Hacker News Reader

Comment by mediocrejoker | Hacker News Reader

This sounds like the most efficient solution to me. There is no need (and for many, no desire) for the government to take on the role of tracking citizens.

A minor but strategic change in liability law around privacy would shift incentives in the way you describe and suddenly it becomes in the best financial interests of the companies to protect the data. Indeed this is the only kind of incentive they will respond to.

Nationalizing the credit industry doesn't really solve any real problems as far as I can tell.

View on HN

We already have this in the US for another industry: HIPAA for health records.

And it generally works pretty well. In the law, the government lays out rough things it wants to see (e.g. access restrictions, auditing logs, etc) + penalties (financial and otherwise) and then lets the industry find a way to meet them. Furthermore, there's a legal distinction between willful and accidental non-compliance.

It's absolutely added cost, but generally seems to accomplish its privacy intent.

No one I know who works with HIPAA would call it a 'good' solution.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810648

What specific components do you think are problematic?

I've worked as a developer with health care providers and insurance companies for 5 years, and other than it being annoying as "some regulation exists" no one I've talked to feels it's a bad solution to the problem.

Asking industries to be happy about privacy regulation seems an unreasonable goalpost.

By my quick reading, the majority of that article is spent dismantling the complaints of those at the beginning of the article. In summary, the complainers appear to be either overly cautious, or flat out misinterpret the law.

Besides, I’d be willing to bet that those at Equifax would have similar things to say about a comparable credit reporting law, just like how some medical practitioners don’t like HIPAA.

Unfortunately this link wants me to login.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Problems+with+HIPAA

I just googled it, and it was the first result

You and I have different meanings for the word, efficiency.

My definition: the most efficient has the least wasted effort and the maximum productivity.

I do not think having individuals & classes going off and suing everyone they can, every company buying piles of insurance against these suits (because how could they reasonably guarantee perfect privacy?) and having insurance providers coming to evaluate each institution...

This is only legally efficient, in that it requires the least amount of nuance in law.

There's a reason we have public infrastructure and services, and it is for efficiency.

Frankly speaking, if we're going to be tracked (and we are, lots and lots), I want the government as involved as possible, whether through strict regulations or through being the central repository for that information.

Maybe do it state-by-state, so long as each state follows some federal guidelines and each state provides a way to interoperate with the rest, and with private businesses that need access to that information, if the feds freak you out.

Why?

Because I can, in theory, have my say in how the government operates. I can vote, I can submit comments, I can go talk to elected officials, whatever. I have zero recourse when private companies schlep my data around and wreck my life. Voting with your vote is best, but I can't even vote with my dollar with Equifax.

Totally agree with you. I know people who refuse to vote, use doctors, etc, to "prevent the government getting data about them" - but are registered on Facebook, Google, carry a smartphone, etc. I don't understand how people can be so paranoid about the government, and simultaneously so trusting of large corporations.

I think people who have that view feel that corporations can't arrest you, can't seize your assets, can't restrict your travel, etc etc.

Let me tell them about two little companies called United Fruit and Standard Fruit... (now Chiquita and Dole respectively)

Like say, the East India Company?

The opposite condition also exists: I don't understand how some people can be so paranoid about large corporations, and so trusting of government. They are both merely human organizations with large powers, and subject to corruption. We should be wary of both of them.

The difference is that governments are made up of people who are voted in

That's hardly the case.

Firstly, examples of governments that have any people voted in at all are cherry-picked. Around the world, there are governments that are not voted in, or are "voted" in by a sham process which only has the external appearances of democracy.

Secondly, in democracies, a fairly common pattern is that the government consists of some seats that are voted in (parliament) plus some that are appointed (senate). The power is divided accordingly. (A minor point is that it is not uncommon for the leader of the elected party to appoint people for the uppermost staff positions: a so-called "cabinet" or whatever.)

Thirdly, government in the broad sense includes not only the parliament and senate political structure but all of the institutions of the government that actually get various things done throughout the governed region, and all the levels of bureaucracy employing large numbers of people. All of that staff is not elected; they are just people hired into positions and they generally keep those positions across government changes. That bureaucracy has considerable power of its own; not every single decision they make which affects you goes through a parliamentarian that you elected!

For one, as kazinator said in the sibling comment, even in the best democracies this is only true of a small percentage of government jobs - there are many powerful agencies and influential staff positions that are not elected and therefore not subject to the oversight of the people over whom that power is exercised.

Two, yes, many of the highest profile, and most powerful, positions are elected. And in practice, over time, this means that these positions have selected for people who are 'electable' - which has itself over time come to mean people who can raise huge amounts of campaign money. This is a deeply corruptible situation, if indeed it is not already deeply corrupted.

I agree with the idea that open public oversight is a powerful corrective, and is a major difference between private organizations and public ones with effective means for perceiving and removing corrupt officials. I think it is highly questionable to what degree the latter describes our current situation in much even of the democratized West.

He's a nasty one - my wife got a big box in the mail from Enfamil last week. "Congratulations on your new baby, here's some stuff to get you started!"

One problem. She didn't know that she had been pregnant and suffered a near fatal (to her) complication and miscarriage 7.5 months ago. Only a few parties were aware of this: My family (not posted on Facebook), two health insurance companies, the hospital, two pharmacies and the Ob/Gyn practice. Last week would have been the due date.

One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.

> One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.

I would suggest that that is not "failing to protect" private data, but "actively exploiting".

The US government is already tracking the financials of its citizens. Even foreign financial institutions are required to report financial activities of all US citizens. Otherwise, they will face heavy sanctions and fines. IRS would not become any more invasive if they are also tasked with maintaining credit histories. They are already as invasive as it can get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com