3 ms·

She made several good points but good luck transforming these into laws. First, it would be extremely difficult to even formulate (how do you fight all possible

She made several good points but good luck transforming these into laws. First, it would be extremely difficult to even formulate (how do you fight all possible dark patterns with laws?), and second, there is an enormous pressure from the industry not to regulate these things, with some good and bad arguments.

mark_l_watson 4y ago
I felt the same way. She seems well-meaning but any battle against the major tech companies is probably a losing effort. Off topic, but I feel frustrated by my friends’ and family’s almost complete lack of interest in privacy. Most express a preference for privacy but don’t want to do the work.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  Sorry, you yourself have given up the idea on fighting for privacy but still get annoyed that others don't care?
  - mark_l_watson 4y ago
    Why do you say that I have given up? I use ProtonMail for most of my personal e-mail (I just switched back to using it), I use private browsing tabs most of the time, I often delete all web data and cookies from my browser, etc. I have also read Surveillance Capitalism, and I am almost done with Privacy is Power. EDIT: I reread your comment and mine: sure, elites+tech companies will “win” but that is no reason to not push back.
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  >Most express a preference for privacy but don’t want to do the work. Most express a preference for privacy, but are utterly incapable of doing the [ridiculously complex, fraught with caveats, and ever changing] "work." They are also unaware of how deep the rabbit hole goes.
akomtu 4y ago
"The right to privacy shall not be infringed" bill would be a good start. She can formulate it, Schumer can demand to vote on it. The bill can include a provision on sharing data without an ink-signed, up to 1 year long, contract.
- salawat 4y ago
  >The right to privacy shall not be infringed Yes, that wording has worked so well in the past. >It's not the government doing it. >It's not infringement if you have to do some paperwork and pay a tax first. >It effects interstate commerce even if it doesn't involve an entity in another state directly. I laud the attempt, but unfortunately you are going to have to get much more explicit. The right to personal privacy shall not be infringed by any actor. No business that engages in a circumvention of this prohibition shall be considered to be operating in good faith unless X, Y, and Z tests are passed. And in reality, you will see businesses structured such that you must jump through hoops X, Y, and Z must happen. So you'll need an additional clause. Next, you'll end up with a Supreme Court challenge on free speech grounds, as not monetizing customer data will be seen as compelled speech by the government.

mark_l_watson 4y ago

I felt the same way. She seems well-meaning but any battle against the major tech companies is probably a losing effort. Off topic, but I feel frustrated by my friends’ and family’s almost complete lack of interest in privacy. Most express a preference for privacy but don’t want to do the work.

SiempreViernes 4y ago
Sorry, you yourself have given up the idea on fighting for privacy but still get annoyed that others don't care?
- mark_l_watson 4y ago
  Why do you say that I have given up? I use ProtonMail for most of my personal e-mail (I just switched back to using it), I use private browsing tabs most of the time, I often delete all web data and cookies from my browser, etc. I have also read Surveillance Capitalism, and I am almost done with Privacy is Power. EDIT: I reread your comment and mine: sure, elites+tech companies will “win” but that is no reason to not push back.
wintermutestwin 4y ago
>Most express a preference for privacy but don’t want to do the work. Most express a preference for privacy, but are utterly incapable of doing the [ridiculously complex, fraught with caveats, and ever changing] "work." They are also unaware of how deep the rabbit hole goes.

akomtu 4y ago

"The right to privacy shall not be infringed" bill would be a good start. She can formulate it, Schumer can demand to vote on it. The bill can include a provision on sharing data without an ink-signed, up to 1 year long, contract.

salawat 4y ago
>The right to privacy shall not be infringed Yes, that wording has worked so well in the past. >It's not the government doing it. >It's not infringement if you have to do some paperwork and pay a tax first. >It effects interstate commerce even if it doesn't involve an entity in another state directly. I laud the attempt, but unfortunately you are going to have to get much more explicit. The right to personal privacy shall not be infringed by any actor. No business that engages in a circumvention of this prohibition shall be considered to be operating in good faith unless X, Y, and Z tests are passed. And in reality, you will see businesses structured such that you must jump through hoops X, Y, and Z must happen. So you'll need an additional clause. Next, you'll end up with a Supreme Court challenge on free speech grounds, as not monetizing customer data will be seen as compelled speech by the government.