4 ms·

It should be opt-in but ... hey. It's something.

by weka 7y ago

darkpuma 7y ago
May as well forbid it outright at that point. (They should. Everybody deserves protection from this, even the people who don't understand the threat it poses. The uninformed, ignorant or naive all deserve protection, since preying on ignorance or naivety is generally considered abhorrent by anybody who's not totally morally defective.)
- MichaelApproved 7y ago
  > May as well forbid it outright at that point. I was wondering about that point myself. I am thinking that they may not have the authority to create such law, so they still allow ISPs the ability to track but make it as restrictive as possible.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Could be. Where might such a restriction be coming from though? I don't think it would run afoul of interstate commerce stuff. Is there something in their state constitution that interferes with it? Alternatively maybe they didn't have the votes necessary for a more potent law. Maybe some of the politicians were scared of doing anything too dramatic maybe?
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    I think it's just the equivalent of "you can't stab someone unless they give you express prior permission to do so". It may technically be less restrictive, but in practice noone is ever going to opt-in to that without coersion. Of course, in actual practice, we'll probably see a dozen different loopholes inside a year, but I'm willing to give them credit for at least pretending to fix this particular part of the problem; it's just matter of keeping up the pressure and momentum.
WillPostForFood 7y ago
You are opted-out of them sharing by default. It allows you to opt-in to share
acdha 7y ago
According to the bill text someone else linked (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20062182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20062182) it’s out-in, requiring “express, affirmative consent” which should also rule out burying it in a footnote of the fine print.

It should be opt-in but ... hey. It's something.

by weka 7y ago

It should be opt-in but ... hey. It's something.

May as well forbid it outright at that point. (They should. Everybody deserves protection from this, even the people who don't understand the threat it poses. The uninformed, ignorant or naive all deserve protection, since preying on ignorance or naivety is generally considered abhorrent by anybody who's not totally morally defective.)

MichaelApproved 7y ago
> May as well forbid it outright at that point. I was wondering about that point myself. I am thinking that they may not have the authority to create such law, so they still allow ISPs the ability to track but make it as restrictive as possible.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Could be. Where might such a restriction be coming from though? I don't think it would run afoul of interstate commerce stuff. Is there something in their state constitution that interferes with it? Alternatively maybe they didn't have the votes necessary for a more potent law. Maybe some of the politicians were scared of doing anything too dramatic maybe?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  I think it's just the equivalent of "you can't stab someone unless they give you express prior permission to do so". It may technically be less restrictive, but in practice noone is ever going to opt-in to that without coersion. Of course, in actual practice, we'll probably see a dozen different loopholes inside a year, but I'm willing to give them credit for at least pretending to fix this particular part of the problem; it's just matter of keeping up the pressure and momentum.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

You are opted-out of them sharing by default. It allows you to opt-in to share

acdha 7y ago

According to the bill text someone else linked (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20062182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20062182) it’s out-in, requiring “express, affirmative consent” which should also rule out burying it in a footnote of the fine print.