8 ms·

Tech Industry-Funded Think Tanks Work to Overturn California Privacy Law

249 points by aburd 7y ago

OnlyRepliesToBS 7y ago
'trust us' by proxy
itronitron 7y ago
ugh, so fucking creepy, but it's perfectly in line with SV double speak
duxup 7y ago
At this point the statement and other gestures that a company "value's your privacy" is just a default poster someone puts up, while they do other things.
- kurthr 7y ago
  We value your privacy at $0.0003 per click!
  - duxup 7y ago
    I'm working on a side project and the setup is basically that you get to see all the data I have on you. Granted this is a tiny project that is largely just for me, but as a policy that seems like that is the most clear cut way to go.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      But could I both delete the data you have and tell you not to collect more? Transparency is great, but all by itself it means little.
      - duxup 7y ago
        Yeah I don't see why not. Generally just showing all the data is there to inform, and then the user can not participate or say as you ask delete. I was thinking I'd put a delay on the actual deleting of data to prevent something malicious. Granted this is all just a personal side project primarily for my personal use and education ;)
    - soared 7y ago
      The big data players have tools for this. For example: https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/ https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/
      - duxup 7y ago
        That's interesting, I wonder how that came about.
        soared 7y ago
        Yeah kind of cool. I believe tools like that came from either mass opt-out tools by the Network Advertising Initiative or the Digital Advertising Alliance. http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1 http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1
        JohnFen 7y ago
        Those tools are worthless, though. I wonder if Oracle's is any better.
        soared 7y ago
        They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more. If you use that tool on all of your devices (and don't clear your cookies/etc) you will be opted out of those vendors tracking. But that doesn't accomplish since that type of targeting only makes up maybe 15% of targeted advertising. All that tool does is get you shittier ads. (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).
        JohnFen 7y ago
        > They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more. That hasn't been my experience. When I've used the tools, the opt-outs have failed for the majority of the companies in the list (as reported by the site itself). That said, as you point out, they're pointless even if they worked correctly as you still have to engage in all the blocking that you usually do regardless. > (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out). Ah, so Oracle's offering is worse -- worthless by design rather than implementation.
ignoramous 7y ago
The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it matters anyway, just like how most of the standard bodies have been taken over by them and now slowly approve of features that further their business motives (I am looking at you ITU). Two ways (there must be more?) I can think of to fix the behaviour of these behemoths: 1. External: Internet Activism. This has been well underway for a long time now but the corporates are patient beasts. The problem always remains gathering enough support [1] and generally the short attention span of the larger populace. 2. Internal: The employees. Be critical, put yourselves in akward situations, start demanding answers [2]. The problem might be risking job security? That could be offset by forming a large enough group? -- [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17420849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17420849 [1] Btw, the signees of this letter care about your privacy: https://www.eff.org/document/december-2018-preemption-letter https://www.eff.org/document/december-2018-preemption-letter [2] https://demandprogress.org https://demandprogress.org /offtopic https://firstlook.media https://firstlook.media is doing a great job. Almost all their articles are of high quality.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen? I mean, we seem to be following a pattern: Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace. Populace rises up against this. Big power 'loses'. Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up, but a little less. Big power 'loses'. Repeat until popular power is worn out and big power gets what they want. Once passed, popular outrage won't remove it, it's way harder to get support for repealing than for approving. So... I'd like to support something that changes that system from working that way. I'd think an expiration date would due... but I'm open to supporting anything that would break this pattern.
mistrial9 7y ago
yet, courageous and far-sighted individuals working towards federated and private data models pre-FB, struggled to find any funding, and were vocally criticized for "asking for money" or "trying to charge money" by intellectuals .. idcommons dot org
M2Ys4U 7y ago
The US should just implement Convention 108+ like the rest of the world.
dalbasal 7y ago
So... I'm a worried netizen. I have concerns about data monopolies, privacy, surveillance, the ad-tech industry, cambridge analyticas... which puts me in the hn majority, I guess. That said, what specifically are we aiming for. Privacy laws? Is there a bullet point of what these laws prohibit/require? Enforcement mechanisms? Standards? Protocols? "Pro-privacy" isn't really enough, for a political program. It would be great if one of these think tanks could put forward a specific agenda, preferably one that a large portion of us can support. What is it we want achieved?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I think the best approach to informational self-determination is to define that any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent. This is what this think tank (a name for every sweaty office) allegedly wants to get rid off. I doubt this clear definition is impractical or utopian and could very well be implemented, so I doubt effective privacy legislation needs to be extensive. People consent to share information all the time. That would of course cost an industry that has stakes in information about you, even if that is not their primary business. Furthermore it is worth to think about if there is any information about you which you are not eligible to share. It is not trivial to determine if information is personal. Perhaps there should be a formal process to determine that.
