3 ms·

Silicon Valley doesn't need new laws that's bullshit. People and privacy need strong laws that protect them. Irregardless of who's doing it.

rbranson 9y ago
I don’t think they mean literally SV the place. It’s like how “Wall Street” is used as a stand-in for the high finance industry in the US.
- jtmcmc 9y ago
  right but things like privacy and security are aimed at the entirety of companies that have an online presence. For instance like laws around privacy requirements affect all major companies not just tech companies.
  - rbranson 9y ago
    How do you legally define a tech company?
    - kenning 9y ago
      that's the point
DanielBMarkham 9y ago
That's a great point. I need the protection. We don't need to go and start creating huge regulatory bodies around various industries, pitting one against the other. Make it so my information can't be captured -- or it can't be shared. Or make it so that keeping any information of mine past 30 days is a felony. Then no matter who the businesses are, people can sue them and owners can go to jail. Instead of trying to figure out exactly where the tech is right now, and how things might change? Bullshit. Protect me. With enough protections, the rest of it will work itself out.
- scottie_m 9y ago
  That’s one position, and you should strenuously fight to see it represented in Congress. By the same token you should accept that it’s almost certainly not going to work out that way, but it might be possible to reach a compromise with your points as central tenants. The argument that regulation should focus on areas where individual protections could fail, and the bulk of legislation should address privacy and data protection is a good idea. Having said that, try to avoid phrases like, “the rest will work itself out,” which will turn off virtuallly everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you. Remember that this is now an issue the public at large is very interested in, and shape your words for public consumption.
- state_less 9y ago
  I think the problem is the roll back of net neutrality for ISPs and at the same time calling for regulation on content providers. It doesn't seem like these interests are protecting the citizens. Anyhow, I do agree we should be protecting peoples right to privacy and unfettered access to the internet.
  - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
    You're right, of course, but as scottie_m points out, the main issue here is one around messaging. The enemy of getting this fixed is complexity. Once we start targeting individual companies, types of internet connections, or hardware devices? We've lost. It's all over. It's not these things don't need fixing, it's that we have about ten words or so to put into a slogan. That slogan needs to be repeated over and over again. I am a firm believer in Net Neutrality -- but that's not the right slogan to march under. If we get Net Neutrality and everything else stays the same, it's a complete loss. By shifting the focus to each user, we can talk more directly about benefits. And by making penalties perhaps draconian, we can leave the management of the complexities to the vendors, where it belongs, instead of the public debate, where the lawyers win. Privacy and anonymity are much bigger fish to fry than whether YouTube costs more than Instagram. If we could come up with a simple slogan to cover both of them, sign me up. Otherwise? We gotta stop everybody from putting telemetry on every detail of our lives. Before the 60s in the U.S., there was pervasive and deeply-held racism, but most people didn't see it, even those who wanted to be morally superior to everybody else. (See the movie "The Help"). Many times I think of what that issue is for us. What will we look back on in 50 years as being barbaric and evil? What is our current equivalent to the Civil Rights campaigns? It's storing tracking data about the minute parts of people's lives. We will either morally overcome this or we will enter a new Dark Ages. There's no middle ground. Here. Here is the moral battle.

rbranson 9y ago

I don’t think they mean literally SV the place. It’s like how “Wall Street” is used as a stand-in for the high finance industry in the US.

jtmcmc 9y ago
right but things like privacy and security are aimed at the entirety of companies that have an online presence. For instance like laws around privacy requirements affect all major companies not just tech companies.
- rbranson 9y ago
  How do you legally define a tech company?
  - kenning 9y ago
    that's the point

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

That's a great point. I need the protection. We don't need to go and start creating huge regulatory bodies around various industries, pitting one against the other. Make it so my information can't be captured -- or it can't be shared. Or make it so that keeping any information of mine past 30 days is a felony. Then no matter who the businesses are, people can sue them and owners can go to jail. Instead of trying to figure out exactly where the tech is right now, and how things might change? Bullshit. Protect me. With enough protections, the rest of it will work itself out.

scottie_m 9y ago
That’s one position, and you should strenuously fight to see it represented in Congress. By the same token you should accept that it’s almost certainly not going to work out that way, but it might be possible to reach a compromise with your points as central tenants. The argument that regulation should focus on areas where individual protections could fail, and the bulk of legislation should address privacy and data protection is a good idea. Having said that, try to avoid phrases like, “the rest will work itself out,” which will turn off virtuallly everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you. Remember that this is now an issue the public at large is very interested in, and shape your words for public consumption.
state_less 9y ago
I think the problem is the roll back of net neutrality for ISPs and at the same time calling for regulation on content providers. It doesn't seem like these interests are protecting the citizens. Anyhow, I do agree we should be protecting peoples right to privacy and unfettered access to the internet.
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  You're right, of course, but as scottie_m points out, the main issue here is one around messaging. The enemy of getting this fixed is complexity. Once we start targeting individual companies, types of internet connections, or hardware devices? We've lost. It's all over. It's not these things don't need fixing, it's that we have about ten words or so to put into a slogan. That slogan needs to be repeated over and over again. I am a firm believer in Net Neutrality -- but that's not the right slogan to march under. If we get Net Neutrality and everything else stays the same, it's a complete loss. By shifting the focus to each user, we can talk more directly about benefits. And by making penalties perhaps draconian, we can leave the management of the complexities to the vendors, where it belongs, instead of the public debate, where the lawyers win. Privacy and anonymity are much bigger fish to fry than whether YouTube costs more than Instagram. If we could come up with a simple slogan to cover both of them, sign me up. Otherwise? We gotta stop everybody from putting telemetry on every detail of our lives. Before the 60s in the U.S., there was pervasive and deeply-held racism, but most people didn't see it, even those who wanted to be morally superior to everybody else. (See the movie "The Help"). Many times I think of what that issue is for us. What will we look back on in 50 years as being barbaric and evil? What is our current equivalent to the Civil Rights campaigns? It's storing tracking data about the minute parts of people's lives. We will either morally overcome this or we will enter a new Dark Ages. There's no middle ground. Here. Here is the moral battle.