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

221–230 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#221

Post by hunterb123 »

tagawa wrote: post #181
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.

There is a standard that has some recognition and uptake (though needs more) - Global Privacy Control. It’s been adopted by some browsers and publishers, and IIRC is a requirement for CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) compliance. https://globalprivacycontrol.org/

They'll just make it so complicated where you have to use an embed from Google or something to implement it properly, similar to CCPA.

In the end Google ends up in a script on the page somehow in the name of privacy.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#222

Post by hot_gril »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #82
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...

The first thing to know about US Laws/Bills is that whatever they name it, it typically achieves the opposite

Or something unrelated. The "infrastructure" bill got renamed to "inflation-reduction" bill despite its contents not changing much. If the pandemic were still a massive concern, I'll bet it'd be called the "covid19 relief" bill... oh right, there was one of those, and it included foreign military aid.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#223

Post by micromacrofoot »

carom wrote: post #195
micromacrofoot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the comment I was responding to was specifically referencing rights as outlined by the constitution

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#224

Post by takeda »

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…

I have a representative who I agree pretty much on all issues. The problem though is that he is one of 435 people in the House. He can just vote for, against, or propose changes. But then will have to fight against those who will easily accept money to ruin it.

I'm glad that Pelosi is using her position to impose some changes on the bill so maybe something good will come out of it, but I really can't stand that in US bribery is essentially legal.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#225

Post by matai_kolila »

pessimizer wrote: post #211
matai_kolila wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telescreen, newspeak, mass surveillance, perpetual war, "officials" acting as if what they are saying now is always what they said, etc. It's almost easier to list the things that we don't have in common. > The thing I tell most people is that we currently live under more surveillance then folks in 1984. > In ~20 years you'll see how silly you are for welcoming totalitarianism. You won't care until it effects you.…

> Three examples from this thread (one by you) of folks claiming "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction", I'm not sure that you can accuse anyone of misconstruing anything unless you can find this quote in another comment, or anything resembling it.

I'm not really interested in playing the semantics game, I concede all points to anyone who wants to try.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#226

Post by hot_gril »

water-your-self wrote: post #134
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...

Alphabet and amazon are on the last page, alphabet having spent ~3mil and amazon ~5mil

I think the theme is just that they're big companies.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#227

Post by hot_gril »

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…

Sigh. I have my cookies enabled because I want to use them. If I didn't, I wouldn't enable them. I wish there were a "fuck GDPR, I agree to whatever terms" browser setting.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#228

Post by autoexec »

phpisthebest wrote: post #200
nugget wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything

I'm not sure why anyone wants to be held to 50+ different and conflicting privacy and data protection requirements just to have a website or provide a service online because that's what we'd be getting if we left online privacy regulation up the states.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#229

Post by seanw444 »

jfengel wrote: post #204
nugget wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

States move faster... so fast that a technology company would be constantly chasing 50 different state laws. The Internet is a global entity, and it doesn't strike me as being well served by the "laboratory of the states". Federal legislation is slow, but executive agencies can move faster if they are empowered by legislation to make rules. Congress sets broad principles, and it's not unreasonable that those principl…

After seeing how the ATF operates entirely autonomously to nearly eliminate the right to bear arms through increasingly more unnecessarily complex and ridiculous "rules" that make you felon for things that were previously (and should still be) totally legal, I have zero interest in giving executive agencies autonomy to make laws.

And it doesn't matter that the rules can be ruled as ineffective by a high court, because it takes ages to get through the whole court process. So in the time that the court took ruling something totally unconstitutional, people's rights are squandered (especially without any democratic consensus to enact it), and the people that enacted and enforced the later-deemed-unconstitutional rulings face zero repercussions. And guess what? They then move on to the next unconstitutional ruling that squanders as many rights as possible for as long as possible.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#230

Post by hot_gril »

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…

> I'm not really worried about targeted ads, I'm worried about targeted assassinations.

Who's after you? I'm not making the lame "only wrongdoers have something to fear" argument, just wondering what circumstances you're dealing with.

Post reply on HN