  - soared 7y ago
    > any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet. If you walk outside of your home/land, I can legally photograph and record video of you. I can write down what you're wearing, make assumptions about your income based on your address, record you gender/age/etc. All of that is 100% legal - you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places. You could argue the internet is not a public space but that counters most pro-privacy people's opinions on free speech/etc online.
    - bduerst 7y ago
JohnFen 7y ago
It is so sad to see the bad actors in the tech industry pushing so hard to advance policies that are harmful to society at large and people individually. It is even more sad that I'm not the least bit surprised by this.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Standing by for employee protests.
sharadov 7y ago
Data is being called the new "Oil" and it's only a matter of time that tech becomes as maligned as the tobacco and oil industry.
mLuby 7y ago
TL;DR: the key is to insulate lawmakers from concentrations of wealth. A law that prevents corporations from spending resources on politics would do this. Or low contribution limits could work, to limit billionaire influence. A lot of comments in this and other privacy threads correctly worry about the combination of "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" and the electorate's short attention vs sustained private lobbying. My feeling is those effects cannot be overcome once in effect, so we have to roll back to prevent the effects in the first place. Sounds politically unlikely, but stranger things have happened in American politics.
- snarf21 7y ago
  True, but we all know the people are so self-enlightened to not stick their neck out. I've been wondering lately if the solution to politics (at least at the state and federal level) would be to have a two level representative democracy. Meaning instead of one person getting the vote for 700K people and being very bribe-able (1 of 435), you have one person actually at the legislature but they have a different role. They must negotiate based on another set of real representatives. They must collect facts and evaluate laws for this other set. These 14 (e.g.) people would be responsible for a much smaller number of people (50K) and have a much smaller geographical region. These 14 would be the ones who actually vote for/against the laws and the top level must cast their vote in their stead. The top level could also be elected and serve at the discretion of this set of 14. Each representative has a smaller sphere of influence and concern. Bribing (lobbying) becomes much harder since it goes up by a factor of 7 (or more). Gerrymandering becomes much much harder because of all the little sub-districts that would be created. It also helps give a truer voice of the people unlike certain states/districts where you may be blue in a sea of red or vice-versa. Of course, the powers that be would never let this happen but I think it is at least an interesting thought experiment.
  - mLuby 7y ago
    That sounds like the senate/house of reps with a bias toward inaction. Biases toward action or inaction can be exploited.
nerdjon 7y ago
I wish I could say I was surprised by this... but I am not. What I am really curious about, are any of these companies linked to Apple? Considering the very public stance they have been recently taking. The article does not specifically mention them either way (and they are the only of the big ones missing).
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Not sure about Apple but I like that all the companies linked are all supporters of NN. Almost as if a public face, NN, and a private face, think tanks to overturn privacy laws.
  - nerdjon 7y ago
    I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us. Considering it most likely would be them footing the bill (or loosing traffic) without NN
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      >I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us. How we know? Because they told us that? They would be funding thinktanks to pass NN if they had to. The truth about NN is only ONCE was a carrier ever really found to be selectively throttling for non-congestion reasons in the mid-2000s and the FCC shut that down immediately. NN still allows for throttling if you claim it's for congestion. YET... SV likes to promote the idea of a slow internet without regulation. Just because you agree with the idea doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to the propaganda.
avmich 7y ago
Is there any possibility to recoup losses incurred while accessing siloed and hostile websites trying to pull my private information? I'm using some privacy enhancements in browser, and major websites don't work properly because of them. Is it possible to win a claim for incurred losses at least in time, if not in data leaks?
Rafuino 7y ago
I can't wait for the CA law to come into effect. "The law, set to take effect next year, gives California residents the power to view the types of data companies collect from them, request that the data be deleted, and allows residents to declare that their data not be sold to third parties." Does anyone know if the law includes the ability to demand that data third parties have collected be deleted as well? Will I be able to tell what third parties already have my data from the source of collection?
tareqak 7y ago
Are public companies required to show which organizations / think tanks they are a part of and what role they play therein as part of their periodic financial updates (quarterly or annual)? The thing with money and speech in politics is that speech must be loud enough in order to be an effective agent for change whereas the effectiveness of money is considerably more independent that. By loud, I mean a quality more like the amount public awareness and genuine understanding a given issue has.

