New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly • Hacker News Board

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#51

Post by Tomte » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #30

tptacek wrote: post #6

I know that this is a tricky question to engage with on HN, but is there a major-market country in Europe --- say, from the list of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, and Finland --- that is fundamentally more privacy-friendly than the US, in black-letter terms? US privacy laws have loopholes you can drive a truck through. But the limite…

There are several forms of privacy here and it's important to make the distinction before arguing about what country has the better laws. One form of privacy is about what information the government is allowed to gather about its citizens and what citizens can do about it. Before Snowden many would have argued that this is the US's strong point because of things like the 4th Amendment. Post-Snowden it is pretty evide…

There never was a "bank secrecy", but almost everyone believes there was and it was abolished in some attack on our rights. It's possibly one one the widest-spread legal myths.

An acquaintance of mine is a state prosecutor, and he's always amused about this. IIRC it goes so far that when he requests information from a bank employee, he usually directly tells him to ask his in-house legal counsel if he's allowed to withhold information.

What really existed and was softened quite a bit was "tax secrecy". The tax agency was not allowed to freely peek into your accounts. But criminal investigators always could.

About the CDU: having a party for Christians is in no way against the seperation of church and state. Actually it's the other way around: if Christians were not allowed to form parties (or name them as such), it would amount to state-sponsored discrimination against Christians and endorsement of everyone else.

The government collects the "church tax", but neither creates it, nor keeps it. The churches themselves decide if and how much to "tax", and they pay the state for the collection service.

The rest of your anti-Christian rant is also pretty much baseless, but not easily refuted with a single sentence.

Edit: I don't want to seem to pick on you too much; I liked the rest of your comment and upvoted it (which doesn't matter since I replied afterwards).

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#52

Post by throwaway999666 » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #6

I know that this is a tricky question to engage with on HN, but is there a major-market country in Europe --- say, from the list of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, and Finland --- that is fundamentally more privacy-friendly than the US, in black-letter terms? US privacy laws have loopholes you can drive a truck through. But the limite…

> I'm interested in facts and non-emotional analysis;

Pff. You're intention and the point you want to prove is ridiculously transparent. Don't try to pass it off as neutral and factual curiosity.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#53

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #27

cmdrfred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that on paper, the United States is the freest and most privacy friendly place on the planet (well the paper that isn't classified). In practice not so much. Things wealthy people care about are very high privacy (financial transactions, private offshore holdings, medical records, etc) things not so wealthy people care about are basically wide open (criminal records, books you rent in a library, phone calls…

>marriage is a religious institution, seems pretty clear. No one is debating marriage the religious institution, you can go have whatever private marriages you want, and religions can still discriminate. What was being debated was the somewhat different, marriage the legal entity that effects inheritance, joint custody and all the other legal benefits that spouses get. They commonly occur together but they do't have…

Clearly, but why do married people get any benefit that people who are not don't have? Isn't that in and of itself discriminatory? Isn't the government defacto promoting region in general by giving tax breaks to people who choose to contract with each other in such a manner?

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#54

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #46

cmdrfred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that on paper, the United States is the freest and most privacy friendly place on the planet (well the paper that isn't classified). In practice not so much. Things wealthy people care about are very high privacy (financial transactions, private offshore holdings, medical records, etc) things not so wealthy people care about are basically wide open (criminal records, books you rent in a library, phone calls…

I think looking at your gay marriage example exemplifies why your thinking is wrong. Your interpretation reads the phrase "establishment of" completely out of the text. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text is that Congress isn't allowed to establish a national religion. And using your logic, we should fire all the judges who have interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit more than that. Similarly…

The Supreme Court found this in Everson Vs. Board Of Education: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

'aid all religions' is the key point and is consistent with my reading. By applying that same logic you are forced to come to the conclusion that by having a government sanctioned marriage, and by giving tax benefits among others with said marriage. You are aiding a religion and thus it is unconstitutional.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#55

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:21 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #50

cmdrfred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that on paper, the United States is the freest and most privacy friendly place on the planet (well the paper that isn't classified). In practice not so much. Things wealthy people care about are very high privacy (financial transactions, private offshore holdings, medical records, etc) things not so wealthy people care about are basically wide open (criminal records, books you rent in a library, phone calls…

Unfortunately, passing an amendment is nearly impossible in the United States, leading to a much more hateful and uncompromising struggle to get everything you care about before the Supreme Court. Scalia has this nice little statistic showing that just about 2% of the American population can kill any constitutional amendment. Not any 2%, of course, just the 2% in the least populous states.

