Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 599 posts

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#571

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #567
rayiner wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re talking about what “ should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy. Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. By the way, this isn’t…

> Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power. Would it be fair to say that…

> Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power.

I have an extreme textualist view of constitutional limits on legislative power.

> Would it be fair to say that, in your view, a state government can take whatever action it wants, so long as the action isn't literally prohibited by the text of the Constitution?

I wouldn’t say “literally.” I would say it’s a fair reading, as one would apply to a commercial contract.

>,(In other words, for state governments, anything not prohibited is allowed?)

Yes, state governments are not ones of enumerated powers. They inherited the plenary legislative power of the British parliament and can do whatever they want that’s not expressly prohibited.

> I'm curious: What's your view of the doctrine that under the 14th Amendment, state governments must comply with the Bill of Rights to the same extent as the federal government?

I think it’s unsound. My secret left wing view is I think New York can regulate guns (but also Utah can make a state church).

> You periodically mock "emanations from penumbras" — is it your view that the phrase has more significance than simply a figure of speech to communicate the underlying concepts?

It’s a figure of speech that is especially revealing of the “underlying concept,” which is discovering constitutional principles in moral or political philosophy. I basically don’t think that’s legitimate. The constitution embodies a particular set of moral and political philosophies. Sometimes we add more (e.g. the concept of equal protection). But judges don’t get to be philosophers weighing in on moral issues the framers of the constitution and amendments clearly didn’t contemplate.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#572

Post by apwell23 »

hexyl_C_gut wrote: post #560
apwell23 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can negotiate to pay a fraction of the original price. what gives you the negotiating power ? they can simply dock you on your credit report. thats what comcast did to me. they didn't care about negotiating

I think that is how collections work. When a business can't get you to pay they sell the right to collect it to another "collections" business (let's call it Y). Y pays a fraction of the amount owed for the right so even if they can get you to pay like 25%, they are still making a profit.

by that logic i should let every bill go to collections?

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#573

Post by AlexCornila »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #407
marricks wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a pro business anti consumer supreme court which knows it’d be dangerous to appear that way. Government and court will hamstring their ability to help consumers. My favorite comment on HN was some law student saying his prof said “Scalia is the most complicated supreme court member whose views are always unpredictable” and the commenter said “he’s just a corporate hack who always votes for corporations and backs…

> they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases. I think you missed this — it isn’t some arbitrary reason to rule in an anti-consumer way. There is good reason to do so. Imo we should keep our checks and balances strong, and this is one small action that does that.

sure bud .. wake the fck up

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#574

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #571
dctoedt wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power. Would it be fair to say that…

> Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power. I have an extreme textualist view of constitutional limits on legislative power. > Would it be fair to say that, in your view, a state government can take whatever action it wants, so long as the action isn't literally prohibited by the text of the Constitution? I wouldn’t say “literally.” I w…

> The constitution embodies a particular set of moral and political philosophies. Sometimes we add more (e.g. the concept of equal protection). But judges don’t get to be philosophers weighing in on moral issues the framers of the constitution and amendments clearly didn’t contemplate.

I'd agree with you — if we had more than one, largely-sclerotic way of amending the Constitution to accommodate new realities and new insights. "The only constant is change" is apparently a misattribution to Heraclitus [0], but it obviously has struck a chord to be in such widespread circulation.

Judicial lawmaking is a kluge, certainly. It brings to mind a passage in Tracy Kidder's 1981 The Soul of a New Machine: A "kluge" is like a wheel made out of bricks: No engineer would be particularly proud to have designed it — but if you need a wheel, and bricks are all you have to work with, then that's what you use.

In any case: Judicial lawmaking has become more-or-less accepted. You're part of the "or less" crowd, clearly. But ISTM that judicial lawmaking is a case of the (mythical) perfect being the enemy of the good-enough.

(A possible improvement: Congress could cabin the judicial-lawmaking process by stating — under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause in Article VI — that a 3/5 majority in each chamber, and perhaps presidential acquiescence, can override any SCOTUS pronouncement about constitutionality. And maybe impose a fast track for legislation to overturn a judicial interpretation of a statute. Both would be roughly akin to the Congressional Review Act for overturning administrative-agency decisions [1].)

[0] https://euppublishingblog.com/2021/07/19/misunderstanding-of...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10023

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#575

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #571
dctoedt wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power. Would it be fair to say that…

> Your comments these past months seem to evince an extreme textualist view of the Constitution's limits on government power. I have an extreme textualist view of constitutional limits on legislative power. > Would it be fair to say that, in your view, a state government can take whatever action it wants, so long as the action isn't literally prohibited by the text of the Constitution? I wouldn’t say “literally.” I w…

> state governments are not ones of enumerated powers. They inherited the plenary legislative power of the British parliament and can do whatever they want that’s not expressly prohibited. *** My secret left wing view is I think New York can regulate guns (but also Utah can make a state church).

