4 ms·

The U.S. has some privacy laws, but at the same time, the U.S. (along with Canada) also obligates carriers to gather and store location data. A law saying they

The U.S. has some privacy laws, but at the same time, the U.S. (along with Canada) also obligates carriers to gather and store location data. A law saying they can not sell that is not a major step, it just takes an act of congress, and if the whiners and complainers would get off their ass and actually select their congresspeople based on policy, they might get things like this. For the time being a couple percent of the electorate selects your house member because almost nobody else even knows that a race is under way. Hyperbole "The U.S. has no...", and tribal bashing "especially Republicans", is probably part of why the handful of people who have even heard their chosen congressperson speak, still choose based on tribe.

pjc50 8y ago
There's no general constitutional level right to privacy comparable to that in ECHR. So there's a constant risk that privacy laws get overridden by First Amendment considerations. The specific example of VRRP came about because of a Republican - Bork, who had his privacy invaded.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > There's no general constitutional level right to privacy comparable to that in ECHR. I suspect that, in part, they are capable of this due to the lack of a vagueness doctrine. A law that broad would likely be unconstitutionally vague and difficult to square with the first amendment in the U.S., but is perfectly acceptable over there because vagueness is not a defense, and there is no equivalent protection of freedom of expression. > The specific example of VRRP came about because of a Republican - Bork, who had his privacy invaded. One example does not justify an eternity of digs that let everyone know who exactly how intolerant people can be here. Added: as a matter of opinion, I value the broad protection of freedom of expression enjoyed in the U.S. far above any additional protection of privacy which could be provided.
meesles 8y ago
Fair point, but where are you getting your statement "For the time being a couple percent of the electorate selects your house member"? As far as I know, voter turnout is at least a magnitude higher. It's important to realize that what seems like the obvious way an ideal democracy should function is not what we have in the US. We have a partial democracy where all decisions are heavily lobbied by massive corporations to a degree that can't even be compared to most nations. If the 'free market' didn't surround these lobbyists, it would be called racketeering the government.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > Fair point, but where are you getting your statement "For the time being a couple percent of the electorate selects your house member"? As far as I know, voter turnout is at least a magnitude higher. I'm talking about some uncompetitive districts where only one party is ever considered in the general, and only a teeny tiny fraction of the electorate bother with the primary. Added: For example, in New York's 14th congressional district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won in the general election because, barring a monumental scandal, the democrat will inevitably win there; and in the primary, she won by an okay margin, but her total number of votes in the primary was just ~17k. As far as I can tell, this means that about 17k people selected the house member for that district of ~690k people (of which 141k voted in the general election). I think I was being imprecise when I said "a couple percent of the electorate", it's really a couple percent of the overall population in this case, but the point largely stands.
- bluGill 8y ago
  There is more to the local election. Much less do anything to help select which person their party actually runs. Even of those that do, who is a great speaker or looks the best is often a more important consideration than what policy they support/oppose.

pjc50 8y ago

There's no general constitutional level right to privacy comparable to that in ECHR. So there's a constant risk that privacy laws get overridden by First Amendment considerations. The specific example of VRRP came about because of a Republican - Bork, who had his privacy invaded.

microcolonel 8y ago
> There's no general constitutional level right to privacy comparable to that in ECHR. I suspect that, in part, they are capable of this due to the lack of a vagueness doctrine. A law that broad would likely be unconstitutionally vague and difficult to square with the first amendment in the U.S., but is perfectly acceptable over there because vagueness is not a defense, and there is no equivalent protection of freedom of expression. > The specific example of VRRP came about because of a Republican - Bork, who had his privacy invaded. One example does not justify an eternity of digs that let everyone know who exactly how intolerant people can be here. Added: as a matter of opinion, I value the broad protection of freedom of expression enjoyed in the U.S. far above any additional protection of privacy which could be provided.

meesles 8y ago

Fair point, but where are you getting your statement "For the time being a couple percent of the electorate selects your house member"? As far as I know, voter turnout is at least a magnitude higher. It's important to realize that what seems like the obvious way an ideal democracy should function is not what we have in the US. We have a partial democracy where all decisions are heavily lobbied by massive corporations to a degree that can't even be compared to most nations. If the 'free market' didn't surround these lobbyists, it would be called racketeering the government.

microcolonel 8y ago
> Fair point, but where are you getting your statement "For the time being a couple percent of the electorate selects your house member"? As far as I know, voter turnout is at least a magnitude higher. I'm talking about some uncompetitive districts where only one party is ever considered in the general, and only a teeny tiny fraction of the electorate bother with the primary. Added: For example, in New York's 14th congressional district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won in the general election because, barring a monumental scandal, the democrat will inevitably win there; and in the primary, she won by an okay margin, but her total number of votes in the primary was just ~17k. As far as I can tell, this means that about 17k people selected the house member for that district of ~690k people (of which 141k voted in the general election). I think I was being imprecise when I said "a couple percent of the electorate", it's really a couple percent of the overall population in this case, but the point largely stands.
bluGill 8y ago
There is more to the local election. Much less do anything to help select which person their party actually runs. Even of those that do, who is a great speaker or looks the best is often a more important consideration than what policy they support/oppose.