‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Seattle City Council votes to ban surveillance pricing in sale of groceries

395 points · 229 comments · ortusdux

  1. jsrozner · · 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. kansface · · focus · HN ↗
      Would it? The 1st is a prohibition on the rights of government, not private parties. Would the new amendment apply to the government, or to private sector, or to individuals? In any case, the 1st and the 28th? would continually be butting heads, since the 1st prohibits congress from passing laws that would enforce the 28th (and by extension, the states via the 14th). Would a newspaper be allowed to publish unflattering personal, privacy violating details? Would you be allowed to put up a political flyer alleging the same? I&#x27;m not sure an amendment is _the best solution_.
      1. wlesieutre · · focus · HN ↗
        We already have laws that abridge the freedom of speech, so it&#x27;s not absolute.

        What&#x27;s special about slander that we can have a say &quot;you&#x27;re not allowed to make defamatory false statements about people,&quot; but we couldn&#x27;t have &quot;you&#x27;re not allowed to spy on people and sell information about them&quot;?

        Granted slander is a civil and not criminal matter, but if I could sue companies for sharing personal information about me that would still be something.

        1. otterley · · focus · HN ↗
          There&#x27;s nothing in the Constitution as it stands today that prevents us from having strict data privacy laws. No amendment is needed.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.