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

Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

righttoprivacyact.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#41

Post by dotancohen »

abound wrote: post #13
panny wrote: post #10

>Update CAN-SPAM for one-click deletion of email addresses from databases. Then how can I know not to send you another email if I don't have your email flagged in my database to do-not-send?

Wouldn't a hash work great for this purpose? I.e. 1. User requests for email alice@example.com to be removed from database 2. Company removes "alice@example.com" from 'emails' table 3. Company adds 00b7d3...eff98f to 'do_not_send' table Later on, the company buys emails from some other third-party, and Alice's email is on that list. The company can hash all the email addresses they received, and remove the emails wit…

No need to salt individual hashes, just one hard coded salt for all.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#42

Post by dotancohen »

rexpop wrote: post #17
Nevermark wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are going to resist. That is the terrain. That doesn’t change the critical need to make progress. Surrendering power, even when apparently outgunned, is a far more insidious enemy than opposition.

Amen! And, in fact, the harder they fight, the harder our resolve.

[dead]

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#43

Post by samename »

dotancohen wrote: post #39
samename wrote: post #19

Of course, I’m absolutely for this. It is way overdue. But, what’s the group behind this? Who’s pushing it? I haven’t read through the bill and text yet, but credibility is important in this fight. Plus, this can change at anytime, so knowing who’s behind it amplifies the trust. We need to be having these conversations yesterday. Our fundamental freedoms are under attack, and a bill like this would go a long way to p…

Just because a bill has a name - and pretence - that you like, does not mean that it contains regulations, requirements, or restrictions that you would like.

This project is collecting personal information without disclosing who is collecting it

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#46

Post by IAmBroom »

samename wrote: post #43
dotancohen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a bill has a name - and pretence - that you like, does not mean that it contains regulations, requirements, or restrictions that you would like.

This project is collecting personal information without disclosing who is collecting it

And yet you are "absolutely for this"?

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#47

Post by IAmBroom »

dotancohen wrote: post #40
maxrmk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My desire is to be able to use those products without paying for them. And to use them with friends and family members that can't pay for them.

Sure, and while we're at it how about busses that you don't have to pay for? And food? And housing, why not?

You are acting as if that is crazy talk. It IS possible. And desirable, to many of us.

Just not going to happen. But the post above was discussing wants.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#48

Post by int_19h »

ramon156 wrote: post #38
garyfirestorm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to bills sponsored by real people that completely decimated privacy? Patriot Act? I’ll take slop that has some semblance of reasonable privacy protection any day.

There's some obvious issues that come with LLM generated bills. LLMs tend to stay very generic, to have a lower chance of being "wrong". I could also ask my 5 year old to draw a bill for me, that's as successful as giving a generic bill.

> LLMs tend to stay very generic, to have a lower chance of being "wrong".

It depends entirely on how you prompt them.

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#49

Post by duskdozer »

tolerance wrote: post #27

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

Who has ever written like this:

    (a) In general.—There are authorized

Re: Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation

#50

Post by ddtaylor »

tolerance wrote: post #27

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack.

When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.

Post reply on HN