Thread

1. jsrozner · 1790181848 · focus · HN ↗

   The best solution is a constitutional amendment that actually enshrines a right to privacy. Among other things, the retention, aggregation, correlation of any personal data should be illegal (including for commercial purposes). (Storage on behalf of users in encrypted form could be made OK. Could also be refined to support retention of data of the medical, legal, etc kind with the attendant non-admissibility protections.)

   This would fix this issue, it would destroy the surveillance models of Google/Facebook, and it would fix the Flock issue, etc. It would also fix the Roe v Wade issue: women would be able to get abortions in the first couple months of pregnancy without the possibility of harassment, since law enforcement would have no capacity to detect pregnancy until then.

   Also, tech won&#x27;t save us had a podcast on the dynamic pricing topic: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;how-data-is-changing-air-travel-w-amanda-mull&#x2F;id1507621076?i=1000680112948" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;how-data-is-changing-a...

   1. roamerz · 1790183836 · focus · HN ↗

      Cool thought but until violating the said constitution actually has enforceable consequences it’s not more than a paper tiger.

      Take for instance the 2nd amendment. It is constantly under siege by government officials, both elected and appointed, as well as an activist judicial. Thankfully the SCOTUS has been somewhat successful in parlaying these incursions but someday the perpetrators will succeed, and I think mainly because there are no consequences for trying.

      Just an example and JMHO.

      1. WalterBright · 1790185844 · focus · HN ↗

         Once people manage to bypass the 2nd Amendment, the next one to go will be free speech.

         1. someonebaggy · 1790188438 · focus · HN ↗

            Free speech has already gone, but guns have not. In fact, the guns are being used to suppress free speech.

            1. AngryData · 1790228615 · focus · HN ↗

               Civilian owned guns are suppressing free speech? Because the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with police or government agencies.
         2. colinb · 1790189491 · focus · HN ↗

            I know. I’m willing to bet the first thing they’d do after seizing the guns would be to stop unfriendly media from first hand reporting of events in the White House.

            Then, when they know they’re proof against an armed citizenry, they’ll start running government policy as a way to line their own pockets. Why, it wouldn’t surprise me if a sufficiently emboldened crook, safe in the knowledge, that you personally cannot stop them by armed force, started to flout the laws left and right.

            Put it another way. I never fail to be amazed by the fantasies that govern significant chunks of American thought. People who’ve lived there, and also in other places are able to figure out pretty quickly where they’re actually safer, and more respected by their government, and able to live a decent wholesome life.

            I’ll note in passing that there are other countries with similar levels of gun ownership but less suicide and violence. Perhaps the first is because they have slightly more left leaning social policies. I’m all but convinced that the second is because they aren’t driven to a frenzy of terror by their local media. Maybe that cat has escaped its bag and isn’t ever going back. A shame. To live one’s life in fear of angry frightened people with guns sounds awful to me.

            Last thing. I’ve had guns pointed at me twice. Once by an infant British soldier in 1990s Belfast. And once by a robbing bastard in a very wealthy part of Los Angeles. Neither was fun, but at least the soldier was predictable in the then prevailing circumstances

            1. WalterBright · 1790207705 · focus · HN ↗

               I, too, have been threatened by a gun. Once by a cop, the other was a mugger.
         3. 8note · 1790205538 · focus · HN ↗

            free speech is abridged without the 2nd amendment being hit.

            unless you are suggesting CNN show up at the whitehouse and shoot anyone that gets in their way to asking the president a question

            1. WalterBright · 1790207443 · focus · HN ↗

               The White House has always chosen which press could be on the grounds. It&#x27;s not a 2nd Amendment issue.

               Do you think you or I, frequent posters on the intertoobs, would be allowed into the press room under any Administration? There&#x27;s no right for us to be there.

         4. rootusrootus · 1790209184 · focus · HN ↗

            Seems like the first amendment has been bypassed for quite a while now. Recall the creation of &#x27;free speech zones&#x27; and &quot;first amendment areas&quot;. We keep telling ourselves that the Constitution applies everywhere in the US, but that is clearly not true.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.