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

191–200 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#191

Post by singron »

stvswn wrote: post #117
hedora wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need to specify that this has to work in an anonymous, per device way (like DNT). Otherwise, google could claim its current policies are compliant. ("Just log in if you want to be 'anonymous'...")

Google does not rely on a user being logged in. Go to adsettings.google.com in a logged out state, for example. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

That's only for ad personalization. If you want to turn off web and app activity, you have to be logged in.

The ad industry has had these opt-outs for a while, but you have to set opt-out cookies on about 500 sites, so it's not practical. DNT solves that problem, but the industry won't voluntarily adopt any solution that has any realistic chance of making a difference.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#192

Post by guerrilla »

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.

> It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.

barriers to entry [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#193

Post by carom »

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…

Hell, I'd be happy if the DMV, post office, and voter records stopped publishing my address.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#194

Post by randomdata »

vinay_ys wrote: post #180
randomdata wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature Well, it would be rather pointless to elect to hire a representative to represent you and then not take time to make your position known with them. They certainly are not mind readers. And you can't realistically remove big businesses from citizenry as those who are stakeholders in big business are going to bias their position to what benefits their busine…

Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? Shouldn't such mechanisms be equally accessible to all constituents irrespective of their ability to spend $$? Also, don't the representatives have pre-election issues based manifesto when they are seeking votes to get elected? Shouldn't they stay true to the promises…

> Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are?

The advantage big business has is scale. Big business, by definition, has many more stakeholders. This means that big business will be disproportionately represented by the constituents. If those biases weren't made clear, and each constituent's position was taken at face value, then the unified front would appear stronger than it would actually be if each actor were acting without those biases.

> Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made?

I'm not sure why you'd want them to. The state of the world is constantly changing and new information continues to flow in. You will be constantly reevaluating your position in the face of new information. A representative will respond to that.

Representatives know that some segment of the population honestly believe that they are mind readers and will offer up some examples of how they might try to read the minds of those who buy into that witchcraft to attract their vote, but marketing and reality are quite different.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#195

Post by carom »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #170
gigel82 wrote: post #21

Can't read legalese much, and -judging by how these things tend to go- I bet it's butchered beyond recognition before it gets to a vote (if at all). Instead, we should consider a constitutional amendment that enshrines digital privacy as a fundamental human right.

we don't even have food and shelter as a human right

We do have food in a sense. I began cooking for the homeless and quickly learned they all had EBT cards and didn't want my bland cooking.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#196

Post by macintux »

hatware wrote: post #146
macintux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on what you feel is wrong with the bill?

Feel free to read up on the last 20 years of US politics. Same shit, different day.

The point of HN is not to make winking, snide comments about how things are broken, but to actually discuss/document what’s good or bad.

You’re not adding any value without diving into details.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#197

Post by encryptluks2 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #156
encryptluks2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work like that. Once Congress enacts something then it can be preempted by federal law. Just because the activity took place in a single state doesn't mean that the Federal courts don't have jurisdiction. Erisa is a good example.

I wasn't arguing that, I was saying that it's not an unambiguous case of interstate commerce. Congress shouldn't be pre-empting the laws of California insofar as they apply to intrastate commerce. You can set a federal minimum and let each state enhance laws as they see fit.

Agreed, but as we've seen with many other federal laws once you have preemption then it is usually interpreted to the broadest extent and not the minimum.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#198

Post by encryptluks2 »

jdp23 wrote: post #171
rt4mn wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why Microsoft has been throwing money at lobbyists at the state level as well, pushing shitty "consumer privacy bills", both because they don't like strong legal privacy rights at the state level, but also in the hopes of forestalling and kneecapping a strong federal baseline privacy bill. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pus...

Yep. We've fought them off here in Washington ... but they and Amazon just took it to other, more pliable states. Todd Feathers and Albert Ng had a very good article on this in The Markup a few months ago https://themarkup.org/privacy/2022/05/26/tech-industry-group...

Did we though? What bills does Washington have that could compare to the CCPA?

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#199

Post by rt4mn »

matai_kolila wrote: post #189
rt4mn wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do worry about being killed by the government. I worry about everything related to government abuse of power and surveillance. I wear my tinfoil with with pride, thank you very much. On a more serious note (in case it was not clear that I was being facetious), you are absolute correct that an important theme (and, arguably, the primary / key message) of 1984 is to highlight the horror and dangers of a totalitarian…

I don't disagree or agree with what you've written generally here, but specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that. That's an important point, and I think there are a lot of folks who would try to disagree. There are people in this very comment thread that believe 1984 is not a work of fiction, and that's silly. Those are the people I'm disagreeing…

> specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that

Of course 1984 is not a reflection of current reality. it was not a reflection of current reality back when it was written. Science fiction is not a fun-house mirror reflecting back a warped version of the present, its a kaleidoscope looking into the future.

I have not seen anyone in this thread say "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction", or confusing that world with reality. I've only seen people using the novel as it was intended to be used (as a rhetorical and persuasive tool) and pointing out: "There are a number of very real parallels between the world we live in and the world of 1984, and the number of parallels is increasing. This is a giant blinking warning light, and we should change course"

> I'm not really interested in generic, "society is falling apart" conversations, as every society ever has been saying that about different things, and yes they even followed up with, "No but for us it's real!"

I sympathize with your lack of interest in that conversation, its not a fun one, but its important and your rational for avoiding it is flawed. True, very society every has had its doomsayers, and they were very often wrong. But a lot of them were right, too. Progress is not inevitable. Societal backsliding has happened many times throughout the course of human history, and democratic / rule of law backsliding has happened a lot in very, very recent history. Back when that opinion piece I linked too was written, the new york times had reporters based in russia. Now they don't.

Judge Doomsayers like me based on the specific doom we forsee, not on the fact that we are doomspeaking. (and now I promise I'm done editing, even for spelling, since thats gotten me hooked two bloody revisions ago)

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#200

Post by phpisthebest »

nugget wrote: post #131
jdp23 wrote: post #48

It's not clear that ADPPA will move forward. The current version preempts California's CCPA/CPRA legislation, and (big surprise) California doesn't like that. But, that's far from the only issue with it. Here's an update from a couple of weeks ago which discusses some of the problems, as well as potential next steps. https://thenexusofprivacy.net/adppa-new-compromise/ And, here's EFF's position: " Americans Deserve M…

Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book cas…

>>Preemption would be an enormous mistake

Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything, without even touching the fact that Data privacy is in no way even close to any of the enumerated power of the US Federal Government

Federal Laws almost always favor large companies, the exact companies these laws are needed to protect the consumer from

Facebook, Microsoft, etc would love nothing more than to have the federal government take over because has "stake holders" they will be called on to write their own legislation, and will start the revolving door of hiring current, former and future regulators to work in the very corporations they are supposed to regulate.

Federal laws never work for the average citizen

Post reply on HN