4 ms·

The answers should be yes and yes, for simple reasons - It's utterly unenforcible otherwise, and corporations need a significant amount of those inferences for

The answers should be yes and yes, for simple reasons - It's utterly unenforcible otherwise, and corporations need a significant amount of those inferences for normal operation. People in town A are calling people in town B a lot? Maybe they need a direct line or to upgrade their infrastructure to handle it. Obviously, there's caveats; but for the most part those should be covered by other antidiscrimination laws, not telecom specific legislation. Telling that you call your rabbi once a week might give them clear signal that you're jewish, but they should be prevented from discriminating against you because you're jewish, and that should be enough reason to prevent them from fishing through their records to see who's a jew.

bb88 10y ago
> It's utterly unenforcible otherwise... and > ...but they should be prevented from discriminating against you because you're jewish You can't have it both ways. Either a business can be regulated or it can't. And why does it have to be the business itself only must be prevented from discrimination? It's certainly possible for a single employee to send likely names of Jews to hate groups, even if the business doesn't condone his behavior.
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  I'll admit; I am trying to have it both ways. The way I see it is - These things are very, very hard to find and prosecute. Therefore, we should spend the time finding and prosecuting only the most egregious offenses - And accept that since we'll never prosecute more minor offenses, they might as well be legal.
  - bb88 10y ago
    Or, you can just make the data private by default and assume any violations are by default "irregular". We do this already with health care providers, attorneys, crediting agencies, banks, etc.
mattnewton 10y ago
Seems easier to enforce than say, the SEC regulations against insider trading, and while I am sure most goes uncaught they still enforce it often and thoroughly. Intent and outcome goes a long way to proving a case here.

bb88 10y ago

> It's utterly unenforcible otherwise... and > ...but they should be prevented from discriminating against you because you're jewish You can't have it both ways. Either a business can be regulated or it can't. And why does it have to be the business itself only must be prevented from discrimination? It's certainly possible for a single employee to send likely names of Jews to hate groups, even if the business doesn't condone his behavior.

GauntletWizard 10y ago
I'll admit; I am trying to have it both ways. The way I see it is - These things are very, very hard to find and prosecute. Therefore, we should spend the time finding and prosecuting only the most egregious offenses - And accept that since we'll never prosecute more minor offenses, they might as well be legal.
- bb88 10y ago
  Or, you can just make the data private by default and assume any violations are by default "irregular". We do this already with health care providers, attorneys, crediting agencies, banks, etc.

mattnewton 10y ago

Seems easier to enforce than say, the SEC regulations against insider trading, and while I am sure most goes uncaught they still enforce it often and thoroughly. Intent and outcome goes a long way to proving a case here.