be extorted over my data.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#65

Post by Dalewyn »

shadowgovt wrote: post #51
shishy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's kind of hilarious that of all the datapoints websites will gorge upon, DNT is the one thing they all toss out.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#67

Post by always2slow »

donatj wrote: post #50

Now if we could just get a bill that actually limited the governments ability to collect data on its citizens. I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations. You talk to people and ask them why they are worried about companies collecting data, and a certain percentage will tell you they don't like that the government could get it with a court order. That'd be a HUGE improvement…

Why would they need a court order when they are already just buying the data with zero oversight? The panopticon works like this: fund startups that will create a data treasure trove -> legally buy / access the dataset and add it to xkeyscore.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#68

Post by HideousKojima »

colpabar wrote: post #53
michaelmior wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most FOIA requests involve a small fee as well for the same reason.

https://www.hhs.gov/foia/faqs/what-is-the-cost-for-getting-r...

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#69

Post by dsr_ »

drstewart wrote: post #36
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."

GDPR is filled with "reasonableness" expectations and unspecified guidelines that aren't tethered to anything. Why the concern over this one specifically?

This one, I dunno.

But in general, EU/EC law is full of policy that gets interpreted as human judgement calls, and US law is full of details that are interpreted as badly-written code with a choice of parsers. The two styles are not compatible.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#70

Post by rabuse »

noasaservice wrote: post #59
guerrilla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, always used to stifle competition. Regulate the hell out of it, so new companies can't even begin without millions up front.
Post reply on HN