Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by weberer | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

weberer

You can also see which companies sent lobbyists to work on this bill.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/bills/summary?c...

View on HN

The first thing to know about US Laws/Bills is that whatever they name it, it typically achieves the opposite

Sadly true.

I assume "Data Privacy" means privacy for the company that collected the data and "Protection" means protection from the people they collected it from.

The U.S. government makes often use of the data that many companies keep about us. Android geofencing is my clasic example for non tech.

Completely, especially if it has the words "Digital", "Online" or "Data". I haven't read the bill or read about the bill but I'd wager a coffee there's also some form of entertainment/copyright industry hostility in there.

I'm really trying not to be cynical here, but I started so I might as well finish. Step #2 is if it does happen to pass, the parts of the bill that are actually consumer protections will be unenforceable, be ruled unconstitutional or have unintended negative consequences. The bad parts of the law will have no issues in the courts or with enforcement. They, too, will have unintended added negative consequences.

You forgot the words “Inflation“, “Equality“, “Infrastructure”, “Dream”, “People”, “Save”, “Health”, Budget” or “Climate”.

Patriot

"Families", or "Children"

this is because the title of a bill has very little to do with the function of the bill turned law.

obfusication of a bills content and intention by using a dissociative title must stop

Or something unrelated. The "infrastructure" bill got renamed to "inflation-reduction" bill despite its contents not changing much. If the pandemic were still a massive concern, I'll bet it'd be called the "covid19 relief" bill... oh right, there was one of those, and it included foreign military aid.

Great, we have the usual anti-privacy companies there as well as ByteDance .. what can go wrong.

It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature and even write language that eventually gets enshrined as law.

It's even more insane we allow the state-affiliated entities of our adversaries to do this.

> It's insane enough letting Big Corps lobby your legislature

Well, it would be rather pointless to elect to hire a representative to represent you and then not take time to make your position known with them. They certainly are not mind readers.

And you can't realistically remove big businesses from citizenry as those who are stakeholders in big business are going to bias their position to what benefits their business. Business is people, after all. ByteDance certainly has stakeholders who are American citizens.

So we make a best effort to register those biases for the sake of transparency. The only real alternative, short of abandoning democracy entirely, is to leave it a mystery who talked to their representatives.

Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are? Shouldn't such mechanisms be equally accessible to all constituents irrespective of their ability to spend $$?

Also, don't the representatives have pre-election issues based manifesto when they are seeking votes to get elected? Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made?

> Isn't it the job of the representatives in a representational democracy to have working mechanisms to understand what their constituents' demands are?

The advantage big business has is scale. Big business, by definition, has many more stakeholders. This means that big business will be disproportionately represented by the constituents. If those biases weren't made clear, and each constituent's position was taken at face value, then the unified front would appear stronger than it would actually be if each actor were acting without those biases.

> Shouldn't they stay true to the promises they made?

I'm not sure why you'd want them to. The state of the world is constantly changing and new information continues to flow in. You will be constantly reevaluating your position in the face of new information. A representative will respond to that.

Representatives know that some segment of the population honestly believe that they are mind readers and will offer up some examples of how they might try to read the minds of those who buy into that witchcraft to attract their vote, but marketing and reality are quite different.

I have a representative who I agree pretty much on all issues. The problem though is that he is one of 435 people in the House. He can just vote for, against, or propose changes. But then will have to fight against those who will easily accept money to ruin it.

I'm glad that Pelosi is using her position to impose some changes on the bill so maybe something good will come out of it, but I really can't stand that in US bribery is essentially legal.

What is more insane is that this is not considered corruption. Usually if this happens outside US, the US government itself will call that corruption.

Freedom of speech. All they do is pay people to speak for them. They have money to do that. Gifts and other tomfoolery is obviously no good but I'm not sure how you could gate this without running afoul of the first amendment.

It's pretty simple, you pass an amendment that says corporations are not people for the purpose of political spending.

There's been some good reporting on the lobbying on ADPPA

What Microsoft, IBM and others won as the privacy bill evolved - https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/cloud-enterprise...

Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers - Privacy bill triggers lobbying surge by data brokers

Microsoft has been a particularly bad actor in this space. They have been hiring lobbyists to advocate at the state level for shitty "consumer privacy bills", specifically because they want to forestall and kneecap federal legislation.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/tech-lobbyists-are-pus...

What's Microsoft's interest in this? They don't have a big search or ads business. What are they doing with Consumer data?

Their interest is in their bottom line and avoiding regulation. Pretty much any company that has a lot of users creating accounts will be impacted by even the most milquetoast privacy regulation to some degree or another, and I guess microsoft sees the cost of hiring a bunch of lobyists as cheaper then having to deal with the regulation that might come about if they dont.

"They don't have a big search or ads business."

$11.5 billion is not small.

From 10K

     Revenue, classified by significant product and service offerings, was as follows:
  
     (In millions)                                                                
                                                                                  
     Year Ended June 30,                  2022          2021          2020        
                                                                      
     Server products and cloud services   $ 67,321      $ 52,589      $ 41,379    
     Office products and cloud services     44,862        39,872        35,316    
     Windows                                24,761        22,488        21,510    
     Gaming                                 16,230        15,370        11,575    
     LinkedIn                               13,816        10,289        8,077     
     Search and news advertising            11,591        9,267         8,524     
     Enterprise Services                    7,407         6,943         6,409     
     Devices                                6,991         6,791         6,457     
     Other                                  5,291         4,479         3,768     
                                                                                  
     Total                                $ 198,270     $ 168,088     $ 143,015

Alphabet and amazon are on the last page, alphabet having spent ~3mil and amazon ~5mil

I think the theme is just that they're big companies.

That is a lot worse than I imagined. So basically this would be terrible or meaningless for workers/consumers?

So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies... which already likely do the bare minimum.

I'm not sure of the term. It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.

Regulatory capture.

It's almost like blindly calling for regulation without accounting for the political/monetary influence of those being regulated is a bad idea or something

> blindly calling for regulation [...] is a bad idea

What do you expect people to do instead?

Call for individual protections, possibly with a solvent soaked rag in a bottle, typically.

It's like a genie wish. You have to be very specific in what you are asking for.

Yep, always used to stifle competition. Regulate the hell out of it, so new companies can't even begin without millions up front.

Small companies are exempt from CCPA?

The term is probably "regulatory capture"

> It's like a regulatory legal barrier that keeps new companies from entering the market.

barriers to entry [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

> So basically, this is a mostly toothless law, that requires small companies to follow to the extreme detriment of the large companies

The bill outlines exemptions for business making less than 40 million annually. I haven't read the whole thing so it's possible I missed something, could you point out which sections you're referring to to draw that conclusion?

The real co-sponsors. Or at least, cosponsors-lite.

*briberies

Reply on news.ycombinator.com