Discussion
Federal Right To Privacy Act
chzblck: Bold idea but too much money on the other side to let this gain traction
Nevermark: You are saying exactly, and I mean exactly, what they would want.Dismissing progress outright is to be defeatist or to sow defeat.
JumpCrisscross: > too much money on the other side to let this gain tractionThis view is unfortunately common among regular privacy advocates. That makes them politically useless.To have a hope, this bill needs to target support outside tech, where civic laziness and nihilism are normalized. I’m not seeing any indication of that strategy here.
chzblck: Google, TTD, Applovin, Magnite, Roku, Freewheel, + 100 more adtech and martech companies.Lets add Facebook, twitter, openai, claude + all the others.then lets add Flock, Palantir.Do you honestly think the lobbying from them would be more or less if this bill gained any traction?
Nevermark: Of course they are going to resist. That is the terrain.That doesn’t change the critical need to make progress.
kg: Does anyone know what this part means?> Require Social Security Numbers to authenticate preventing fraud.There's a ton of stuff piled into the agenda on this page but that one in particular stumped me. Is it proposing that people (who?) are required to use their SSN to authenticate (for what?) or that the SSN agency is supposed to authenticate... something before doing something?
Cider9986: We have to try.
rdevilla: Haha. This will accomplish nothing, because the surveillance dragnet is built and used by the people themselves, who deliberately (ab)use the very technologies that enable this breach of privacy at scale. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
anonym29: Privacy advocates, UNITE!Just leave your name and email on this contact form on github, so privacy can be solved once and for all!(/s, but an interesting paradox for pro-privacy initiatives soliciting identifiable public support)
Spivak: Defining a picture of your government id not being a sufficient credential for… well anything would probably be enough to kill all these age verification laws and might get some traction legislatively if you frame it right.
JumpCrisscross: > Do you honestly think the lobbying from them would be more or less if this bill gained any traction?Small communities are thwarting these companies’ datacenter buildouts. The difference is they show up. Defeating privacy in tech is easy because there is no functional opposition.
rexpop: Amen! And, in fact, the harder they fight, the harder our resolve.
DougN7: I’m too cynical because at this point I can only believe this is to help billionaires and ICE hide their identities/money, or it’s to strip away all privacy (as bills are often named the opposite of their purpose).
maxrmk: The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
ArchieScrivener: How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?
samename: Of course, I’m absolutely for this. It is way overdue. But, what’s the group behind this? Who’s pushing it?I haven’t read through the bill and text yet, but credibility is important in this fight. Plus, this can change at anytime, so knowing who’s behind it amplifies the trust.We need to be having these conversations yesterday. Our fundamental freedoms are under attack, and a bill like this would go a long way to protecting future generations
m463: nonsense.You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.
edoceo: a) It wouldn't kill them. They would have to change their business model though.b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires?Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
