6 ms·

Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a lan

Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a landmark agreement from three key lawmakers, a first-of-its kind bipartisan deal. Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate." Ahhh, the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers.

D13Fd 2y ago
Yeah. It's her pet issue. Much like term limits and many other things for other elected representatives, if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more This isn't how politics works. Issues can bring someone into office. They rarely remove them from them. Cantwell is kept in office by the machine she built. If she delivered to that machine, she'd gain from it, not lose. The only thing she would be doing by "saving" an issue is telegraphing to a primary competitor that there are chips on the table.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers Do we know why she bombed those bills? She could be two faced. Or she could be a case of perfect being the enemy of the good.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
    - freddie_mercury 2y ago
      "Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        With very few exceptions, legislators don’t get a bill that they single-handedly draft and pass that has national implications. On occasion, for totally local issues, they’ll have the power to ram something through. But if it has national implications, it will be the work of many. Cantwell tanking bills just because it has co-sponsors doesn’t make sense.
- Retric 2y ago
  Or the bills could just be a terrible step back that removes some of the few protections that already exist in multiple states. Privacy bills are extreme targets for lobbying when the objective is to destroy some business ability to function and costs several industries significant money. No bill is simply going to say “personal information may not be sold” and call it a day they are all going to be filled with exceptions allowing groups X, Y, Z to keep making money.
joe_the_user 2y ago
Uh, I just want to point that the sentence you quote gives the reader zero information concerning the substance of the questions being debated. It could be summarized as "she didn't accept undescribed things that key unnamed people wanted". Not to put too fine a point on it but the main thing it illustrates is the opaqueness of journalist political commentary, something Debord liken to a "tedious series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels [having] all the dramatic interest of a realistically staged fight between blacks, at night, in a tunnel." [1] [1] https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_Society_of_the_Spectacle_1990.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_...
- xbar 2y ago
  We should demand good journalism. The remainder of this article quotes more than a dozen sources. It seems to rise above pure political commentary by a fair chunk. There is no surprise to me that the chair of a tech privacy panel is opposed to privacy. That seems to be the kind of person that would get such an appointment.

D13Fd 2y ago

Yeah. It's her pet issue. Much like term limits and many other things for other elected representatives, if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> if they actually addressed the issue there would be no reason to vote for her any more This isn't how politics works. Issues can bring someone into office. They rarely remove them from them. Cantwell is kept in office by the machine she built. If she delivered to that machine, she'd gain from it, not lose. The only thing she would be doing by "saving" an issue is telegraphing to a primary competitor that there are chips on the table.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers Do we know why she bombed those bills? She could be two faced. Or she could be a case of perfect being the enemy of the good.

tedunangst 2y ago
My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
  - freddie_mercury 2y ago
    "Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      With very few exceptions, legislators don’t get a bill that they single-handedly draft and pass that has national implications. On occasion, for totally local issues, they’ll have the power to ram something through. But if it has national implications, it will be the work of many. Cantwell tanking bills just because it has co-sponsors doesn’t make sense.
Retric 2y ago
Or the bills could just be a terrible step back that removes some of the few protections that already exist in multiple states. Privacy bills are extreme targets for lobbying when the objective is to destroy some business ability to function and costs several industries significant money. No bill is simply going to say “personal information may not be sold” and call it a day they are all going to be filled with exceptions allowing groups X, Y, Z to keep making money.

joe_the_user 2y ago

Uh, I just want to point that the sentence you quote gives the reader zero information concerning the substance of the questions being debated. It could be summarized as "she didn't accept undescribed things that key unnamed people wanted". Not to put too fine a point on it but the main thing it illustrates is the opaqueness of journalist political commentary, something Debord liken to a "tedious series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels [having] all the dramatic interest of a realistically staged fight between blacks, at night, in a tunnel." [1] [1] https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_Society_of_the_Spectacle_1990.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/3/3b/Debord_Guy_Comments_on_the_...

xbar 2y ago
We should demand good journalism. The remainder of this article quotes more than a dozen sources. It seems to rise above pure political commentary by a fair chunk. There is no surprise to me that the chair of a tech privacy panel is opposed to privacy. That seems to be the kind of person that would get such an appointment.