3 ms·

I think people are understandably wary of new regulations, namely because: * The US isn't immune at all to regulatory capture [0] * It's highly likely there a

I think people are understandably wary of new regulations, namely because: * The US isn't immune at all to regulatory capture [0] * It's highly likely there are already existing regulations and laws that cover this but merely aren't being enforced (in which case, why would these new regulations be enforced either?) * ISPs undoubtedly have a huge conflict of interest here Which isn't to say that new laws are always a bad idea, more that they should be a measured response and not a knee-jerk reaction spawned by bad actors. It's also far easier to point out badly crafted and/or ill-intentioned law proposals than it is to create effective and fair legislation, but both are necessary for the process to move forward. That is, I think many people would agree with you (one need only read the comments on any of the threads about Equifax), but think this is basically an untenable place to start from. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#United_States_examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#United_Stat...

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Every single regulation starts from an "untenable place", almost by definition. What happens in every industry is "abuse" -> "collective realization that there's a problem" -> "close the hole that allowed the abuse to happen". Self-regulation is only a solution if the industry at large addresses the concerns early and acts in good faith. That did not and is currently not happening with SV and data privacy. The fact that FB can't give a straight answer, and it has to be dragged out with revelations of increasing scale, is a big part of why public sentiment favors more external regulation.
- wgerard 9y ago
  > Every single regulation starts from an "untenable place", almost by definition. I guess I'd disagree with that. Many environmental regulations are highly defensible, for example, especially when they arise in light of new evidence. I could also be wrong, but I don't believe most environmental regulations are proposed by powerful, monopolistic competitors of oil companies (which is a big part of what makes this proposed regulation untenable). > Self-regulation is only a solution if the industry at large addresses the concerns early and acts in good faith I don't think anyone's really proposing this as an alternative. The point's more that repealing a bad law is significantly harder than creating it in the first place, so it makes sense to be diligent.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    Environmental regulations are a great example because large parts of the US population are in communities tied to industries that were eventually saddled with environmental regulations. Many of those people believe that the regulations are part of why their industries declined. For them, the environmental regulations are not highly defensible. Similarly in tech, many of the people arguing against regulations are economically incentivized to minimize the regulations. FB knew exactly what they were doing, third party developers at the time sounded the alarm [1] about how FB's API structure guaranteed that abuse would happen. What we're seeing now is the digital equivalent of BP Deepwater, where people warned about the safety before the incident and no one cared. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-...
    - wgerard 9y ago
      > Environmental regulations are a great example because large parts of the US population are in communities tied to industries that were eventually saddled with environmental regulations. I don't think that makes those regulations un-defensible. It just means there are tradeoffs. Maybe we're just disagreeing about what the word "defensible" means in this context. > Similarly in tech, many of the people arguing against regulations are economically incentivized to minimize the regulations Except in this particular instance, the people arguing FOR regulations are economically incentivized to maximize the regulations. That's what makes this particular proposal untenable. Outside of the renewable energy industry, the people pushing for environmental regulations don't have much economic incentive to do so (other than some very trivial ones, like that the economy will suffer if the planet declines).
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Environmental regulations are a great example of legacy spaghetti. Legislation not passed by a suitably large majority should automatically come with a 10yr sunset provision.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

Every single regulation starts from an "untenable place", almost by definition. What happens in every industry is "abuse" -> "collective realization that there's a problem" -> "close the hole that allowed the abuse to happen". Self-regulation is only a solution if the industry at large addresses the concerns early and acts in good faith. That did not and is currently not happening with SV and data privacy. The fact that FB can't give a straight answer, and it has to be dragged out with revelations of increasing scale, is a big part of why public sentiment favors more external regulation.

wgerard 9y ago
> Every single regulation starts from an "untenable place", almost by definition. I guess I'd disagree with that. Many environmental regulations are highly defensible, for example, especially when they arise in light of new evidence. I could also be wrong, but I don't believe most environmental regulations are proposed by powerful, monopolistic competitors of oil companies (which is a big part of what makes this proposed regulation untenable). > Self-regulation is only a solution if the industry at large addresses the concerns early and acts in good faith I don't think anyone's really proposing this as an alternative. The point's more that repealing a bad law is significantly harder than creating it in the first place, so it makes sense to be diligent.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Environmental regulations are a great example because large parts of the US population are in communities tied to industries that were eventually saddled with environmental regulations. Many of those people believe that the regulations are part of why their industries declined. For them, the environmental regulations are not highly defensible. Similarly in tech, many of the people arguing against regulations are economically incentivized to minimize the regulations. FB knew exactly what they were doing, third party developers at the time sounded the alarm [1] about how FB's API structure guaranteed that abuse would happen. What we're seeing now is the digital equivalent of BP Deepwater, where people warned about the safety before the incident and no one cared. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-...
  - wgerard 9y ago
    > Environmental regulations are a great example because large parts of the US population are in communities tied to industries that were eventually saddled with environmental regulations. I don't think that makes those regulations un-defensible. It just means there are tradeoffs. Maybe we're just disagreeing about what the word "defensible" means in this context. > Similarly in tech, many of the people arguing against regulations are economically incentivized to minimize the regulations Except in this particular instance, the people arguing FOR regulations are economically incentivized to maximize the regulations. That's what makes this particular proposal untenable. Outside of the renewable energy industry, the people pushing for environmental regulations don't have much economic incentive to do so (other than some very trivial ones, like that the economy will suffer if the planet declines).
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Environmental regulations are a great example of legacy spaghetti. Legislation not passed by a suitably large majority should automatically come with a 10yr sunset provision.