3 ms·

This is actually bad for online privacy in the long term. The reason is because this is tying online privacy to mainly one side of the abortion debate, and to

This is actually bad for online privacy in the long term. The reason is because this is tying online privacy to mainly one side of the abortion debate, and to one political party. There is a greater than 50% chance that Republicans win control of Congress in 2022. I would say that there is likewise a 50% chance they win the Presidency in 2024 (especially if they run someone other than Trump). If online privacy is nothing but just yet another point of contention in the culture wars, what chance do you think this will have of standing?

woodruffw 4y ago
"Doing something good is bad because it'll cause someone intent on doing bad to do bad faster" is not ideal logic.
devindotcom 4y ago
I suppose you feel this way about net neutrality as well, since it was established and then reverted as a partisan issue, also part of the so-called "culture wars"? Don't forget, they make everything part of the culture war so people will vote based on their "culture." Right now people who want to get abortions are a group of major concern in the privacy debate. Others also need these protections, but people getting abortions and abortion-adjacent care are in immediate, real danger and their privacy is suddenly much more important than a few weeks or months ago. The FTC is expressing that it intends to protect the privacy expectations of all Americans in mind, regardless of state rules limiting certain medical procedures, medications, or even sexual orientations. The current data economy provides numerous opportunities to get around those expectations and protections. That's something that should change - though it will need legislation, probably, not just an agency rolling up its sleeves.
jahewson 4y ago
Roe vs Wade was based on the notion of a constitutional right to privacy. So it is very much tied to privacy! There is currently real doubt that what were assumed to be constitutional privacy protections (far beyond abortion) will hold going forward and so the executive is keen to demonstrate and exercise its existing powers in regulating affairs which previously would have been assumed to be protected by such a right.
- namecheapTA 4y ago
- vkou 4y ago
  > so the executive is keen to demonstrate and exercise its existing powers in regulating affairs which previously would have been assumed to be protected by such a right. No, what has actually happened is that the democrats very recently broke the deadlock [1] and got their appointments into the FTC, which caused the organization to actually start doing its job. The senate republicans were delaying the appointment, and their appointees inside the FTC were stonewalling any actual enforcement by it. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/data-privacy-takes-priority-for-ftc-chief-as-dems-break-deadlock https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/data...
gnulinux 4y ago
By this logic we're not supposed to defend anything because one day some people can (and I agree will) destroy it? Your argument argues for the opposite, it makes more sense to defend this now when there is political capacity to defend it. And later when we won't, it'll be banned. But at least there will be political and legal precedent to this so that makes (1) harder for next person to destroy it (2) easier for the next next person to re-create it. Your strategy is by definition doomed to fail. EDIT: Also RvW was legally dependent on Americans' constitutional right to privacy as per the Fourteenth Amendment. So this issue is already organically tied to the issue of abortion, whether you like it or not (at least with the framework current SCOTUS is attempting to destroy (it cannot be said they already destroyed it fully given many of the precendents Thomas listed still are the law of the land)).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
trasz 4y ago
"One side of abortion debate" sounds exactly like "one side of the flat earth debate". There's no debate: there's a fringe view of "life from conception" and there's the opposite view founded on ethics.

woodruffw 4y ago

"Doing something good is bad because it'll cause someone intent on doing bad to do bad faster" is not ideal logic.

devindotcom 4y ago

I suppose you feel this way about net neutrality as well, since it was established and then reverted as a partisan issue, also part of the so-called "culture wars"? Don't forget, they make everything part of the culture war so people will vote based on their "culture." Right now people who want to get abortions are a group of major concern in the privacy debate. Others also need these protections, but people getting abortions and abortion-adjacent care are in immediate, real danger and their privacy is suddenly much more important than a few weeks or months ago. The FTC is expressing that it intends to protect the privacy expectations of all Americans in mind, regardless of state rules limiting certain medical procedures, medications, or even sexual orientations. The current data economy provides numerous opportunities to get around those expectations and protections. That's something that should change - though it will need legislation, probably, not just an agency rolling up its sleeves.

jahewson 4y ago

Roe vs Wade was based on the notion of a constitutional right to privacy. So it is very much tied to privacy! There is currently real doubt that what were assumed to be constitutional privacy protections (far beyond abortion) will hold going forward and so the executive is keen to demonstrate and exercise its existing powers in regulating affairs which previously would have been assumed to be protected by such a right.

namecheapTA 4y ago
vkou 4y ago
> so the executive is keen to demonstrate and exercise its existing powers in regulating affairs which previously would have been assumed to be protected by such a right. No, what has actually happened is that the democrats very recently broke the deadlock [1] and got their appointments into the FTC, which caused the organization to actually start doing its job. The senate republicans were delaying the appointment, and their appointees inside the FTC were stonewalling any actual enforcement by it. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/data-privacy-takes-priority-for-ftc-chief-as-dems-break-deadlock https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/data...

gnulinux 4y ago

By this logic we're not supposed to defend anything because one day some people can (and I agree will) destroy it? Your argument argues for the opposite, it makes more sense to defend this now when there is political capacity to defend it. And later when we won't, it'll be banned. But at least there will be political and legal precedent to this so that makes (1) harder for next person to destroy it (2) easier for the next next person to re-create it. Your strategy is by definition doomed to fail. EDIT: Also RvW was legally dependent on Americans' constitutional right to privacy as per the Fourteenth Amendment. So this issue is already organically tied to the issue of abortion, whether you like it or not (at least with the framework current SCOTUS is attempting to destroy (it cannot be said they already destroyed it fully given many of the precendents Thomas listed still are the law of the land)).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

trasz 4y ago

"One side of abortion debate" sounds exactly like "one side of the flat earth debate". There's no debate: there's a fringe view of "life from conception" and there's the opposite view founded on ethics.