4 ms·

Great! Now do data privacy, it is long overdue.

atoav 3y ago
I am not to optimistic about privacy law in the US when you have a significant part of the political landscape in the US trying to pave the road to the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. There are political ideas of fundamental religious, socialist or fascist nature¹ which rely a lot on subjects snitching and telling on their neighbors, kids telling on their parents and so on. They don't want stricter privacy law for all. Maybe for the political leadership, but not for commoners and people whom they disagree with. Thinking about privacy makes no sense, if you have a considerable amount of the voting population that would be fine with abolishing the democratic process. How would one expect those people to respect your privacy (law or not) if they can't even be bothered to respect the democratic vote of the people they have been taught to hate? ¹: As someone living in Germany which has seen this twice (under the Nazis and under the GDR) I can't help but noticing the US slipping into a similar direction: There have been politicians toying with the idea that a dictator is needed in the US, others have "joked" about hunting their opposition with dogs: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > I am not to optimistic about privacy law in the US when you have a significant part of the political landscape in the US trying to pave the road to the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. Congress is significantly older and more religious than most of the population. As younger people continue to take office like AOC, the attempt to do this will slowly be pushed back. > There have been politicians toying with the idea that a dictator is needed in the US Honestly, I favor a benevolent dictator with checks and balances, so not a dictator in the usual sense, but rather someone with enough authority to actually do things without opposition, but also an easy means of removal and a jury type deal to overrule certain things (as opposed to legislation having to go through two houses first). Democracy only works when you have an educated population, otherwise you get what's happening in the US. That aside, democracy shouldn't allow people to vote on everything...the same way not everyone is qualified to be a manager and make decisions. Vote on how local money should be spent, for a pool or a park? Sure. Vote on best steps to combat climate change? No. Not when half the population is in denial that it even exists.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > Honestly, I favor a benevolent dictator with checks and balances, Note how people often evoke the specifically benevolent dictator when comparing forms of governance, stacking the deck from the start; democracy and other forms of governance don’t get such a privilege, as they are supposed to be evaluated on its empirical merits. So you don’t have to worry about an evil and selfish dictator by definition. How nice! > Democracy only works when you have an educated population, otherwise you get what's happening in the US. First of all, democracy working cannot be judged on whether people make “educated” decisions: it works if people have the power to choose. Similarily freedom does not work if only people do good things; it works if they have the power to be free. I cannot walk into a grown person’s home and judge whether they should be free to make choices based on the choices they make unless I am so arrogant as to consider myself an adult and them a child (relatively speaking). Yet this “democracy only works” line of thinking reeks of this attitude. But this is an old-as-the-hills false goal, popular among the educated for painfully obvious reasons; the relatively educated can use their elite-adjacent power to systematically de facto disenfranchise regular people by depriving them of whatever their goalpost for “educated” is, over the span of decades. That then becomes a self-reinforcing and (in their eyes) virtuous cycle; more and more disenfranchisement leads to a more and more apolitical and “stupid” people, which in turn “proves” the point! And in the end the educated and the elites get what they want: more power for themselves, less interference from the general populace. Politics is almost always about self- and group-interest. This is not an exception; the “educated” will wax poetic about the virtues of an “informed public”, but most of them just want more power for themselves.
    - i2cmaster 3y ago
      We got democracy from Britain, Rome, and Greece. All of these places had what were essentially dictators from time to time, often to overcome crises. Yes some of them were bad, but the illusion of consent democratic governments can create is IMO even worse when they go bad.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        Do you think I am making an argument for the sham-democracies that we have in the world today? Did you even read what I wrote?
astrange 3y ago
That's CCPA. It protects people outside California since it'd be too much work to implement it just for them.
- free-nachos 3y ago
  I'm hopeful it will. In practice I've seen the malicious compliance angle more often e.g. 'send us photocopies of id / official documents to prove you're a CA resident and then we'll remove your data.'

I am not to optimistic about privacy law in the US when you have a significant part of the political landscape in the US trying to pave the road to the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. There are political ideas of fundamental religious, socialist or fascist nature¹ which rely a lot on subjects snitching and telling on their neighbors, kids telling on their parents and so on. They don't want stricter privacy law for all. Maybe for the political leadership, but not for commoners and people whom they disagree with. Thinking about privacy makes no sense, if you have a considerable amount of the voting population that would be fine with abolishing the democratic process. How would one expect those people to respect your privacy (law or not) if they can't even be bothered to respect the democratic vote of the people they have been taught to hate? ¹: As someone living in Germany which has seen this twice (under the Nazis and under the GDR) I can't help but noticing the US slipping into a similar direction: There have been politicians toying with the idea that a dictator is needed in the US, others have "joked" about hunting their opposition with dogs: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> I am not to optimistic about privacy law in the US when you have a significant part of the political landscape in the US trying to pave the road to the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. Congress is significantly older and more religious than most of the population. As younger people continue to take office like AOC, the attempt to do this will slowly be pushed back. > There have been politicians toying with the idea that a dictator is needed in the US Honestly, I favor a benevolent dictator with checks and balances, so not a dictator in the usual sense, but rather someone with enough authority to actually do things without opposition, but also an easy means of removal and a jury type deal to overrule certain things (as opposed to legislation having to go through two houses first). Democracy only works when you have an educated population, otherwise you get what's happening in the US. That aside, democracy shouldn't allow people to vote on everything...the same way not everyone is qualified to be a manager and make decisions. Vote on how local money should be spent, for a pool or a park? Sure. Vote on best steps to combat climate change? No. Not when half the population is in denial that it even exists.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Honestly, I favor a benevolent dictator with checks and balances, Note how people often evoke the specifically benevolent dictator when comparing forms of governance, stacking the deck from the start; democracy and other forms of governance don’t get such a privilege, as they are supposed to be evaluated on its empirical merits. So you don’t have to worry about an evil and selfish dictator by definition. How nice! > Democracy only works when you have an educated population, otherwise you get what's happening in the US. First of all, democracy working cannot be judged on whether people make “educated” decisions: it works if people have the power to choose. Similarily freedom does not work if only people do good things; it works if they have the power to be free. I cannot walk into a grown person’s home and judge whether they should be free to make choices based on the choices they make unless I am so arrogant as to consider myself an adult and them a child (relatively speaking). Yet this “democracy only works” line of thinking reeks of this attitude. But this is an old-as-the-hills false goal, popular among the educated for painfully obvious reasons; the relatively educated can use their elite-adjacent power to systematically de facto disenfranchise regular people by depriving them of whatever their goalpost for “educated” is, over the span of decades. That then becomes a self-reinforcing and (in their eyes) virtuous cycle; more and more disenfranchisement leads to a more and more apolitical and “stupid” people, which in turn “proves” the point! And in the end the educated and the elites get what they want: more power for themselves, less interference from the general populace. Politics is almost always about self- and group-interest. This is not an exception; the “educated” will wax poetic about the virtues of an “informed public”, but most of them just want more power for themselves.
  - i2cmaster 3y ago
    We got democracy from Britain, Rome, and Greece. All of these places had what were essentially dictators from time to time, often to overcome crises. Yes some of them were bad, but the illusion of consent democratic governments can create is IMO even worse when they go bad.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      Do you think I am making an argument for the sham-democracies that we have in the world today? Did you even read what I wrote?

astrange 3y ago

That's CCPA. It protects people outside California since it'd be too much work to implement it just for them.

free-nachos 3y ago
I'm hopeful it will. In practice I've seen the malicious compliance angle more often e.g. 'send us photocopies of id / official documents to prove you're a CA resident and then we'll remove your data.'