[deleted]
Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
71–80 of 150 posts
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#72For those that are unaware, if you live in California the recently passed CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) gives you a lot of new power to force companies to delete your data and let you opt-out of them selling it. For Comcast: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/ccpa It's a little tedious since you have to do it with each company, but so far I've found that it largely works. You can also do it for equifax…
>You can also do it for equifax, experian, and transunion. what, precisely, are the implications of this?
Reset your credit completely... in the eyes of the corporations, you don't exist.
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can also do it for equifax, experian, and transunion. what, precisely, are the implications of this?
Reset your credit completely... in the eyes of the corporations, you don't exist.
I simply do not believe that one piece of legislation could accomplish this. This is how money makes money. It will not stop for the law.
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#74Amendment right? who's their lawyers? ...Lionel Hutz attorney at law?
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#75First Amendment seems to mean whatever the hell we want it to mean, these days.
A group of gun's rights advocates marching in Virginia recently argued that not being allowed to brandish assault weapons at the capitol was violation of their "symbolic" speech.[0]
I'm just waiting for the point where someone tries to make the defense in court that shooting another person in the head was an exercise of their freedom of speech.
[0]https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/gun-groups-want-firearms-b...
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#76The US needs GDPR-equivalent laws ASAP.
If this argument succeeds, even GDPR wouldn't save us since they're making a constitutional argument, not an argument based on the US code.
Certainly a court challenge would pit the 1st Amendment rights of the consumer against that of a corporation. Something along the lines of citizens have the right of freedom of expression that is not accumulated and traded. In a sane world, a corporation would not trump the rights of a private citizen: the purveyor of goods and services meant to improve the lives of citizens. Right..? right?! But after Citizens United, who could really be sure that the average citizen is any more important than a corporation's personhood.
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#77Somewhat more information, including the plaintiffs (America's Communications Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom), in the referenced Ars Technica article:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/isps-sue-maine-c...
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. We'd be better off if we couldn't do this. Predatory credit would disappear.
The entire financial system would disappear.
Wouldn't most of that be handled by corporations making agreements among themselves? I don't think "the entire financial system" is really based on hooking individual people on unsustainable credit.
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. We'd be better off if we couldn't do this. Predatory credit would disappear.
Well yeah, an absolute ton of things would disappear if we essentially made every company a sole proprietorship.
That's another option, but it's not what I was talking about. If corporations exist, then sure we can let them create contracts among themselves.
Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data
#80Sure. Just get the corporate entity to say a single word. No representatives. No notes. No proxies. No robots. No automated voices. The actual corporate legal entity. Not even the CEO. No clever stand-ins with same name. Just one mouthed, audible word to confirm the entity can qualify for speech. Then we can consider "free speech" for that entity. I can only dream this would hold up even as I know there are likely do…
What about the flip side of that. If the NYT prints a slanderous story about you, can you sue the deep-pocketed times, or do you have to go after the underpaid reporter?
I don't follow.
I can still sue someone who never speaks.