Thread

1. nemomarx · 1789674084 · focus · HN ↗

   This all seems like good and sensible restrictions. Cutting down on how long data can be stored helps with privacy in an cases, and making sure the data isn't being sold or shared with anyone but the state should at least cut off some misuse from private orgs.

   1. jfengel · 1789674452 · focus · HN ↗

      The fact that it came down to a governor to set these standards means it's going to be subject to even more abuse.

      It was up to Flock to figure these things out before they deployed it. Instead we've got fifty separate states coming up with guesses as to the needed level of control, and each of them surely forgetting something. That's what happens when you roll your own security.

      We now will have 50 separate state police forces looking for ways around the restrictions. And they will find them, because they are far more flexible in finding holes than governments are at patching them.

      1. s1artibartfast · 1789703694 · focus · HN ↗

         How was it to flock to create the laws? They looked at them and figured out it was legal.
   2. tiahura · 1789675200 · focus · HN ↗

      When I recognize someone at the mall, how long should I be able to remember that?

      1. gumby271 · 1789675673 · focus · HN ↗

         10 days, then we come after you with a big cartoon mallet to make you forget.
      2. iamnothere · 1789676507 · focus · HN ↗

         As long as you want. What should be illegal is hiring a bunch of people to follow everyone around and share notes.

         Willfully misunderstanding the impact of scale will not convince anyone. It’s obvious what you’re doing.

         1. tiahura · 1789742463 · focus · HN ↗

            So scale is the determinative factor?

            How many mean things should people be allowed to say about the president before you deem it excessive?

            1. iamnothere · 1789748190 · focus · HN ↗

               If you’re making a constitutional argument here, regulation of interstate commerce is constitutional. If I’m hiring a network of people to follow you around and make notes about you, that’s clearly commercial, and it’s going to cross state lines. Especially if I am myself being hired to hire those people, by people in all states, targeting people in all states.

               Regulation of speech is plainly unconstitutional. Regulation of commercial stalking may involve speech, but a balancing test would likely find that it’s primarily a question of commerce.

               The scale argument is the justification for creating the law in the first place, not what makes it legal or illegal. Yes, most people do think that scale makes things worse due to the increased effects. Mass murder is worse than regular murder, mass dumping is worse than throwing a single battery into a lake, etc. That’s why laws often take scale into account or create different offenses specifically based on scale.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.