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

251–260 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#251

Post by hot_gril »

klabb3 wrote: post #239
hot_gril wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GDPR doesn't disallow cookies, it disallows tracking cookies, afaik. Tracking data is not yours too see, so how could you use them ? Do you mean that you want personalized ads?

I want to use the site without getting a banner. Some require me to agree to cookies. I don't care what they do with the cookies. Almost nobody does.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#252

Post by agar »

klabb3 wrote: post #236
hprotagonist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything So that my marriage is recognized across state lines, for a start.

Why would you the government to be involved in your marriage?

Isn't a better question: why would you want /any/ government involved in your marriage?

This argues for federal legislation that defines marriage simply as a compact between two consenting adults with some basic legal record keeping.

The /impact/ of that marriage can be both federal and state (e.g., federal vs. state tax laws).

Individual state laws defining marriage could mean your next of kin could change if you die in the wrong state. That way lies dragons.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#253

Post by abigail95 »

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…

If fewer jurisdictions = better, then just adopt the GDPR as-is.

That seems obviously bad to me, having more jurisdictions to work out what the best laws are seems like a better idea.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#254

Post by bin_bash »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #119
bin_bash wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Much like passing a bill to find out what's in it, going to court to discover the rules is not a healthy way for society to run.

Going to court to discover the rules is precisely how common law systems work

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#255

Post by tzs »

lmkg wrote: post #6

For those following along at home: So far five states have passed local Data Privacy laws (CA, VA, UT, CT, MA). They are all different. This situation makes it much more likely that federal data privacy legislation will happen: while companies wish they could have 0 laws, they would still much rather prefer 1 law rather than 5 (trending towards 50) different laws that contradict each other. There's a whole buncha spe…

> Everyone violates GDPR a dozen ways to Sunday, and nothing happens. Why? Because no one can actually enforce the law except for the local regulators who are underfunded.

Individuals can enforce GDPR in court:

---------------

Art. 79 GDPR

Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor

1. Without prejudice to any available administrative or non-judicial remedy, including the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 77, each data subject shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy where he or she considers that his or her rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of his or her personal data in non-compliance with this Regulation.

2. Proceedings against a controller or a processor shall be brought before the courts of the Member State where the controller or processor has an establishment. Alternatively, such proceedings may be brought before the courts of the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence, unless the controller or processor is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#257

Post by hatware »

macintux wrote: post #196
hatware wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you're not adding any value by staying ignorant to history.

It's not my job to spoon-feed you the problems and solutions.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#258

Post by hatware »

matai_kolila wrote: post #225
pessimizer wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I like how calling you out somehow implies 1984 was not fiction. What a set of hoops!

Then when others call you out, you call it semantics games. Rich.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#259

Post by hatware »

matai_kolila wrote: post #179
hatware wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ~20 years you'll see how silly you are for welcoming totalitarianism. You won't care until it effects you. And then it will be too late for you to do anything about it.

Welcoming, not welcoming; you don't know my position on totalitarianism, you just know I've read 1984 and have opinions about the validity of parallels with modern day. For all you know I prefer "Brave New World" analogies!

> you don't know my position on totalitarianism

We all know your position, and you're not on the right side of history. Period.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#260

Post by phpisthebest »

klabb3 wrote: post #236
hprotagonist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything So that my marriage is recognized across state lines, for a start.

Why would you the government to be involved in your marriage?

I dont think government should be in the business of regulated interpersonal relationships at all, for the finances it should be covered by contract law, for everything else it is none of the government's business
Post reply on HN