4 ms·

> the new Office of Cybertechnology Wow, so Consumer Finance Protection Bureau 2.0. Unbelievable.

lr4444lr 9y ago
That's a bit more cynical than I think the situation merits. Is it really so bad to have at least a defined lower bound and enforcement mechanism for prosecuting negligence in information security? Also, it will be under the FTC, not a newly defined agency.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Why must Democrats' answer to every problem be to create a wholly new bureaucratic body, that will create its own regulations separate of the legislative branch, and most likely get so bloated that it'll stifle innovation within a few years?
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    Because when said innovation takes the form of defrauding or otherwise harming the population (reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors), that "innovation" ought to be stifled. Of course I would prefer legislative action so that the regulatory environment doesn't change at the whim of the executive, but when basic harm prevention seems to be a partisan issue, I see little chance of legislative action being successful.
    - g051051 9y ago
      > reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You explicitly give permission for whatever businesses you interact with to forward your credit info to a CRA, and you explicitly give permission for them to reference the data held by CRAs.
      - SauciestGNU 9y ago
        If I want to have power or water or heat in my residence, hell if I want to have a residence at all, I have to do business with an entity that will report me to a credit agency. When the alternative is homelessness, dropping out of society, or dying of exposure then no, that is absolutely and emphatically not voluntary. Additionally, other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.
        g051051 9y ago
        That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. > other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies. So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. It may have been true in the past, but nowadays pretty much any reputable company has explicit terms and policies related to collection and use of personal data, and you have agreed to those policies by using their services. And non-reputable companies wouldn't care what you wanted one way or another.
        SauciestGNU 9y ago
        >That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. This is true, but the CRA is the beneficiary of this behavior and I would be surprised if they don't encourage it. But yes, the CRAs are not solely responsible. They just benefit from the widespread practice of making housing availability contingent on credit score. >So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. I don't use social media (aside from here and Reddit). That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. Regarding the cookie notices, by the time one has been displayed you've already landed on the site that uses them so it's presumably too late to avoid. I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
  - acdha 9y ago
    That’s only how it works in right-wing propaganda. In the real world, regulatory agencies closely follow the rules which Congress gives them. When something is delegated to a regulator it’s because Congress didn’t want to deal with it — fast changing, requires a lot of specialist research, etc. That last is why you need an office in the first place: for problems which are important enough to care, you need experts who are familiar with the field and aren’t working for a party with an interest in the outcome. Experts like having health insurance, paying their mortgages, etc. so you need to be able to offer them jobs, somewhere for them to sit, funding to support research and analysis, etc. In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants. I mean, yes, you could just let Gartner and Oracle tell the CEO what to do but it wouldn’t be cheaper.
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      > That’s only how it works in right-wing propaganda. No, it's not. That's how it looks to everyone who has ever been on the receiving end of a bureaucratic nightmare. I believe part of the reason the Democrats have done so poorly in the last few years is because middle class America wound up on the wrong side of Obamacare and it woke them up. > In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants. No, it's like your company hiring an whole new, separate IT department, with minimal oversight, every time they hire a new contractor, instead of training up the existing IT team.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        That's weird, polling data shows a +12 point spread on favorability numbers for the ACA[1]. What's interesting to me is that the ACA never had majority favorability until repeal was legitimately on the table. And then all of a sudden people "woke...up" as you put it to the idea that their 20-something year old children could lose health insurance, or a person who had cancer years ago could be denied coverage, or that an underemployed person in Kentucky could lose their Medicaid-based health insurance. Let's be clear: the ACA has a lot of problems. Some of these, like spiking premiums this year, are due to the actions of the current Congress and President. Some of these are due to a lack of real competition, which may have been addressed if the law had included a public option buy-in[2]. Some of these, like shitty exchange websites, are a real problem. [1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_dem... [2] Blame Joe Lieberman for this: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/16/16766/elimination-public-option-threw-consumers-insurance-wolves https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/16/16766/elimination...
howard941 9y ago
Right? It is hard to believe government in the 21st century taking a countervailing position protecting consumers against powerful interests running roughshod over consumers. The Credit Reporting Agencies in particular have statutory protections that make snowflakes jealous.

