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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by function_seven »

cmurf wrote: post #42
4ntonius8lock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've always wondered if we could scale the term of the law with the vote total.

For example, lets say your state legislature has 100 representatives. You could require sunset clauses as follows:

    51-55 votes:  2 years
    56-60 votes:  5 years
    61-80 votes: 10 years
    81+   votes: No expiration
Then those bills that are narrowly passed would result in a law with a limited shelf-life.

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

#52

Post by soared »

JohnFen wrote: post #49
soared wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more.

If you use that tool on all of your devices (and don't clear your cookies/etc) you will be opted out of those vendors tracking. But that doesn't accomplish since that type of targeting only makes up maybe 15% of targeted advertising. All that tool does is get you shittier ads. (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).

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

#53

Post by soared »

JohnFen wrote: post #47
soared wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I don't think going online is an optional activity either.

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

#54

Post by tensor »

raxxorrax wrote: post #15
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…

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…

I very strongly disagree. There is a ton of data that wouldn't exist without the products you use. At best, it would be jointly owned because it is jointly created, but just as you are deserving of privacy, so too are companies with respect to their code and technology.

Do you "own" server logs simply because they reference your user id or an action you performed? Do you own the model architecture of machine learning models that may have incorporated your data?

The idea that you should own any information relating to you is entirely impractical, and completely disregards any notion of intellectual property too. There needs to be some protections for users with respect to privacy, absolutely, but it cannot be anywhere close to that one sided.

In particular, if you as a user want to use a service, you must agree that some data derived or about you is going to be kept private, because it is combined with IP of the company providing the service to you. It's reasonable to limit what companies providing services can do with such data, but at a minimum "providing the service to you" must be protected.

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

#55

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

nerdjon wrote: post #37
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about Apple but I like that all the companies linked are all supporters of NN. Almost as if a public face, NN, and a private face, think tanks to overturn privacy laws.

I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us. Considering it most likely would be them footing the bill (or loosing traffic) without NN

>I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us.

How we know? Because they told us that? They would be funding thinktanks to pass NN if they had to. The truth about NN is only ONCE was a carrier ever really found to be selectively throttling for non-congestion reasons in the mid-2000s and the FCC shut that down immediately. NN still allows for throttling if you claim it's for congestion.

YET... SV likes to promote the idea of a slow internet without regulation.

Just because you agree with the idea doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to the propaganda.

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

#56

Post by luckylion »

AWildC182 wrote: post #50
luckylion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

True, but EFF and others managed to get past that as well, I think mostly by not overreaching, always being fact-based and consistency. It would certainly take quite a while to gain enough trust and support if you're not ideologically aligned.

I worry that it's just hard to do. It takes a special kind of person (and lots of them) to keep general politics out, even more so when you're successful and advocating your personal politics would be easy and effectful. Oh, and being vigilant so you don't get co-opted by a political movement.

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

#57

Post by JohnFen »

soared wrote: post #52
JohnFen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more. If you use that tool on all of your devices (and don't clear your cookies/etc) you will be opted out of those vendors tracking. But that doesn't accomplish since that type of targeting only makes up maybe 15% of targeted advertising. All that tool does is get you shittier ads. (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you,…

> They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more.

That hasn't been my experience. When I've used the tools, the opt-outs have failed for the majority of the companies in the list (as reported by the site itself).

That said, as you point out, they're pointless even if they worked correctly as you still have to engage in all the blocking that you usually do regardless.

> (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).

Ah, so Oracle's offering is worse -- worthless by design rather than implementation.

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

#58

Post by JohnFen »

soared wrote: post #53
JohnFen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I don't think going online is an optional activity either.

I'm not willingly giving up any information by being in a public space, because I don't have any choice about being in public spaces. Any information people gain about me is being taken, not given freely.

> I don't think going online is an optional activity either.

I think that can be debated, but let's say you're right: that just reinforces my point.

My essential point is that the "public space" argument isn't terribly meaningful. Actual consent can only be given in the absence of coercion. If being surveilled is a requirement in order to simply function as a human being, then consent doesn't enter into it.

And, in my view, all of the arguments about privacy and spying hinge on the issue of consent. If data is being gathered about me without my consent, then I'm being spied on.

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

#59

Post by rexpop »

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…

> The problem might be risking job security? That could be offset by forming a large enough group?

You're talking about workplace organizing to mitigate reprisal risk when taking direct action, aka "sabotage".

The IWW has literature on how to engage in such endeavors, and a good relationship with the TWC, who're organizing the tech industry in such a manner.

Please note I've so far omitted the word "union", although it's a concept adjacent to what you're reaching for.

1. https://www.iww.org/PDF/Official/IWW_organizing_manual.pdf

2. https://techworkerscoalition.org

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

#60

Post by cmurf »

function_seven wrote: post #51
cmurf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've always wondered if we could scale the term of the law with the vote total. For example, lets say your state legislature has 100 representatives. You could require sunset clauses as follows: 51-55 votes: 2 years 56-60 votes: 5 years 61-80 votes: 10 years 81+ votes: No expiration Then those bills that are narrowly passed would result in a law with a limited shelf-life.

This can be done voluntarily in the bill at the time it's written. If you want to make it compulsory, it'd need to be a city charter amendment, a state constitutional amendment, or a federal constitutional amendment. Doing something like this doesn't just magically happen. It's in fact a kind of law that would be much harder to pass than it just being what it is, which is sometimes used and sometimes not used, on a case by case basis.
Post reply on HN