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

301–310 of 313 posts

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#301

Post by hot_gril »

magic_hamster wrote: post #282
hot_gril wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I sure care. I never agree to any cookies, and instead, I use an ad blocker to hide the banner. I can't speak for most people but of you care about your privacy, tracking cookies should become an opt-in mechanism.

Yeah, you care, but most people probably just click accept. I want an "I don't care" option. Ad-blocking the banner only goes so far and is harder on mobile.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#302

Post by hot_gril »

klabb3 wrote: post #294
hot_gril wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Principle of least privilege is for things the client can control, like sending the cookies in the first place. There has already been a "do not track" option since 2010. It got basically deprecated because nobody respected it. And even if they tried to enforce it, and I actually cared about being tracked, I wouldn't trust it.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#303

Post by seanw444 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #290
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…

I left the exercise of relating my arguments to your statements to you and am doing the same here. Are you aware of the origins of the fda? Chefs and pharmacists got rightfully chilled by the dozens of bills it took to fully reign in their murderous proclivities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Food_and_Drug... The only reasons that we’re having this discussion is because of elementary (bad faith) disa…

I am sorry to hear that you're a "recovered" libertarian. As a scholar of history, I will keep my guns, and die for it if I have to.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#304

Post by seanw444 »

tekknik wrote: post #298
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I agree with everything except for:

> 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.

This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#305

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

tekknik wrote: post #298
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons. Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument.

Your solution is naive, unsupported by research, reasonably hypothesized by people far more intelligent and accomplished than either of us, to be a failure on arrival, and conveniently requires no requires no acceptance of responsibility in the current horrific state of affairs nor does it requires a change in mind on anything.

More guns = more suicides and accidents. You should already know this.

the nra/federalist society, and similar organizations have been using their lackey’s to prevent progress on gun control for decades. Mitch McConnell has publicly taken pride in his ability to prevent anything from getting done regarding anything.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/27/texas-shooti...

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#306

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

tekknik wrote: post #297
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…

> 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…

The entire argument used by belligerent guns right absolutists (belligerency follows absolutist views like butter on bread) is based on a maliciously broad understanding of the second amendment. Note that no one talks about militias, just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. But no, it’s too hard to buy a gun./s have you tried the dark web, other Americans have figured out how to carry straw purchases en masse.

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second...

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#307

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

seanw444 wrote: post #303
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left the exercise of relating my arguments to your statements to you and am doing the same here. Are you aware of the origins of the fda? Chefs and pharmacists got rightfully chilled by the dozens of bills it took to fully reign in their murderous proclivities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Food_and_Drug... The only reasons that we’re having this discussion is because of elementary (bad faith) disa…

I am sorry to hear that you're a "recovered" libertarian. As a scholar of history, I will keep my guns, and die for it if I have to.

Flame bait? Libertarianism is a stereotypical collegiate belief system that collapses explosively and hilariously whenever it’s been attempted. Keep your guns, I’m fine with civilian gun ownership. I’m not fine with school shootings. First world countries manage responsible gun ownership without school shootings. Let’s get there and then quibble about these things.

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#309

Post by tekknik »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #306
tekknik wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The entire argument used by belligerent guns right absolutists (belligerency follows absolutist views like butter on bread) is based on a maliciously broad understanding of the second amendment. Note that no one talks about militias, just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ r…

> Note that no one talks about militias

Wait a second, who doesn’t? In fact on this board they have been discussed more than a few time, including by myself.

> just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period.

This is a biased rant again. None of what you said sounds dangerous to me. The problem is now with what law abiding citizens buy and own, they will never use the “dozens of long guns” kill innocent people. Why are you conflating criminals and law abiding citizens?

Can you also tell me, using your example, why any waiting period past the first one does anything? If someone already owns a gun, why are they being subjected to yet another waiting period? The entire point of a waiting period was to cool off and not do something stupid with your new purchase. But if the person already has a gun on hand then what is the point of it?

Re: American Data Privacy and Protection Act

#310

Post by tekknik »

seanw444 wrote: post #304
tekknik wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

I agree with everything except for: > 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. This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough t…

> This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.

There is a difference in practicing one's rights and endangering others. We require the same of our police officers. While I'm a fan of constitutional carry, I have no problem taking 8 hours of classroom courses and qualifying with my carry pistols.

Post reply on HN