I have a feeling the country was at least 2% racists in a few low population states in 1964 when the twenty fourth amendment was passed to get rid of the poll tax. If you think the current system is bad, pass an amendment and fix it.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#56

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #42

cmdrfred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that on paper, the United States is the freest and most privacy friendly place on the planet (well the paper that isn't classified). In practice not so much. Things wealthy people care about are very high privacy (financial transactions, private offshore holdings, medical records, etc) things not so wealthy people care about are basically wide open (criminal records, books you rent in a library, phone calls…

Financial transactions are not necessarily "very high privacy" in the U.S. Financial transactions over $10,000 are required to be reported to the government, as well as transactions that a banker believes are part of a cumulative transaction over $10,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act In addition, banks are not allowed to open accounts without verifying the customer's identity. https://en.wikipedia.o…

To the government is one thing, you have to report all income to the government over a certain threshold. If you are a corporation trying to buy votes, then your finical dealings are highly private.*

*Citizens United v. FEC

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#57

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #54

rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think looking at your gay marriage example exemplifies why your thinking is wrong. Your interpretation reads the phrase "establishment of" completely out of the text. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text is that Congress isn't allowed to establish a national religion. And using your logic, we should fire all the judges who have interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit more than that. Similarly…

The Supreme Court found this in Everson Vs. Board Of Education: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." 'aid all religions' is the key point and is consistent with my reading. By applying that same logic you are forced to come to the c…

The only thing that the text of the Constitution compels is the first sentence: "neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church." That's a narrow, literal reading of the text, but it's a totally reasonable one.

So, to apply your reasoning, why shouldn't we fire the justices who decided Everson v. Board for contravening the Constitution by adding a bunch of things to the establishment clause that aren't in the text?

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#58

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #48

cmdrfred wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that on paper, the United States is the freest and most privacy friendly place on the planet (well the paper that isn't classified). In practice not so much. Things wealthy people care about are very high privacy (financial transactions, private offshore holdings, medical records, etc) things not so wealthy people care about are basically wide open (criminal records, books you rent in a library, phone calls…

> marriage is a religious institution, seems pretty clear. Marriage has been a civic institution arranging property and legal rights as long as it has been a religious institution. The separate civic and religious functions were often intertwined in societies which did not separate Church and State, but there are clear and separate served by the now-separate civic and religious institutions sharing the same name.

I'd like to see a source for that. Early government was religious in nature (Many kings were considered gods). What is your solution? Change the name? I can agree with that as long as 'married' people don't get any benefits that unmarried people do not.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#59

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #54

rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think looking at your gay marriage example exemplifies why your thinking is wrong. Your interpretation reads the phrase "establishment of" completely out of the text. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text is that Congress isn't allowed to establish a national religion. And using your logic, we should fire all the judges who have interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit more than that. Similarly…

The Supreme Court found this in Everson Vs. Board Of Education: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." 'aid all religions' is the key point and is consistent with my reading. By applying that same logic you are forced to come to the c…

Government sanctioned marriage, per se, is completely neutral to religion or its absence, out neither files rules that are particular to religion, not only annoys the religious. So, no, it doesn't violate the rule laid down in Everson.

Re: New law proposal makes The Netherlands privacy-unfriendly

#60

Post by smutticus » Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #6

I know that this is a tricky question to engage with on HN, but is there a major-market country in Europe --- say, from the list of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, and Finland --- that is fundamentally more privacy-friendly than the US, in black-letter terms? US privacy laws have loopholes you can drive a truck through. But the limite…

It's not out yet, but you might want to check out "Privacy on the Ground: Driving Corporate Behavior in the United States and Europe", by Bamberger and Mulligan.