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...
    nickff · 1790185065 · focus · HN ↗
    > "Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. To prevent more people falling prey to fraudsters, Justice Stevens recommends that this amendment should be repealed"
    I think you might be missing a sentence or a citation there, because Stevens was an associate justice, never the chief on SCOTUS.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
    hypersoar · 1790203106 · focus · HN ↗
    Parent's link about Stevens was separate from the quote, which is from Warren Burger. And Burger was hardly a lefty. He was appointed by Nixon specifically to begin the work of dismantling the achievements of the Warren court.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.