5 ms·

I hope we can use the First Amendment and freedom of assembly to tackle these ID age verification (read: 1984 surveillance) laws. I don't have faith that this w

by echelon 11mo ago

I hope we can use the First Amendment and freedom of assembly to tackle these ID age verification (read: 1984 surveillance) laws. I don't have faith that this will work. We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right.

WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
> We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routinely support and protect the government in it's continual, blatant violation of our 4A protections. This has allowed governments at every level to build out the most pervasive surveillance system in human history - which has just been waiting for a cruelty-centric autocrat to take control of it. And for the most part, we have both parties + news orgs to thank for this. They've largely been united in supporting all the steps toward this outcome.
- j-bos 11mo ago
  The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.
  - irishcoffee 11mo ago
    > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. Do you mean those who rent their homes? I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it. To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have.
    - shkkmo 11mo ago
      > None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant. Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company. Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN. The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant.
      - irishcoffee 11mo ago
        You forgot “houses” there, boss.
        shkkmo 11mo ago
        Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.
        irishcoffee 11mo ago
        My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating. You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct.
        shkkmo 11mo ago
        > You’re conflating ideas to make a point I am talking specifically about the ideas you are disputing: >> partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. I haven't conflated anything. You may be confused and think we're talking about ownership or physical access though.
        squigz 11mo ago
  - WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
    > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment. The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether. The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data. And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can.
- GeekyBear 11mo ago
  > As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated.
  - WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
    > The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated. Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge. The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public.
  - gruez 11mo ago
    >The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. How does this work? Does that mean if Pennsylvania police ask google nicely for it, then google isn't breaking the law in complying? Or that Google has to hand over the information even without a warrant?
  - codersfocus 11mo ago
    You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
    - fc417fc802 11mo ago
      But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.
nunez 11mo ago
Between AI improvements, laws like this and Telly, we are a few steps away from the telescreen. (I saw a Telly recently. This device should be terrifying, but "free" makes people make weird choices.)

by echelon 11mo ago

WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago

> We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routinely support and protect the government in it's continual, blatant violation of our 4A protections. This has allowed governments at every level to build out the most pervasive surveillance system in human history - which has just been waiting for a cruelty-centric autocrat to take control of it. And for the most part, we have both parties + news orgs to thank for this. They've largely been united in supporting all the steps toward this outcome.

j-bos 11mo ago
The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.
- irishcoffee 11mo ago
  > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. Do you mean those who rent their homes? I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it. To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have.
  - shkkmo 11mo ago
    > None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant. Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company. Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN. The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant.
    - irishcoffee 11mo ago
      You forgot “houses” there, boss.
      - shkkmo 11mo ago
        Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.
        irishcoffee 11mo ago
        My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating. You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct.
        shkkmo 11mo ago
        > You’re conflating ideas to make a point I am talking specifically about the ideas you are disputing: >> partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. I haven't conflated anything. You may be confused and think we're talking about ownership or physical access though.
      - squigz 11mo ago
- WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
  > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment. The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether. The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data. And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can.
GeekyBear 11mo ago
> As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated.
- WarOnPrivacy 11mo ago
  > The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated. Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge. The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public.
- gruez 11mo ago
  >The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. How does this work? Does that mean if Pennsylvania police ask google nicely for it, then google isn't breaking the law in complying? Or that Google has to hand over the information even without a warrant?
- codersfocus 11mo ago
  You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
  - fc417fc802 11mo ago
    But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.

nunez 11mo ago

Between AI improvements, laws like this and Telly, we are a few steps away from the telescreen. (I saw a Telly recently. This device should be terrifying, but "free" makes people make weird choices.)