249 points by aburd 7y ago

OnlyRepliesToBS 7y ago

'trust us' by proxy

itronitron 7y ago

ugh, so fucking creepy, but it's perfectly in line with SV double speak

duxup 7y ago

At this point the statement and other gestures that a company "value's your privacy" is just a default poster someone puts up, while they do other things.

kurthr 7y ago
We value your privacy at $0.0003 per click!
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm working on a side project and the setup is basically that you get to see all the data I have on you. Granted this is a tiny project that is largely just for me, but as a policy that seems like that is the most clear cut way to go.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    But could I both delete the data you have and tell you not to collect more? Transparency is great, but all by itself it means little.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Yeah I don't see why not. Generally just showing all the data is there to inform, and then the user can not participate or say as you ask delete. I was thinking I'd put a delay on the actual deleting of data to prevent something malicious. Granted this is all just a personal side project primarily for my personal use and education ;)
  - soared 7y ago
    The big data players have tools for this. For example: https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/ https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/
    - duxup 7y ago
      That's interesting, I wonder how that came about.
      - soared 7y ago
        Yeah kind of cool. I believe tools like that came from either mass opt-out tools by the Network Advertising Initiative or the Digital Advertising Alliance. http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1 http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1
        JohnFen 7y ago
        Those tools are worthless, though. I wonder if Oracle's is any better.
        soared 7y ago
        They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more. If you use that tool on all of your devices (and don't clear your cookies/etc) you will be opted out of those vendors tracking. But that doesn't accomplish since that type of targeting only makes up maybe 15% of targeted advertising. All that tool does is get you shittier ads. (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out).
        JohnFen 7y ago
        > They accomplish what they intend to do, its just that most users want them to do more. That hasn't been my experience. When I've used the tools, the opt-outs have failed for the majority of the companies in the list (as reported by the site itself). That said, as you point out, they're pointless even if they worked correctly as you still have to engage in all the blocking that you usually do regardless. > (Oracle's just shows you what data they know about you, it doesn't actually delete or opt you out). Ah, so Oracle's offering is worse -- worthless by design rather than implementation.

ignoramous 7y ago

The fact that a 100% of the think-tanks taking corporate funding (from the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, Verizon, eBay) are trying to undermine excellent privacy laws passed by California [0] and Illinois state assemblies should come as a surprise to no one. The problem is these think-tanks or variants thereof might end up representing the tech industry in most places where it matters anyway, just like how most of the standard bodies have been taken over by them and now slowly approve of features that further their business motives (I am looking at you ITU). Two ways (there must be more?) I can think of to fix the behaviour of these behemoths: 1. External: Internet Activism. This has been well underway for a long time now but the corporates are patient beasts. The problem always remains gathering enough support [1] and generally the short attention span of the larger populace. 2. Internal: The employees. Be critical, put yourselves in akward situations, start demanding answers [2]. The problem might be risking job security? That could be offset by forming a large enough group? -- [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17420849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17420849 [1] Btw, the signees of this letter care about your privacy: https://www.eff.org/document/december-2018-preemption-letter https://www.eff.org/document/december-2018-preemption-letter [2] https://demandprogress.org https://demandprogress.org /offtopic https://firstlook.media https://firstlook.media is doing a great job. Almost all their articles are of high quality.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Is there any law/legal mechanism which could put automatic expiration on new laws? Is there anything I could suggest to my lawmakers for this to happen? I mean, we seem to be following a pattern: Big power wants something that directly and negatively impact the quality of life of the majority of the populace. Populace rises up against this. Big power 'loses'. Big power makes the push again next year. People rise up, but a little less. Big power 'loses'. Repeat until popular power is worn out and big power gets what they want. Once passed, popular outrage won't remove it, it's way harder to get support for repealing than for approving. So... I'd like to support something that changes that system from working that way. I'd think an expiration date would due... but I'm open to supporting anything that would break this pattern.

mistrial9 7y ago

yet, courageous and far-sighted individuals working towards federated and private data models pre-FB, struggled to find any funding, and were vocally criticized for "asking for money" or "trying to charge money" by intellectuals .. idcommons dot org

M2Ys4U 7y ago

The US should just implement Convention 108+ like the rest of the world.

dalbasal 7y ago

So... I'm a worried netizen. I have concerns about data monopolies, privacy, surveillance, the ad-tech industry, cambridge analyticas... which puts me in the hn majority, I guess. That said, what specifically are we aiming for. Privacy laws? Is there a bullet point of what these laws prohibit/require? Enforcement mechanisms? Standards? Protocols? "Pro-privacy" isn't really enough, for a political program. It would be great if one of these think tanks could put forward a specific agenda, preferably one that a large portion of us can support. What is it we want achieved?

