5 ms·

EFF and other privacy groups fought against this for a long time, and eventually succeeded in having the FCC intervene to stop these practices: https://www.eff.

• cmurf 9y ago
  That's because privacy is not a right in GOP land. It is a product. And therefore you should have to pay to get it.
  • artificial 9y ago
    Which country are you from where privacy is a right?
    • brianjoseff 9y ago
      California Constitution. Article 1, Section 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SECTION%201.&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... (not a country of course, but somewhere privacy is a constitutional right. question then is how a state can protect this right)
      • boon 9y ago
        To be fair, the "pursuit" of those things are considered natural rights. Not the things themselves. Not saying that a right to privacy doesn't exist. I think it exists because a combination of other rights DO exist. But rights can't obligate others, and if your information ends up in the public sphere, I don't believe you have a natural right to have it taken down. If you contracted with a third party, and as part of that exchange, your info was supposed to be secured, you have a right to secure damages within the scope of that contract.
        • anoother 9y ago
          "...pursuing and obtaining..."
          • thaumasiotes 9y ago
            Yep, that's what the legal language says. It's obviously not workable, though; you can see that the goal listed before "privacy" which all Californians have the legal right to obtain is "happiness". This would appear to imply that you have the same legal rights against someone who violates your privacy as against someone who makes you unhappy. http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-4000-troops-back-to-life-2329 http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40... > The bill, H.R. 702, stipulates that immediately upon its passage into law, the 4,000 brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq come marching triumphantly over the horizon, directly into the arms of their loved ones, looking the same as they did on the day they left home.
          • wernercd 9y ago
            So if you pursue but don't obtain happiness, due you get to sue the State of California for infringing on your inalienable and guaranteed state rights?
      • r00fus 9y ago
        Does this mean Telcos/payfone can be sued in CA for being in violation of the constitution?
        • Animats 9y ago
          No. Federal preemption.
          • lightedman 9y ago
            That does not preclude anyone from filing regarding violations of the state constitution. There's that whole right to address ones grievances that gets in the way.
            • Animats 9y ago
              Unfortunately, it does.[1] See the Supreme Court decision in Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Hatch. [2] FCC-regulated entities are not subject to state consumer protection laws. [1] https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html [2] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-1545-11-1547-bs.pdf http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-...
              • lightedman 9y ago
                I didn't say anything about consumer protection laws - I explicitly stated violations of the state constitution.
      • whathaschanged 9y ago
        California isn't a country, no matter how much their government wishes they were.
    • mabbo 9y ago
      Does a right need to be written down to be a right? Perhaps some human rights transcend the legal system of any specific country.
      • zymhan 9y ago
        They went ahead and wrote it down. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12 > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
        • refurb 9y ago
          Without a way to enforce a right, it's worthless. Is the UN going to come to my rescue over this?
      • Finnucane 9y ago
        The US Constitution says no. That’s basically what the 9th and 10th amendments mean. The framers knew they couldn’t explicitly list every conceivable right, so they just said , ‘and, etc.’
    • piva00 9y ago
      I'd say that in Germany if it's not a de jure right it's very much a de facto one.
      • jonaswi 9y ago
        With the NetzDG things have pretty much changed IMO. Your privacy can be invaded without any "proven" reason.
    • jackweirdy 9y ago
      Privacy is a fundamental right of EU residents (it’s in the fundamental charter)
      • auxbuss 9y ago
        It's Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...
        • Feniks 9y ago
          Yep, my operator isn't allowed to give out any information without my written consent. And you actually have to OPT IN for the phonebook service. Most people don't. And the sky hasn't fallen, my service is quite good and the telcos are still making profits. Thing is,the US Constitution as brilliant as it is was written a long time ago and nobody wants to update it. And Capitol Hill seems preoccupied.
          • KekDemaga 9y ago
            Don't want to remind the states that they have the option, they might vote in term limits or remove money from politics.
      • techpop10 9y ago
        Which is why every European country except Germany has dozens of cameras on every corner?
        • ceejayoz 9y ago
          Those corners would be public spaces, right?