That's a bit more cynical than I think the situation merits. Is it really so bad to have at least a defined lower bound and enforcement mechanism for prosecuting negligence in information security? Also, it will be under the FTC, not a newly defined agency.

fortythirteen 9y ago
Why must Democrats' answer to every problem be to create a wholly new bureaucratic body, that will create its own regulations separate of the legislative branch, and most likely get so bloated that it'll stifle innovation within a few years?
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  Because when said innovation takes the form of defrauding or otherwise harming the population (reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors), that "innovation" ought to be stifled. Of course I would prefer legislative action so that the regulatory environment doesn't change at the whim of the executive, but when basic harm prevention seems to be a partisan issue, I see little chance of legislative action being successful.
  - g051051 9y ago
    > reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You explicitly give permission for whatever businesses you interact with to forward your credit info to a CRA, and you explicitly give permission for them to reference the data held by CRAs.
    - SauciestGNU 9y ago
      If I want to have power or water or heat in my residence, hell if I want to have a residence at all, I have to do business with an entity that will report me to a credit agency. When the alternative is homelessness, dropping out of society, or dying of exposure then no, that is absolutely and emphatically not voluntary. Additionally, other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.
      - g051051 9y ago
        That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. > other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies. So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. It may have been true in the past, but nowadays pretty much any reputable company has explicit terms and policies related to collection and use of personal data, and you have agreed to those policies by using their services. And non-reputable companies wouldn't care what you wanted one way or another.
        SauciestGNU 9y ago
        >That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. This is true, but the CRA is the beneficiary of this behavior and I would be surprised if they don't encourage it. But yes, the CRAs are not solely responsible. They just benefit from the widespread practice of making housing availability contingent on credit score. >So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites. I don't use social media (aside from here and Reddit). That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. Regarding the cookie notices, by the time one has been displayed you've already landed on the site that uses them so it's presumably too late to avoid. I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
- acdha 9y ago
  That’s only how it works in right-wing propaganda. In the real world, regulatory agencies closely follow the rules which Congress gives them. When something is delegated to a regulator it’s because Congress didn’t want to deal with it — fast changing, requires a lot of specialist research, etc. That last is why you need an office in the first place: for problems which are important enough to care, you need experts who are familiar with the field and aren’t working for a party with an interest in the outcome. Experts like having health insurance, paying their mortgages, etc. so you need to be able to offer them jobs, somewhere for them to sit, funding to support research and analysis, etc. In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants. I mean, yes, you could just let Gartner and Oracle tell the CEO what to do but it wouldn’t be cheaper.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    > That’s only how it works in right-wing propaganda. No, it's not. That's how it looks to everyone who has ever been on the receiving end of a bureaucratic nightmare. I believe part of the reason the Democrats have done so poorly in the last few years is because middle class America wound up on the wrong side of Obamacare and it woke them up. > In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants. No, it's like your company hiring an whole new, separate IT department, with minimal oversight, every time they hire a new contractor, instead of training up the existing IT team.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      That's weird, polling data shows a +12 point spread on favorability numbers for the ACA[1]. What's interesting to me is that the ACA never had majority favorability until repeal was legitimately on the table. And then all of a sudden people "woke...up" as you put it to the idea that their 20-something year old children could lose health insurance, or a person who had cancer years ago could be denied coverage, or that an underemployed person in Kentucky could lose their Medicaid-based health insurance. Let's be clear: the ACA has a lot of problems. Some of these, like spiking premiums this year, are due to the actions of the current Congress and President. Some of these are due to a lack of real competition, which may have been addressed if the law had included a public option buy-in[2]. Some of these, like shitty exchange websites, are a real problem. [1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_dem... [2] Blame Joe Lieberman for this: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/16/16766/elimination-public-option-threw-consumers-insurance-wolves https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/16/16766/elimination...

howard941 9y ago

Right? It is hard to believe government in the 21st century taking a countervailing position protecting consumers against powerful interests running roughshod over consumers. The Credit Reporting Agencies in particular have statutory protections that make snowflakes jealous.