raxxorrax 7y ago
I think the best approach to informational self-determination is to define that any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent. This is what this think tank (a name for every sweaty office) allegedly wants to get rid off. I doubt this clear definition is impractical or utopian and could very well be implemented, so I doubt effective privacy legislation needs to be extensive. People consent to share information all the time. That would of course cost an industry that has stakes in information about you, even if that is not their primary business. Furthermore it is worth to think about if there is any information about you which you are not eligible to share. It is not trivial to determine if information is personal. Perhaps there should be a formal process to determine that.
- soared 7y ago
  > any information concerning you as a person belongs to yourself. Any diversion needs active consent But in the US that isn't true even outside of the internet. If you walk outside of your home/land, I can legally photograph and record video of you. I can write down what you're wearing, make assumptions about your income based on your address, record you gender/age/etc. All of that is 100% legal - you willingly give up information about yourself when you go to public places. You could argue the internet is not a public space but that counters most pro-privacy people's opinions on free speech/etc online.
  - bduerst 7y ago

JohnFen 7y ago

It is so sad to see the bad actors in the tech industry pushing so hard to advance policies that are harmful to society at large and people individually. It is even more sad that I'm not the least bit surprised by this.

pnw_hazor 7y ago
Standing by for employee protests.

sharadov 7y ago

Data is being called the new "Oil" and it's only a matter of time that tech becomes as maligned as the tobacco and oil industry.

mLuby 7y ago

TL;DR: the key is to insulate lawmakers from concentrations of wealth. A law that prevents corporations from spending resources on politics would do this. Or low contribution limits could work, to limit billionaire influence. A lot of comments in this and other privacy threads correctly worry about the combination of "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" and the electorate's short attention vs sustained private lobbying. My feeling is those effects cannot be overcome once in effect, so we have to roll back to prevent the effects in the first place. Sounds politically unlikely, but stranger things have happened in American politics.

snarf21 7y ago
True, but we all know the people are so self-enlightened to not stick their neck out. I've been wondering lately if the solution to politics (at least at the state and federal level) would be to have a two level representative democracy. Meaning instead of one person getting the vote for 700K people and being very bribe-able (1 of 435), you have one person actually at the legislature but they have a different role. They must negotiate based on another set of real representatives. They must collect facts and evaluate laws for this other set. These 14 (e.g.) people would be responsible for a much smaller number of people (50K) and have a much smaller geographical region. These 14 would be the ones who actually vote for/against the laws and the top level must cast their vote in their stead. The top level could also be elected and serve at the discretion of this set of 14. Each representative has a smaller sphere of influence and concern. Bribing (lobbying) becomes much harder since it goes up by a factor of 7 (or more). Gerrymandering becomes much much harder because of all the little sub-districts that would be created. It also helps give a truer voice of the people unlike certain states/districts where you may be blue in a sea of red or vice-versa. Of course, the powers that be would never let this happen but I think it is at least an interesting thought experiment.
- mLuby 7y ago
  That sounds like the senate/house of reps with a bias toward inaction. Biases toward action or inaction can be exploited.

nerdjon 7y ago

I wish I could say I was surprised by this... but I am not. What I am really curious about, are any of these companies linked to Apple? Considering the very public stance they have been recently taking. The article does not specifically mention them either way (and they are the only of the big ones missing).

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Not sure about Apple but I like that all the companies linked are all supporters of NN. Almost as if a public face, NN, and a private face, think tanks to overturn privacy laws.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us. Considering it most likely would be them footing the bill (or loosing traffic) without NN
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >I wouldn't necessarily tie net neutrality and this together, since NN supports them as much as us. How we know? Because they told us that? They would be funding thinktanks to pass NN if they had to. The truth about NN is only ONCE was a carrier ever really found to be selectively throttling for non-congestion reasons in the mid-2000s and the FCC shut that down immediately. NN still allows for throttling if you claim it's for congestion. YET... SV likes to promote the idea of a slow internet without regulation. Just because you agree with the idea doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to the propaganda.

avmich 7y ago

Is there any possibility to recoup losses incurred while accessing siloed and hostile websites trying to pull my private information? I'm using some privacy enhancements in browser, and major websites don't work properly because of them. Is it possible to win a claim for incurred losses at least in time, if not in data leaks?

Rafuino 7y ago

I can't wait for the CA law to come into effect. "The law, set to take effect next year, gives California residents the power to view the types of data companies collect from them, request that the data be deleted, and allows residents to declare that their data not be sold to third parties." Does anyone know if the law includes the ability to demand that data third parties have collected be deleted as well? Will I be able to tell what third parties already have my data from the source of collection?

tareqak 7y ago

Are public companies required to show which organizations / think tanks they are a part of and what role they play therein as part of their periodic financial updates (quarterly or annual)? The thing with money and speech in politics is that speech must be loud enough in order to be an effective agent for change whereas the effectiveness of money is considerably more independent that. By loud, I mean a quality more like the amount public awareness and genuine understanding a given issue has.