Thread

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

395 points · 229 comments · ortusdux

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't save us had a podcast on the dynamic pricing topic: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-data-is-changing-air-travel-w-amanda-mull/id1507621076?i=1000680112948" rel="nofollow">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/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. grubbydiff · 1790184449 · focus · HN ↗
    > The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the work fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militia—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
    Sounds like you have been a victim of fraud. At least according to a former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. To prevent more people falling prey to fraudsters, Justice Stevens recommends that this amendment should be repealed - <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...
    Terr_ · 1790185188 · focus · HN ↗
    Amen, I've ranted on HN about that a few times. [0] There is zero question that the Second Amendment was created as limit on the federal government interfering with individual states, and did not bar any state from whatever policy they chose for themselves. (Also, at that time, every state was already mandated by mutual treaty to have a "well-regulated militia" with state-appointed officers and state-funding, so the term had existing meaning.)
    Whether that narrow scope is/should-be still true is trickier given the 14th amendments, although I believe it was wrongly included in the incorporation doctrine. [1]
    [0] I know Google-search scoped to HN used to find them, and today it doesn't. The enshittification continues, is it time for me to start slowly scraping my own comment-history?
    [1] <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
    bigstrat2003 · 1790196069 · focus · HN ↗
    > There is zero question that the Second Amendment was created as limit on the federal government interfering with individual states, and did not bar any state from whatever policy they chose for themselves.
    Amendment 10, brought into force at the same time as amendment 2, says that the states can't infringe upon the right to bear arms either. That is very far from "zero question" as you stated.
    Terr_ · 1790198682 · focus · HN ↗
    > Amendment 10 [...] at the same time [...] says that the states can't infringe upon the right to bear arms either.
    Uh, no. Just... no. Perhaps you've mixed-up the 10th and 14th, which occurred about a century later.
    The 10th does the exact opposite of limiting state power, it says states continue to have all powers they didn't specifically give up by joining. It sets the default for when there's ambiguity, and it sets it in favor of not-the-feds.
    > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.