5 ms·
This is so nutty, that all our private matters are just being bartered about without our explicit permission. All because we don't have any good regulation in t
by atonse 8y ago
This is so nutty, that all our private matters are just being bartered about without our explicit permission. All because we don't have any good regulation in the US regarding data sharing.
This is not the same as Plaid and Mint, where we explicitly give those services access to our accounts in exchange for direct benefits to us.
- gt_ 8y agoI wonder what the average American citizen could do that would help to get such legislation passed. Any ideas?
- black6 8y agoWe can start by voting against every incumbent on the ballot this fall. Congress continues to act against the public good, except for a few (mostly) Democrats, and they all deserve to be fired. Take it a step farther and vote against anyone with a (D) or (R) next to their name on the ballot.
- auntienomen 8y agoThis will not work. You can not expect to achieve your ends by acting in random fashion. You're going to actually have to do the hard work of figuring out who's good on this issue and who's not.
- logfromblammo 8y agoEveryone needs to run for office and vote for themselves. Failing that, find out who is running that most faithfully represents your interests, and vote for them. The current federal government is so far out of step with the populace that a blanket anti-incumbent rule doesn't seem all that bad. The only real question is whether to vote against them in the general election, or just the primaries. There is a very real possibility that someone else on the ballot is actually worse than the incumbent, which barely seems possible, yet here we are.
- ethbro 8y agoFurthermore, you can have an outsized impact by letting your congressperson know why you're voting for / against them. Better yet, form a group with like-minded colleagues and speak as a group. A vote "against" without communicating intent doesn't drive recourse in the way you would like. "X is the most important issue to me this election cycle, and will determine whether I vote for you and donate to your campaign" is clearer and more powerful.
- StanislavPetrov 8y agoIts not that difficult - just be sure to vote in every primary and always oppose whichever candidate has the support of the RNC and/or the DNC, which are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street.
- extralego 8y agoI like the sentiment, but the current campaign infrastructure makes the labels a bit misleading. There will be some valuable candidates with a (D) next to their name. My recommendations are as follows: 1. Refer to https://www.justicedemocrats.com https://www.justicedemocrats.com for a voting guide. 2. Register and participate in local DSA. Sign up here: https://www.dsausa.org https://www.dsausa.org
- bg4 8y agoReplace the system with another.. system.
- munificent 8y agoVoting for a third party is the most effective strategy for keeping incumbents in power.
- auntienomen 8y agoMonitor and lobby congressional reps, and vote or campaign against them in the primaries if they don't behave. They count calls, and for the most part, not many people contact them. You may find a little effort here is quite rewarding.
- jonahhorowitz 8y agoTalk to your local state representatives. They're often far more accessible than your congressperson or senator.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 39d3493I93 8y agoWe do have good regulations on sharing, the Constitution, which should have prohibited the very back door mass surveillance that is going on right now as a function of the 4th amendment and the government's inherent interest in business and interstate commerce, i.e., data. Reality though is that not only are the same forces that are going after our right to defend ourselves, and our right to free speech, they have long been going after our right to anonymity from government and allowed the clear and utter violation of our "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". It's one thing if Facebook, et al., were open and clear about "we provide this service in exchange for being able to track every single thing you do and keep every picture you upload and sell that information to any number of companies however we see fit" and you say "ok, that's fine by me". But that's not what actually happens and they are actually a de facto authoritarian surveillance state. What do you do when you have that pesky 4th amendment that keeps you from setting up the Department of the Surveillance State??? Well, of course, you fund and support and ally and create "partnerships" with those * wink, wink * private companies to do the mass surveillance. It's basically the same kind of back door violation of the Constitution like the 5 eyes agreement that "well, if we can't spy on our own poeople, we'll just have the brits do it for us and then just tell us what they find" .... That's constitutional, right?
- baq 8y agoAnd a couple of months ago HN was full of entrepreneurs leaving EU because GDPR makes it hard to do business. Yeah, if that's your idea of business, you're welcome to leave, please don't bother coming back. Please excuse my tone, I'm literally (a tiny bit) and figuratively (much more so) sick with disgust.
- sp332 8y agoI'd much, much rather they all go out of business than buy my health data because they think they can make a buck off it, thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17700500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17700500
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoUnfortunately, with how Google/Facebook works, if someone else posts or sends a message to me regarding a life happening, it still tells Goog/Book my data. If I have a profile on those sites, the data is added to my account. If I don't have an account, then its added to my ghost profile. I can't get away from any of the major data collectors while living in the US. I couldn't even get away from the data collectors living in Europe - I have so many friends here in the US. Their communications aren't subject to the GDPR.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pbreit 8y agoCan’t read paywall. Does the article discuss the bank account owner’s permission? I don’t see how this could be done without explicit permission.
- downandout 8y agoJust an FYI, if you are reading on a mobile device and have the WSJ app installed, you’ll never hit the paywall if you allow WSJ links to be automatically opened in the app. For desktop, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16906571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16906571
- scarface74 8y agoEasiest way is to change wsj to fullwsj. https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/facebook-to-banks-give-us-your-data-well-give-you-our-users-1533564049 https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/facebook-to-banks-give-us-y...
- GranPC 8y agoUnfortunately, fullwsj seems to take you to a redirect through Facebook, making it a pretty bad option when it comes to protecting your privacy.
- scarface74 8y agoIf you are concerned, use privste browsing. I have to do that anyway for nytimes articles.
- amf12 8y agoI use outline: https://outline.com/waMHEq https://outline.com/waMHEq
- zavi 8y agoIt'd suggest reading the article before spreading harmful misinformation.