2 ms·

> This is true for rights, which don't get diluted through assembly Calling it "assembly" is disingenuous (this is directed at the legal canon, not you). Gener

> This is true for rights, which don't get diluted through assembly Calling it "assembly" is disingenuous (this is directed at the legal canon, not you). Generally companies aren't just mere assemblies of people, but rather are separate legal entities whose members have limited liability. Just as it's accepted for a company to say to an employee "if you want to get paid your 1st amendment rights are irrelevant", it would be reasonable for the government to say "if you want to have a statutory liability shield, your 1st amendment rights are irrelevant for activities facilitated by the shield". > Not entirely true. See: EULA enforceability as it pertains to natural persons I didn't say there weren't exceptions. Just overwhelmingly when a new regulation is created that requires "consent", the main result is for there to be a new piece of paper that people are forced to sign to "give consent". Rarely is there spelled out a path where the individual can refuse to give consent and still obtain a service that didn't intrinsically require it. > Making information one's inalienable property that can only be revocably licensed sounds neat, but it doesn't add value over enumerating data rights. The value is that trying to carve out new rights is an uphill battle, whereas dovetailing into the customs of commerce might just be possible. For example you had mentioned carve outs in the various state attempts at privacy laws due to the 1st amendment. Whereas those carve outs (unfortunately) don't exist for copyright! But sure, I do support trying to carve out completely new rights to repudiate our burgeoning surveillance society. It's just that the way the legislative process works in this country, it will be an amazing feat if the drafting process doesn't end up gutting most individual rights while still creating a bunch of red tape to stifle competition. Hence the attraction to copying GDPR wholesale and letting the courts sort it out.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when a new regulation is created that requires "consent", the main result is for there to be a new piece of paper that people are forced to sign to "give consent" You'll see my suggestions purposely skirt the question of consent. Access, erasure and objection. You can access your information held by others. You can require its deletion. And you can object to how it's used. (In practice, revocable consent. But avoiding the concept directly.) > those carve outs (unfortunately) don't exist for copyright Copyright is in the Constitution [1]. Its interaction with the First Amendment is why we have the fair-use doctrine [2]. I doubt the Congress could enact copyright without the Copyright Clause. Incorporating privacy through commercial code strikes me as messy. We have many mechanisms for abrogating property rights. Do we really want to deal with e.g. civil forfeiture of a person's privacy, banks seizing possession of personal data in obscure foreclosure proceedings, or an employer holding parts of an employee's privacy rights in bond? > the attraction to copying GDPR wholesale and letting the courts sort it out This would involve a decade plus of anarchy, litigation and uncertainty. That is enough time for generational backlash. Lazy legislating rarely pays off. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8/copyright-and-the-first-amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
- mindslight 4y ago
  > You'll see my suggestions purposely skirt the question of consent. Access, erasure and objection. You can access your information held by others. You can require its deletion. And you can object to how it's used. Sure. I just see the legislative meat grinder turning "information" into narrowly construed red herrings like SSN's and account numbers, "access" into the ability to file individual written requests (which include more personal information) to specific entities you happen to know about, "deletion" into the null operation because it "infringes freedom", and "objection" into a strongly worded protest rather than anything actionable. I certainly do want to be wrong here, but this is the same country where widely-lauded healthcare reform ended up including a provision that everyone had to pay the parasites. Good point about the perils of making one's interest in personal information more property like. I had wanted to head that off by making it non-transferable, but you're right to point out the slippery slope that legislative corruption would surely push us down. As far as copyright, it grows ever stronger in spite of patently obvious free speech concerns (eg DMCA "anti-circumvention"), because legislation that benefits corporations wins out over legislation that benefits individual rights. And for "lazy legislating", what I see really not paying off is when congress addresses an issue a single time and then considers the matter solved, regardless of the actual result.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > what I see really not paying off is when congress addresses an issue a single time and then considers the matter solved, regardless of the actual result This is incrementalism. It’s the solution preference of a deliberative, consensus-building democracy. We make a move. See the effects. Iterate. It works in the long run. The opposite, forcing through chaotic legislation, tends to result in alienation, repeal and the resignation of the issue to the partisan trash pile.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Read my sentence again - I'm bemoaning the lack of iteration. Are the disastrous bits of the CFAA and the DMCA ever going to be repealed? Will any of this new privacy legislation apply to the traditional surveillance industry ("credit bureaus") ? It seems like once commercial interests get their sponsored laws and loopholes into the endzone, we're left to suffer them indefinitely. It's why we're always reaching for "constitutionality" as the main hope for eliminating oppressive laws, rather than thinking that congress could reverse course.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> when a new regulation is created that requires "consent", the main result is for there to be a new piece of paper that people are forced to sign to "give consent" You'll see my suggestions purposely skirt the question of consent. Access, erasure and objection. You can access your information held by others. You can require its deletion. And you can object to how it's used. (In practice, revocable consent. But avoiding the concept directly.) > those carve outs (unfortunately) don't exist for copyright Copyright is in the Constitution [1]. Its interaction with the First Amendment is why we have the fair-use doctrine [2]. I doubt the Congress could enact copyright without the Copyright Clause. Incorporating privacy through commercial code strikes me as messy. We have many mechanisms for abrogating property rights. Do we really want to deal with e.g. civil forfeiture of a person's privacy, banks seizing possession of personal data in obscure foreclosure proceedings, or an employer holding parts of an employee's privacy rights in bond? > the attraction to copying GDPR wholesale and letting the courts sort it out This would involve a decade plus of anarchy, litigation and uncertainty. That is enough time for generational backlash. Lazy legislating rarely pays off. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8/copyright-and-the-first-amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...

mindslight 4y ago
> You'll see my suggestions purposely skirt the question of consent. Access, erasure and objection. You can access your information held by others. You can require its deletion. And you can object to how it's used. Sure. I just see the legislative meat grinder turning "information" into narrowly construed red herrings like SSN's and account numbers, "access" into the ability to file individual written requests (which include more personal information) to specific entities you happen to know about, "deletion" into the null operation because it "infringes freedom", and "objection" into a strongly worded protest rather than anything actionable. I certainly do want to be wrong here, but this is the same country where widely-lauded healthcare reform ended up including a provision that everyone had to pay the parasites. Good point about the perils of making one's interest in personal information more property like. I had wanted to head that off by making it non-transferable, but you're right to point out the slippery slope that legislative corruption would surely push us down. As far as copyright, it grows ever stronger in spite of patently obvious free speech concerns (eg DMCA "anti-circumvention"), because legislation that benefits corporations wins out over legislation that benefits individual rights. And for "lazy legislating", what I see really not paying off is when congress addresses an issue a single time and then considers the matter solved, regardless of the actual result.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > what I see really not paying off is when congress addresses an issue a single time and then considers the matter solved, regardless of the actual result This is incrementalism. It’s the solution preference of a deliberative, consensus-building democracy. We make a move. See the effects. Iterate. It works in the long run. The opposite, forcing through chaotic legislation, tends to result in alienation, repeal and the resignation of the issue to the partisan trash pile.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Read my sentence again - I'm bemoaning the lack of iteration. Are the disastrous bits of the CFAA and the DMCA ever going to be repealed? Will any of this new privacy legislation apply to the traditional surveillance industry ("credit bureaus") ? It seems like once commercial interests get their sponsored laws and loopholes into the endzone, we're left to suffer them indefinitely. It's why we're always reaching for "constitutionality" as the main hope for eliminating oppressive laws, rather than thinking that congress could reverse course.