Lawmakers ask Google to stop collecting data before reversal of abortion rights | Hacker News Reader

Lawmakers ask Google to stop collecting data before reversal of abortion rights

engadget.com

16 pointsisodev12 comments

"By continuing to collect location data, the lawmakers say Google is creating a digital divide, since those who can afford iPhones have greater protection against government surveillance."

"[W]e urge you to promptly reform your data collection and retention practices, so that Google no longer collects unnecessary customer location data nor retains any non-aggregate location data about individual customers, whether in identifiable or anonymized form. Google cannot allow its online advertising-focused digital infrastructure to be weaponized against women."

Yes, these are pretty powerful words.

Another key phrase avoids gendering.

> Senator Ron Wyden and 41 other Democratic lawmakers are urging Google to stop collecting and keeping location data that could be used against people who've had or are seeking abortions.

My emphasis: "had" - existing historical data, and people - men who assist or are otherwise involved with (a father perhaps) an unwanted pregnancy.

This is what privacy advocates have been talking about for decades and finally we've got an issue that politicians can understand.

Basically Google must stop tracking everyone. End of.

Of all things I honestly never thought it would have been something like "reproductive rights" that finally drags the dangers of ubiquitous casual surveillance out into the sunlight. Got a daughter? Got a sister? Then this affects you too.

I'd be pretty nervous if I had worked in an abortion clinic in one of those states...

Why? Ex post facto is law, you know.

I'm not a legal scholar but...

The law won't stop your life being ruined by 10 years of prosecution where you pay for your defence just so you're eventually exhonerated.

And is it an ex post facto law? If Scotus strikes down Roe Vs Wade then abortion was always illegal where it was illegal (depending on exact facts etc) wasn't it?

I'm not saying that's how it should be. But a zealous prosecutor running for election in a deep blue state might see easy political points...

> This is what privacy advocates have been talking about for decades and finally we've got an issue that politicians can understand.

Hopefully their constituents as well. Progress on topics of surveillance and privacy very rarely reach the level of discussion required for elected officials to consider this as something worthy of their time.

Or.. just hear me out here. It's a crazy idea, they could change the abortion laws.

Funny bit about being "Lawmakers" they can do that.

Seems almost logical when one reads the word Lawmaker

The Federal system in the US results in warring lawmakers from different levels of jurisdiction.

they've had almost 50 years to codify Roe at a federal level. but instead of protesting against these lawmakers we see protests against the supreme court.

Yup. Did anyone catch the Senate bill tabled and immediately defeated after the draft decision leaked?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/abortion-bill-blocked-...

Democrats know they don’t have the votes to get a comprehensive bill passed so best to quickly table and get it voted down than have that haunting them later.

And then they turned it into an issue about the Filibuster (which neither side would love to selectively apply but nobody wants to throw it out completely).

I have zero issues if a national abortion bill is passed, that would actually be better than relying on the courts.

But the votes aren’t there.

https://archive.ph/HUMO3

See.. there's that..

The votes aren't there means most people don't agree. As much as I don't like it, democracy is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com