That's certainly not an incoherent philosophical position.

EDIT: In this view, it sounds as though each U.S. state would be more like one of the member countries of the EU than, say, cantons in Switzerland or counties in England.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#576

Post by sculper »

bluGill wrote: post #344
thrance wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how they only enforce the law when it serves their interests though.

That is false. The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right. The real question is why are liberals willing to ignore the law?

> The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right.

They have _said_ that they support the rule. In recent years, conservative judges have said a number of things that don't hold up to any amount of scrutiny.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#577

Post by margalabargala »

lisper wrote: post #494
margalabargala wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we have some cases where the courts follow the rule of law, and others where the stretch reality to come to insane but convenient conclusions, like in your example. You're right, it's absolutely applied selectively. But, while it would be nice to have an insane, illegal, but convenient conclusion in our favor, that does not mean we should criticize the courts for following the rule of law rather than coming to an…

The problem is that if the courts only follow the rule of law some of the time then one must consider the possibility that these selective applications of the law are in service of some extra-legal agenda, in which case the fact that this agenda occasionally aligns with the law doesn't change the fact that the judges are in fact operating with compete disregard for the law except as it occasionally offers the opportu…

Sure, I don't disagree, my point is just that the solution is not to transition from "ignore the law most of the time" to "ignore the law all of the time".

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#578

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

Tainnor wrote: post #557
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DPAs (especially the Irish one) are unfortunately known to be incredibly business friendly Can you give me some examples of this please? I think that the core problem for the Irish DPA is that they are woefully under-resourced, and they're up against the biggest companies in the world. Now, one could argue that this is the fault of the government/people and I'd agree with you, but that's a harder thing to change (I…

https://noyb.eu/en/eu-court-irish-dpc-must-investigate-noyb-... https://archive.ph/20230123014444/https://www.irishtimes.com...

OK, from 2018 so they were even more under-resourced (if that's possible).

Additionally, the Irish DPC got involved from other data authorities, which may have caused delays.

That being said, they were dead wrong not to take on that case, as it was clear violation of GDPR. I actually worked for Meta/Facebook at this point and got drunk and bitched about this exact screen with one of their privacy lawyers. It was total non-compliance and should have been punished much harder.

Note also that the Hamburg DPA is crazy, they kept pushing compliants that were never supported by anyone else. I'm a little annoyed at noyb for not putting their complaints to the appropriate authority, but they appear to have learned better in the intervening years.

> https://archive.ph/20230123014444/https://www.irishtimes.com...

This on the other hand, is a work of opinion by a Berlin correspondent for a pretty poor newspaper. There probably is a bunch of pressure/lobbying on the DPC to avoid massive, massive fines which shouldn't happen but does everywhere.

The conceptual difference here is important. The goal should be to preserve privacy, not fine arbitrary large amounts of money. Like, sometimes you do need to fine people but personally I'd prefer auditing requirements for Meta/Google et al rather than fines.

I'm gonna need to think about this, tbh. I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the Irish DPC given the resourcing constraints and the size of their opponents. I'm not sure where the right balance is, tbh.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#580

Post by Tainnor »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #578
Tainnor wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://noyb.eu/en/eu-court-irish-dpc-must-investigate-noyb-... https://archive.ph/20230123014444/https://www.irishtimes.com...

OK, from 2018 so they were even more under-resourced (if that's possible). Additionally, the Irish DPC got involved from other data authorities, which may have caused delays. That being said, they were dead wrong not to take on that case, as it was clear violation of GDPR. I actually worked for Meta/Facebook at this point and got drunk and bitched about this exact screen with one of their privacy lawyers. It was tota…

> The conceptual difference here is important. The goal should be to preserve privacy, not fine arbitrary large amounts of money. Like, sometimes you do need to fine people but personally I'd prefer auditing requirements for Meta/Google et al rather than fines.

I'm operating under the assumption that most tech giants (and in particular Meta) are doing everything in their power to keep violating people's privacy as long as they can get away with it.

Since it's impossible to audit everything such a huge corporation is doing and since cases can take a very long time to resolve (after which the damage is often already done), the huge fines are for scaring companies into submission. I am perfectly fine with that, no actually: I wish the fines were so big that they were actually threatening the business's survival.

> I'm not sure where the right balance is, tbh.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I think that Facebook simply shouldn't exist.

Post reply on HN