Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

082349872349872

Cousin comments have explained the point at length. There are apparently over 65'000 names on the sure-to-be-approved list, and parents can argue for their own. There were 86'000 births last year, and I'm pretty sure names follow a Zipfish law, so I bet there's a long tail of approved names that weren't even used. (top 200 names account for 21'000 boys and 16'000 girls)

Some freedoms I can think of off the top of my head that weren't true of the states last century (that I find more important than naming):

- freedom to effectively vote for candidates from a multitude of political parties.

- freedom to roam.

- freedom to open retail bank accounts in any major currency.

- freedom to talk back to cops without (any, let alone mortal) reprisal.

- freedom (not in my commune, but in nearby jurisdictions) to pay taxes in cryptocurrency.

- freedom to distill my own schnapps, drink it out of an open container in the middle of a public road, in front of cops, while driving (the last is an exaggeration, but pedantically true).

And a freedom-from that's important to me: on the few occasions I have to go to the big city, I know that the homeless-looking guy I see downtown has an apartment. He just looks like he's been sleeping on the streets.

No, they haven't. They've plastered over the obvious fact that, aside from sticking their nose where nobody wants it, they accomplish nothing (witness your example) positive.

And what-about-isms are hardly helpful. Thanks for a patriotic recitation of rights you enjoy - all very nice. But for the life of me I can't figure what that has to do with a bureaucratic committee that imagines that interfering with naming children is accomplishing something useful?

Speaking of sticking noses in, I propose the following:

For my part, I will faithfully, should my government wish to interfere with your freedom to name your children anything, do my utmost to dissuade them.

In return, could you please attempt do something about your government's (and your corporations', respectively) current interference with my constitutional freedom from nosey parkers?

"Art. 13 Right to privacy

1 Every person has the right to privacy in their private and family life and in their home, and in relation to their mail and telecommunications.

2 Every person has the right to be protected against the misuse of their personal data."

Deal?

Not that simple? The corporations are collected data from people that offer it - facebook etc is a sign-up service. It's voluntary.

Sure we need some rules about what's reasonable to record. In fact, we're getting them. But reigning in corporations is harder than making a rule. Because there's money at stake, it's hard to get a ravenous corporation to change behavior with a little fine or whatever.

So sure, I'm on the side of privacy, as should have been obvious. But not sure I can fix this, sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com