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

Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#41

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #7
ignoramous wrote: post #5

The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it m…

Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen? I mean, we seem to be following a pattern: Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace. Populace rises up against this. Big power 'loses'. Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up,…

the slow pace of how this all plays out is even worse. it's designed to be invisible to the naked eye. nation states have all the time.

I can't recommend Jacques Ellul and his "The Technological Society" any higher. He traces it back to the early stages of the industrial revolution. Also his "Propaganda, The formation of Mans attitudes"[2] is unfortunately not wide enough known in the English speaking world.

[1] https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...

[2] https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#42

Post by cmurf »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #7
ignoramous wrote: post #5

The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it m…

Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen? I mean, we seem to be following a pattern: Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace. Populace rises up against this. Big power 'loses'. Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up,…

Law makers do this all the time, they're called sunset clauses. If you're saying it should be automatically applied to all laws, well the idea of automatic anything sounds nice if it actually works as intended, the problem is it so often ends up not working as intended.

The problem with your cited pattern isn't the duration of laws. It's the founding principle of the "big power" to only serve its own interests. With that founding principle, it can only ever require constant vigilance to push back. One possible alternative founding principle is the "benefit corporation" that requires by company charter, to have social benefit in addition to seeking profit.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#43

Post by doubleJeopardy »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #7
ignoramous wrote: post #5

The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it m…

Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen? I mean, we seem to be following a pattern: Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace. Populace rises up against this. Big power 'loses'. Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up,…

So, it sounds like the idea might be a "no double jeopardy" clause, in the same sense that citizens cannot be tried twice for the same crime. (...without new evidence, minor loophole)

For this to work, though, the clause would need to account for the recombinant aspect of governance, in which, as part of making compromises to pass bills, competing law makers agree to package unrelated subcomponents into larger initiative, producing huge, unreadable frankenstein abominations of text and legalese. Which is, in part, how tax law has become so horrendous.

A "no double jeopardy" style clause, with check against recombinant clustered packaging would slow down government pretty hard, probably worse than patent processing. But it's not like we have a shortage of laws, so creating new laws should be slow, since there's a lot of legal handling in place for a wide array of circumstances.

New technology and its applications is obviously a hot spot, as game changers emerge, and arms races ensue. For fast moving areas, with a small low-volume corpus of precedents, it would probably work pretty good.

For the sake of hedging against changes in public sentiment, a deeply unpopular idea might experience a blackout period for retries, but the blackout might last a length of time commensurate with unpopularity. Some things are generational, after all. And as we learn more about the peculiarties of new tools and their use, and how they change the game, fairness and what constitutes a level playing field will adjust.

This would prevent lobbies from using the wear-down and tire-out approach to use news and media fatigue to induce activist burnout. On the other hand, it means if things don't go your way, it may stay that way for a long, long time.

One other problem would be, what becomes law inside one jurisdiction might not be law in another, and that principle is often relevant with global network effects the internet often places front-and-center, any time something interesting goes viral.

I definitely agree that we see horrible ideas warded off by a groundswell of initial rejection, only to see malignant forces try, try again.

That needs to stop. There needs to be a quiet period between decisions, and a mechanism in place to prevent sneaking reversals through, by smuggling loopholes in with other bills.

Whether something like this will ever happen, who knows?

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#44

Post by snarf21 »

mLuby wrote: post #26

TL;DR: the key is to insulate lawmakers from concentrations of wealth. A law that prevents corporations from spending resources on politics would do this. Or low contribution limits could work, to limit billionaire influence. A lot of comments in this and other privacy threads correctly worry about the combination of "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" and the electorate's short attention vs sustained private lobb…

True, but we all know the people are so self-enlightened to not stick their neck out.

I've been wondering lately if the solution to politics (at least at the state and federal level) would be to have a two level representative democracy. Meaning instead of one person getting the vote for 700K people and being very bribe-able (1 of 435), you have one person actually at the legislature but they have a different role. They must negotiate based on another set of real representatives. They must collect facts and evaluate laws for this other set. These 14 (e.g.) people would be responsible for a much smaller number of people (50K) and have a much smaller geographical region. These 14 would be the ones who actually vote for/against the laws and the top level must cast their vote in their stead. The top level could also be elected and serve at the discretion of this set of 14. Each representative has a smaller sphere of influence and concern. Bribing (lobbying) becomes much harder since it goes up by a factor of 7 (or more). Gerrymandering becomes much much harder because of all the little sub-districts that would be created. It also helps give a truer voice of the people unlike certain states/districts where you may be blue in a sea of red or vice-versa. Of course, the powers that be would never let this happen but I think it is at least an interesting thought experiment.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#45

Post by JohnFen »

dalbasal wrote: post #11

So... I'm a worried netizen. I have concerns about data monopolies, privacy, surveillance, the ad-tech industry, cambridge analyticas... which puts me in the hn majority, I guess. That said, what specifically are we aiming for. Privacy laws? Is there a bullet point of what these laws prohibit/require? Enforcement mechanisms? Standards? Protocols? "Pro-privacy" isn't really enough, for a political program. It would be…

> Is there a bullet point of what these laws prohibit/require?

I can only offer my bullet point: true consent should be required for anybody to collect or use data that relates to me or my equipment.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#46

Post by tareqak »

Are public companies required to show which organizations / think tanks they are a part of and what role they play therein as part of their periodic financial updates (quarterly or annual)?

The thing with money and speech in politics is that speech must be loud enough in order to be an effective agent for change whereas the effectiveness of money is considerably more independent that. By loud, I mean a quality more like the amount public awareness and genuine understanding a given issue has.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#47

Post by JohnFen »

soared wrote: post #19
raxxorrax wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best approach to informational self-determination is to define that any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent. This is what this think tank (a name for every sweaty office) allegedly wants to get rid off. I doubt this clear definition is impractical or utopian and could very well be implemented, so I doubt effective privacy legislation needs to be e…

> any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet. If you walk outside of your home/land, I can legally photograph and record video of you. I can write down what you're wearing, make assumptions about your income based on your address, record you gender/age/etc. All of that is 100% legal - you willingly give…

> you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places.

No, I really don't. I just can't do anything about it. I would agree with some form of this "implied consent" argument if going outside were an optional activity, but it's not.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#48

Post by AWildC182 »

ignoramous wrote: post #5

The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it m…

I'm curious, would you mind expanding on the ITU thing? Is this a 5G band allocation issue or something?

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#49

Post by JohnFen »

soared wrote: post #28
duxup wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, I wonder how that came about.

Yeah kind of cool. I believe tools like that came from either mass opt-out tools by the Network Advertising Initiative or the Digital Advertising Alliance. http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1

Those tools are worthless, though. I wonder if Oracle's is any better.

Re: Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

#50

Post by AWildC182 »

luckylion wrote: post #14
heavenlyblue wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratically speaking, the only reason Big Power wins is due to the fact that it's incredibly inefficient to stand behind interests of many parties investing small amounts against single players investing huge amounts. One would think we need interest groups more.

> One would think we need interest groups more. Would love to see more of those, especially in the EU, and the way they have them in the US. I'd love a privacy focused action group, but I don't want to buy a host of unrelated political issues with that. The EFF and similar organisations do a pretty good job at that, would love if we had more groups like that over here.

I love the idea, especially as a way of un-bundling beliefs so we're not all beholden to one of two massive and far reaching belief systems.

That said, I worry that it's too easy for small advocacy groups to get steamrolled by bigger interests if they prove to be a problem. Even if they're popular with the public, it just takes a payment to a PR firm of your choice to roll a story that they're selling dead babies and suddenly everyone is confused.

Post reply on HN