          • g-b-r 9y ago
            You have a messed-up idea of privacy, there can be various degrees of it and having a few people see you in a certain place at a certain time has a slightly different impact than having someone (potentially) analyze what you do in a large amount of your life, even if that happens in "public spaces". I know your idea is the same as that of the USA law, but that really doesn't make it right
    • seasonalgrit 9y ago
      Not OP, but in the United States, Americans' right to privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
      • Karunamon 9y ago
        From the government. It’s a small, but important distinction.
      • March_f6 9y ago
        Unfortunately, the relevance of the Fourth Amendment to informational privacy within cyberspace has been significantly diminished due to piecemeal legislation that has not been internally consistent and a fundamental misinterpreting of what constitutes private information. As it stands, informational privacy in the U.S. is severely lacking in constitutional protections. States do attempt to fill these holes with statutes but even then their conceptual frameworks are based on an understanding of privacy that isn't directly applicable to the digital world.
    • pjc50 9y ago
      All of the ECHR countries?
    • cmurf 9y ago
      Roe v Wade, law of the land. One of the reasons why GOP hate it is it makes privacy a right rather than a product. The "correct" way is, if a black man knocks up a guy's white daugher, he puts her on a plane to a state where abortion is legal. But in his own state, he fights for it to be illegal, so all the poor people have to have babies, and stay poor. Because classism is good. It makes sure some products can only be afforded by some people. Better people. And better people have more money, and buy more and better things. Free market means being free to pay as little as absolutely possible for labor. And for that you need a lot of poor people. Everyone becoming wealthy is bad for better people. What's the point of being better if you can't be wealthier than most other people? And if you think a white wealthy GOP dad won't overnight their daughter to a state to get an abortion, especially when it's from a brown dad, then you're ignorant to the point of cultural blindness.
      • sctb 9y ago
        Could you please refrain from posting inflammatory partisan comments, like we've asked before? You have to do a better job of maintaining an insight/provocation ratio that can sustain a civil conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • katastic 9y ago
    I agree 100%. Privacy is sacred and a human right. Zero Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act and continue to support dragnet surveillance and serve on their committees, and Edward Snowden wasn't a felon under the Obama Administration. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000461&chamber=&party=&cycle=2016&state=&sort=A https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000461&ch... ... Oh, shit. It's almost like both parties are bought and paid for... which is why even when a Democrat is the President, Wall Street never actually goes to jail for destroying the economy, unprecedented tracking and harassment of journalists, and gleefully continues (and increases!) smuggling guns into Mexican drug cartel hands which were used for an incalculable amount of murders (including one confirmed US border patrol agent). All we need to end all these evil acts... is more Democrats. Then everything will be fine. Except it wasn't. They told us things would change, smiled, and then kept on with business as usual and corporations getting even more power. He said he'd close Guantanamo, but didn't even to bother telling us there was one (we didn't even know about yet) in Chicago. ("Chicago black site.") He decried the Iraq war, and then started a few of his own. He ran on a platform of government transparency and then oversaw the largest expansion of classified documents in the history of the USA. (Google it.) So forgive me, as someone who watches the news, that I'm not getting my hopes up that simply electing another Democrat (instead of enacting broad, sweeping a changes to the foundations of the system) will somehow save us and undo all the bad aspects of our country. Jimmy Carter was right when he said "The USA is now an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery power." https://www.ecowatch.com/jimmy-carter-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-1882080975.html https://www.ecowatch.com/jimmy-carter-the-u-s-is-an-oligarch... But you can be forgiven for not knowing about this story, because a simple Google will review that NONE of the MSM outlets actually covered it. You know, because what's "news" about an ex-president saying "the entire system is corrupt." Surely, Pokemon and thigh-gaps are more important to the political discussion.
• ewams 9y ago
  On their website it shows that fiserv is a customer of theirs. Fiserv provides core banking services for almost every major bank in the US which means they know your money situation and your browser habits. Pair the two together and they basically know everything about you, lets see if they sell it to advertisers too? Or have been hacked? Or rouge sys admins? Or ...
  • pocketsquare2 9y ago
    knowing what i know about fiserv your thesis is either laughable or horrifying, the truth likely lying somewhere in between as it does
  • lunarjones 9y ago
    fiserbe sells food dude
    • esrauch 9y ago
      Strange that fiserv.com is all about banking IT then...
• lunarjones 9y ago
  patriots deflate balls. PERIOD.