4 ms·

Thomas Massie introduced the best privacy bill I have seen. I know nothing about political strategy but i would think a democrat would have been a better cospon

Thomas Massie introduced the best privacy bill I have seen. I know nothing about political strategy but i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor. Will it even get voted on if the house speaker doesn't want it? https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/ >Warrant required Government must go before a judge to access your metadata, location, or financial records — just like searching your home. >No Data Shopping Agencies can no longer simply purchase data from brokers to bypass the warrant process. >Face recognition banned Warrantless facial recognition and AI biometric surveillance in public spaces is prohibited. >You Can Sue Private right of action means if the government violates your rights, you have legal recourse. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8470/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8470...

SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago
>i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor Why? Where is any equivalent measures coming from the US left? It is because that’s how people identify as Democrats want them to behave? There seems to be a rift there.
- wbl 2mo ago
  Because Congress doesn't work if an issue becomes partisan.
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  Massie and Wyden are both anomalies in their respective parties. There’s not really any “privacy caucus” at a national level right now, to my dismay. There were more people willing to stand up for privacy after 9/11 during the “with us or against us” GWOT, which really says something.
  - Cider9986 2mo ago
    And Massie was kicked out after the most money was spent in any house primary and Trump heavily campaigned for the puppet candidate. It's a super Trump-loving district with mostly elderly turnout, kind of crazy they had Massie for so long, him being a good guy and smart and all.
    - a34729t 2mo ago
      The same way we dont want smart people on juries, smart people in government is haram. especially people with technical educations who care about privacy. very haram!
      - deaux 2mo ago
        You forgot the police with its explicit maximum IQ limits.
        cindyllm 2mo ago
        [dead]
        tptacek 2mo ago
        This is not a real thing, but people on the Internet badly want it to be.
- irishcoffee 2mo ago
  Objectively, the left has this very strong ideology of “education will fix everything, and until then we know what’s best for the masses” This went too far with the whole woke thing, and resulted in 2 non-consecutive terms of trump, handing the right a litany of power they had no idea how to wield, and they hit every stupid branch falling down the failure tree. Education isn’t the answer, dictating “I know what’s best” isn’t the answer, doge wasn’t the answer, starting random wars isn’t the answer. Maybe by process of elimination we can find the answers. I am Hopeful that if the left gets a foothold again in the coming midterms they do not repeat their past mistakes. Hopeful != optimistic. Lot of angry people out for blood.
  - a34729t 2mo ago
    Nah, gonna be populist idiots from the other side.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    What is "the whole woke thing"?
    - irishcoffee 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        No, I really don't know what you mean by "the whole woke thing". Since it's load-bearing in your argument, could you explain it?
        irishcoffee 2mo ago
        No. I already said I wasn’t interested in that debate.
        inigyou 2mo ago
        It's load-bearing in your argument, so does that mean you withdraw your argument?
WarmWash 2mo ago
It's dumb that private buyers can buy data profiles but the government can not. It leaves a million loop-holes for government to backdoor a suspects data. It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight. Perhaps something like a mandatory "Do not track" option for all data supported services, where you can "buyout" your data (at market rate) to prevent it from being sold.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  >It's dumb that private buyers can buy data profiles but the government can not. It leaves a million loop-holes for government to backdoor a suspects data. Okay, but what's so bad about getting something positive done? It doesn't have to be comprehensive to apply to data brokers to be an improvement. That would bring in the data broker lobby and big tech. This bill would cement protections for Americans from their government. >It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight. Does it ban data brokers and selling data? From the website it seems to be focused on government privacy invasions. Its not a GDPR although we need that too (hopefully a better version).
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I'm not pissed about having to pay for things. I'm pissed about having to pay, and then the thing being shit. Maybe if they have to earn their income they'll actually work hard.

SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago

>i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor Why? Where is any equivalent measures coming from the US left? It is because that’s how people identify as Democrats want them to behave? There seems to be a rift there.

wbl 2mo ago
Because Congress doesn't work if an issue becomes partisan.
iamnothere 2mo ago
Massie and Wyden are both anomalies in their respective parties. There’s not really any “privacy caucus” at a national level right now, to my dismay. There were more people willing to stand up for privacy after 9/11 during the “with us or against us” GWOT, which really says something.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  And Massie was kicked out after the most money was spent in any house primary and Trump heavily campaigned for the puppet candidate. It's a super Trump-loving district with mostly elderly turnout, kind of crazy they had Massie for so long, him being a good guy and smart and all.
  - a34729t 2mo ago
    The same way we dont want smart people on juries, smart people in government is haram. especially people with technical educations who care about privacy. very haram!
    - deaux 2mo ago
      You forgot the police with its explicit maximum IQ limits.
      - cindyllm 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - tptacek 2mo ago
        This is not a real thing, but people on the Internet badly want it to be.
irishcoffee 2mo ago
Objectively, the left has this very strong ideology of “education will fix everything, and until then we know what’s best for the masses” This went too far with the whole woke thing, and resulted in 2 non-consecutive terms of trump, handing the right a litany of power they had no idea how to wield, and they hit every stupid branch falling down the failure tree. Education isn’t the answer, dictating “I know what’s best” isn’t the answer, doge wasn’t the answer, starting random wars isn’t the answer. Maybe by process of elimination we can find the answers. I am Hopeful that if the left gets a foothold again in the coming midterms they do not repeat their past mistakes. Hopeful != optimistic. Lot of angry people out for blood.
- a34729t 2mo ago
  Nah, gonna be populist idiots from the other side.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  What is "the whole woke thing"?
  - irishcoffee 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      No, I really don't know what you mean by "the whole woke thing". Since it's load-bearing in your argument, could you explain it?
      - irishcoffee 2mo ago
        No. I already said I wasn’t interested in that debate.
        inigyou 2mo ago
        It's load-bearing in your argument, so does that mean you withdraw your argument?

WarmWash 2mo ago

It's dumb that private buyers can buy data profiles but the government can not. It leaves a million loop-holes for government to backdoor a suspects data. It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight. Perhaps something like a mandatory "Do not track" option for all data supported services, where you can "buyout" your data (at market rate) to prevent it from being sold.

Cider9986 2mo ago
>It's dumb that private buyers can buy data profiles but the government can not. It leaves a million loop-holes for government to backdoor a suspects data. Okay, but what's so bad about getting something positive done? It doesn't have to be comprehensive to apply to data brokers to be an improvement. That would bring in the data broker lobby and big tech. This bill would cement protections for Americans from their government. >It's also going to piss off almost all of society if their data cannot be monetized, because pretty much all notable services will go from free to paid overnight. Does it ban data brokers and selling data? From the website it seems to be focused on government privacy invasions. Its not a GDPR although we need that too (hopefully a better version).
inigyou 2mo ago
I'm not pissed about having to pay for things. I'm pissed about having to pay, and then the thing being shit. Maybe if they have to earn their income they'll actually work hard.