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

271–280 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#271

Post by notriddle »

phpisthebest wrote: post #266
autoexec wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont, I want to be held to the standard of my State, that's not possible for people who do business with people who live in other states. If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens. If you never create a business or service that anyone from any other state or country uses you'll never have to worry about compliance with their law…

>>If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens. Why? For decades in the US we have had the concept of "Nexus", and just because a person visits your website in Ohio from Florida does not you have a Nexus in FL to where you need to follow FL Law Just like today if I put up a website, and a person from the EU visits it, I as a US Citizen…

> Why?

Because the alternative is that businesses do for data privacy the same thing they already do for things like manufacturing and corporate taxes. That's even worse.

It's a lot easier for big business to control a single state government than all fifty of them.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#272

Post by autoexec »

phpisthebest wrote: post #266
autoexec wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont, I want to be held to the standard of my State, that's not possible for people who do business with people who live in other states. If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens. If you never create a business or service that anyone from any other state or country uses you'll never have to worry about compliance with their law…

>>If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens. Why? For decades in the US we have had the concept of "Nexus", and just because a person visits your website in Ohio from Florida does not you have a Nexus in FL to where you need to follow FL Law Just like today if I put up a website, and a person from the EU visits it, I as a US Citizen…

> Just like today if I put up a website, and a person from the EU visits it, I as a US Citizen with no business interests in the EU have no obligation to follow GDPR or put up cookie notices or any other EU Laws

You'd possibly have an obligation under GDPR, but you are free to ignore that and face the consequences. Same with laws passed in other states. You're free to ignore them so long as you're fine with what ignoring them will cost you. If you enjoy being able to conduct business in and travel to places outside of your state it's probably a good idea not to violate the laws of those places.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#274

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

tekknik wrote: post #250
klabb3 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unnecessarily complex and ridiculous "rules" that make you felon for things that were previously (and should still be) totally legal Not going into the US-centric gun debate and assuming that guns are simply tools, isn't it reasonable that gun owners need to monitor the regulations? If you operate heavy machinery or run a chemical lab, I'd expect you to keep a close eye on upcoming legislation and rules. I'd not be…

Both of these examples are enterprises, not something a private citizen does. I would also hesitate to say that you can become a felon overnight with either of these scenarios (remember all of the rights lost, including gun ownership, by being labeled a felon). And a majority of businesses shield themselves such that if they do violate the law it’s the business itself penalized, not the workers. In the case of gun ow…

Food trucks are under the purview of fda and the local and state authorities of the jurisdiction they do business in. Health and fire inspectors do audit these locations or trucks in the event of an entirely self contained food truck. These businesses are still subject to the whims of these oversight bodies and may be arbitrarily shut down overnight.

Your comparison is factually incorrect on every count. I do hope that you’re just ignorant of the mind boggling amount of legislation your average food truck is subject to.

To bring this full circle, gun owners are de facto legally assumed to be reasonable and responsible owners that abide the law and diligently pay attention to the changes of laws. If you become a felon “overnight” because of an illegal weapon; well that’s on you. Being responsible sucks because it demands humility and accountability. If you’re neither capable of admitting your mistakes nor following the glacial pace of state/federal law making then you’ve no business owning tools capable of killing masses of people in seconds from hundreds of yards away. Great power, great responsibility. Lately some politicians have become tunnel visioned on the power part, I’d like to remind you that in order to maintain a lawful society we must be responsible lest the unwashed masses take Justice for themselves in whatever capacity they can. This is the compromise of a civilized society, you would be wise to learn more about why things are they way they are before you write up factually incorrect justification for your grievances.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#275

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

takeda wrote: post #218
jfengel wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> States move faster... so fast that a technology company would be constantly chasing 50 different state laws. As a person who's data is being sold I would one up it and wish that each county would produce their own regulations. That business is a cancer.

County? I’ll do you one better, locality. Every hamlet the world over with so much as a post office should have their policies.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#276

Post by rmatt2000 »

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…

I'm somewhat skeptical that giving more power and discretion to federal regulators will result in increasing freedoms for the American people.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#277

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

EFF is quite popular among "nerds" but as a source for information and advocacy about electronic privacy I actually prefer EPIC.^1

Perhaps someone reading this can explain why, but I did not see anyone from the EFF at the 8 September 2022 public forum on the FTC's ANPR on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security. EPIC was there providing cogent commentary. The operater of thenexusofprivacy.net was there, too.^2

1. For example, here is a comparison of the ADPPA with the CCPA from the folks at EPIC.

https://techpolicy.press/evaluating-the-american-data-privac...

