61–70 of 181 posts
So has Australia, the EU, and the UK [0]. That said, being a signatory has limited impact as long as it isn't ratified. [0] - https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree this is the case, I think this is a consequence of low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse. If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(
Ive noticed that when people say we need more education or we need to teach critical thinking or something like that often what they really mean is "It is obvious my position is the intelligent one and those who have a different position are ignorant and foolish and if they just knew more, or were smarter they'd obviously really then superiority of what I advocate for over whatever they believe now." Which is just th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thomas Massie introduced the best privacy bill I have seen. I know nothing about political strategy but i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor. Will it even get voted on if the house speaker doesn't want it? https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ >Warrant required Government must go before a judge to access your metadata, location, or financial records — just like searching your home. >No Da…
It's dumb that private buyers can buy data profiles but the government can not. It leaves a million loop-holes for government to backdoor a suspects data. It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight. Perhaps something like a mandatory "Do not track" option for all data supported services, where you ca…
Okay, but what's so bad about getting something positive done? It doesn't have to be comprehensive to apply to data brokers to be an improvement. That would bring in the data broker lobby and big tech. This bill would cement protections for Americans from their government.
>It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight.
Does it ban data brokers and selling data? From the website it seems to be focused on government privacy invasions. Its not a GDPR although we need that too (hopefully a better version).
So has Australia, the EU, and the UK [0]. That said, being a signatory has limited impact as long as it isn't ratified. [0] - https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
Yeah, but normally when you sign something its because you intend to ratify it in short order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t it very ironic to post this under a pseudonym? Which by definition contains some signalling that deviates from WYSIWYG.
Is GP running for political office here on HN or something? Otherwise I can't really see your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, both low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse exist by design. The only possible way to remedy this is to maximize your own ability to exert power, possibly by becoming massively rich, and then hope it doesn't corrupt you enough along the way such that you can still enact good in the end.
The more I learn, and the more versed I become with society, the harder and harder it becomes to see what is "good" and what is "bad". The most confident I ever was that I was "obviously correct" was when I was 20.
When are we going to see substantive legislation advancing digital rights instead of chipping away at them? For the US, we need a new bill of rights, a bill of digital rights that constitutionally protects right of repair, right to root our own devices, right to be free from dragnet surveillance, right to general purpose computing, and the right to access speech without government-mandated age or identity checks. Wit…
As a libertarian myself - these people are fake libertarians, actually better described as crypto-authoritarians. So called "right" libertarianism is fertile ground for this, as it's based on an axiomatic/reductionist framing of rights wherein when someone violates a precondition, their rights then become irrelevant. The philosophy is supremely attractive to authoritarians who go down its rabbit hole - finding a whole bunch of reasons to reject appeals to other people's rights while convincing themselves they are advocating freedom.
Whereas in reality, the "freedom" they believe in is merely the freedom for themselves to oppress others - witness how these billionaires have chiefly made their money with centralized proprietary web apps/services based around removing choice away from users (at the edge) in favor of "take it or leave it" top-down monolithic offerings, slowly made worse over time (ie enshittification) to extract value after sticky network effects have been achieved.
There are of course exceptions - some use their wealth to attempt to pivot to making libre software. And I'm sure there are many more who become disillusioned with the "freedom" they thought they were making, and merely check out. But as the general rule this is why you don't see much actual support for freedom from the rich Surveillance Valley types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any thoughts on the bill? One thing we can do is try to upvote the citizens of the country being discussed. Or calls to action -- who does someone who's Canadian call to complain about this? (Their MP I presume?) I'd also be curious, given you have a multiparty system and not our peculiar two party one, why you struggle so hard to get candidates from NDP elected who would probably not push such terrible l…
It’s a multiparty system that was recently in a minority configuration but through a fairly interesting series of floor crossings and by elections to fill open seats the Liberal party under PM Mark Carney has obtained a majority which more or less allows them complete dominance over the legislative process. An explanation as to why the NDP fail to gain any substantial power could fill an entire book but imho the over…
Our prime minister pretty much has full and complete control of the legislative and executive branches and even the appointment of judges. If you vote against your party then you can be kicked out. The whip is pretty absolute.
So has Australia, the EU, and the UK [0]. That said, being a signatory has limited impact as long as it isn't ratified. [0] - https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
> the EU, and the UK The EU has their own cybercrime treaty: https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial... But you'll never hear a peep from "no logs at all costs" VPN companies based in the EU.
It’s actually a fairly common topic discussed by privacy advocates, including VPN companies
[flagged]