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

291–300 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#291

Post by nicbou »

shishy wrote: post #29
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…

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.

uBlock Origins has "annoyances" blocklists that takes care of most of those banners.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#292

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

schoen wrote: post #288
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in thi…

I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning…

We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs.

If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#293

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

vinay_ys wrote: post #177
rt4mn wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has been a particularly bad actor in this space. They have been hiring lobbyists to advocate at the state level for shitty "consumer privacy bills", specifically because they want to forestall and kneecap federal legislation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pus...

What's Microsoft's interest in this? They don't have a big search or ads business. What are they doing with Consumer data?

"They don't have a big search or ads business."

$11.5 billion is not small.

From 10K

     Revenue, classified by significant product and service offerings, was as follows:
  
     (In millions)                                                                
                                                                                  
     Year Ended June 30,                  2022          2021          2020        
                                                                      
     Server products and cloud services   $ 67,321      $ 52,589      $ 41,379    
     Office products and cloud services     44,862        39,872        35,316    
     Windows                                24,761        22,488        21,510    
     Gaming                                 16,230        15,370        11,575    
     LinkedIn                               13,816        10,289        8,077     
     Search and news advertising            11,591        9,267         8,524     
     Enterprise Services                    7,407         6,943         6,409     
     Devices                                6,991         6,791         6,457     
     Other                                  5,291         4,479         3,768     
                                                                                  
     Total                                $ 198,270     $ 168,088     $ 143,015

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#294

Post by klabb3 »

hot_gril wrote: post #251
klabb3 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Principle of least privilege. If websites ask for camera permission they should have a good reason, and you should be able to disable it in the browser. Unfortunately, you can't enforce what cookies will be used for technically, so it's done legally instead. But the preference could still be in the browser, where it belongs. I'd be fine being denied service if I don't allow tracking cookies.

Another option would be to spoof/containerize/pollute/sabotage the cookies through the browser or an extension, and opt back in for sites that you need persistence with.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#295

Post by renewedrebecca »

seanw444 wrote: post #229
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…

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, becaus…

I’m sorry, but if you really think gun rights are nearly eliminated in the US, you’re delusional.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#296

Post by tekknik »

schoen wrote: post #284
tekknik wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 capac…

> 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. ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/chapter-II and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... a…

> ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations > and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act > and therefore are announced ahead of time in Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) published in the Federal Registe

Only if there is no exception that allows them to wave the comment period. The key being "emergency actions".

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrativ... https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/Regmap/REG_MAP_2020.p...

> There is an emergency rulemaking exception under the APA for "good-cause", but this is comparatively rarely used

Bingo. Now imagine living in fear because of a particular government body's overreach. You can clearly see that this can and will be abused based on political bent. The exceptions are the problem. Remove them. Require all rules have a 180 day waiting period.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#297

Post by tekknik »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #286
schoen wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/chapter-II and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... a…

Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in thi…

> but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender

What other enumerated rights shall we remove under the guise of saving lives? Should we remove access to vehicles? Alcohol? Shall we enact a speech control board that if you violate it you lose your enumerated rights? This would open the door for the same abuse gun owners receive for exercising their right.

You're right, I'm a gun rights absolutist. I will not settle for the removal of this right nor the government making it difficult to exercise. They don't do this with any other right why this one? Can other rights not be just as dangerous? (See Democrats stating they needed to misinformation due to the damage caused to democracy).

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#298

Post by tekknik »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #292
schoen wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning…

We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs. If your interest in re…

> we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence

With it already being illegal for certain criminals to own firearms, what regulation short of a total ban would help? This is where the "add more laws" logic fails. The thinking is that adding more laws will keep criminals hands off of guns. Criminals by definition ignore laws. Guns can be made via a 3d printer now. Ammunition used to be made (reloaded) by campfires. It's impossible in these days to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. If you have a CNC machine you can make your own AR-15.

Instead the solution is quite the opposite. More guns. You don't have to carry one yourself, just don't stop the rest of us. And by law if someone is carrying a concealed weapon near you and your life is in danger, they must protect it. We end up with peer to peer police. Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon.

As far as school shootings, that solution is quite easy and technical. AI powered cameras in classrooms and hallways that alert if someone not in faculty or the student body steps on the grounds. Alert for gun shaped objects. Ballistic class on the interior and exterior windows with doors that partition the hallway when closed and locked to block in any assailants.

The guns rights group has many solutions to the problems, but the gun control group doesn't want them. Gun control groups have created a situation where it's easier for criminals to get guns and use them than it is for law abiding citizens.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#299

Post by seanw444 »

renewedrebecca wrote: post #295
seanw444 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, becaus…

I’m sorry, but if you really think gun rights are nearly eliminated in the US, you’re delusional.

I didn't say they were completely eliminated. I'm saying that is the inevitable conclusion if they are allowed to continue on the track they're on.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#300

Post by jfengel »

rmatt2000 wrote: post #276
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…

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

I'm somewhat skeptical that the increasing power of private companies to gather and sell your personal data is increasing freedoms for the American people.

So a pragmatic person chooses a solution that maximizes the benefit and mitigates the tradeoffs.

Post reply on HN