Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
20 points
1 hour ago
| 5 comments
| righttoprivacyact.github.io
| HN
Cider9986
11 minutes ago
[-]
We have to try.
reply
panny
8 minutes ago
[-]
>Update CAN-SPAM for one-click deletion of email addresses from databases.

Then how can I know not to send you another email if I don't have your email flagged in my database to do-not-send?

reply
JoshTriplett
4 minutes ago
[-]
You delete the rest of your database and replace it with `fn can_send_spam(_: Email) -> bool { false }`. You delete the "can we spam you" checkbox from your checkout page and replace it with "return false". You just stop sending spam.
reply
rdevilla
13 minutes ago
[-]
Haha. This will accomplish nothing, because the surveillance dragnet is built and used by the people themselves, who deliberately (ab)use the very technologies that enable this breach of privacy at scale. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
reply
chzblck
46 minutes ago
[-]
Bold idea but too much money on the other side to let this gain traction
reply
Nevermark
41 minutes ago
[-]
You are saying exactly, and I mean exactly, what they would want.

Dismissing an avenue of progress outright is to be defeatist or to sow defeat.

AI is going to use all this information against us. Because AI alignment can’t be better than people and corporations deploying the AI.

Lack of privacy is now a gaping security hole, being continually exploited on all our devices, across most sites on the internet.

[EDIT: And the leverage that information enables is being auctioned off to manipulators who we are exposed to continuously. This is just the beginning.]

We need to plug this security hole now, before power centralizes further and we can’t.

reply
chzblck
35 minutes ago
[-]
Google, TTD, Applovin, Magnite, Roku, Freewheel, + 100 more adtech and martech companies.

Lets add Facebook, twitter, openai, claude + all the others.

then lets add Flock, Palantir.

Do you honestly think the lobbying from them would be more or less if this bill gained any traction?

reply
Nevermark
31 minutes ago
[-]
Of course they are going to resist. That is the terrain.

That doesn’t change the critical need to make progress.

Surrendering power, even when apparently outgunned, is a far more insidious enemy than opposition.

reply
JumpCrisscross
42 minutes ago
[-]
> too much money on the other side to let this gain traction

This view is unfortunately common among regular privacy advocates. That makes them politically useless.

To have a hope, this bill needs to target support outside tech, where civic laziness and nihilism are normalized. I’m not seeing any indication of that strategy here.

reply
kg
33 minutes ago
[-]
Does anyone know what this part means?

> Require Social Security Numbers to authenticate preventing fraud.

There's a ton of stuff piled into the agenda on this page but that one in particular stumped me. Is it proposing that people (who?) are required to use their SSN to authenticate (for what?) or that the SSN agency is supposed to authenticate... something before doing something?

reply