2. This is another topic that may interest HN thread readers. This is Section 18 "Mag-Moss" rulemaking so public input is mandatory. Those who understand the issues should submit comment to the FTC to support the process. The deadline is 21 October. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0053-0001

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32947397

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#278

Post by hedora »

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.

I went to the site. (They misspelled the DNS name "adssettings.google.com)

I opted out.

I pressed the trash can button in Firefox Focus.

I reopened the site. It said I was opted in.

Their "disable tracking" button simply does not work.

I'm not enabling cookies so I can opt out and they can just buy my tracking information from some other ad network. There is a reason I disable persistent cookies and want DNT headers to be legally binding.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#279

Post by tekknik »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #274
tekknik wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these examples are enterprises, not something a private citizen does. I would also hesitate to say that you can become a felon overnight with either of these scenarios (remember all of the rights lost, including gun ownership, by being labeled a felon). And a majority of businesses shield themselves such that if they do violate the law it’s the business itself penalized, not the workers. In the case of gun ow…

Food trucks are under the purview of fda and the local and state authorities of the jurisdiction they do business in. Health and fire inspectors do audit these locations or trucks in the event of an entirely self contained food truck. These businesses are still subject to the whims of these oversight bodies and may be arbitrarily shut down overnight. Your comparison is factually incorrect on every count. I do hope th…

> Your comparison is factually incorrect on every count.

Please explain how, exactly.

> I do hope that you’re just ignorant of the mind boggling amount of legislation your average food truck is subject to.

Operating one on the side with some in-laws, I'm quite well aware of the legislation. Yet I'm still not aware of a single instance where a food truck operator became a felon overnight because they had a "high capacity grill". In what cases can a food truck operator become a felon when their activities that made them a felon were legal the literal day before?

> If you become a felon “overnight” because of an illegal weapon

Why is overnight in quotes? Do you not believe I was using the correct definition of literally?

> Being responsible sucks because it demands humility and accountability.

I think you'll find that a great majority of us are responsible, that's why we know about these laws and the ATF. I can't say the same for those that are pro gun control, they tend to be very ill informed on the subject and assume others are. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be responsible, we're saying they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily remove rights from people because of who's politically in control of the ATF. If you take a step back and remove personal bias, every sane person in the US would agree.

> If you’re neither capable of admitting your mistakes nor following the glacial pace of state/federal law making then you’ve no business owning tools capable of killing masses of people in seconds from hundreds of yards away. Great power, great responsibility. Lately some politicians have become tunnel visioned on the power part, I’d like to remind you that in order to maintain a lawful society we must be responsible lest the unwashed masses take Justice for themselves in whatever capacity they can. This is the compromise of a civilized society, you would be wise to learn more about why things are they way they are before you write up factually incorrect justification for your grievances.

You're clearly going on some rant here that I'm not sure where you're basing this argument from and it really shows your bias (which has no place on a forum of engineers and other technical people). The point being if this were laws being passed by congress, with months of advanced notice, nobody would be complaining. The ATF can release a rule right now stating owning an AR-15 with a pistol grip is a felony, active at midnight and you best hope you pay attention to the few hours notice you've been given.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#280

Post by makeitdouble »

legitster wrote: post #128
makeitdouble wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be the same if the ISP sold the gov. the extracted info they want ? In this setting the gov can hint at what data it wants, and private parties will manage to get it for resale.

I think to OP's point, if we are worried about government wrongdoing we should pass laws against government wrongdoing. It really doesn't matter what the private industry does or doesn't do if the government still has the right to take it. I am not afraid of my data being used against me to sell products. I am afraid of the government abusing their monopoly on violence. The first seems like misdirection.

I see your point and the appeal of pushing for toughness on the worst side with leniency on the lighter issues.

It just seems irrealistic to have basically a "don't be evil" policy on gov side while letting gorrilla size businesses roam free.

For instance we already have a very bad time dealing with VISA/Mastercard policies that straight dictate what businesses are allowed to thrive online. VISA/MC duopoly is not the gov, yet it has arguably more power on the online cultural landscape. And any gov making their life easier can have them implicitely return the favor in some way would be basically untraceable (the gov might not even need to ask for anything. VISA/MC would just apply changes in line with the gov.'s stated policies)

User surveillance is the same, you can't have unruled gigantic entities allowed to do whatever they want, with the gov limited to a small set. That chinese wall is just bound to leak.

Post reply on HN