Hacker News Reader

Comment by nugget | Hacker News Reader

Preemption would be an enormous mistake. Federal legislation moves at a glacial pace. In a field like privacy, you may only get to pass one substantial bill every 10 or 15 years. Technology moves too quickly for lawmakers at the Federal level to keep up. States can move much faster. Justice Brandeis popularized the phrase that "[the] states are the laboratories of democracy" and digital privacy law is a text book case of an emerging field that will benefit enormously from iterative experimentation at the state level.

View on HN

States move faster... so fast that a technology company would be constantly chasing 50 different state laws.

The Internet is a global entity, and it doesn't strike me as being well served by the "laboratory of the states".

Federal legislation is slow, but executive agencies can move faster if they are empowered by legislation to make rules. Congress sets broad principles, and it's not unreasonable that those principles should stay the same for a decade at a time, even in a fast-moving domain like privacy. And while regulatory agencies can be their own pieces of work, it is much easier to deal with one national agency's rules than 50 different ones.

> States move faster... so fast that a technology company would be constantly chasing 50 different state laws.

As a person who's data is being sold I would one up it and wish that each county would produce their own regulations. That business is a cancer.

County? I’ll do you one better, locality. Every hamlet the world over with so much as a post office should have their policies.

I'll do you one better: every individual has total domain over their own data.

That’s Authoritarianism!

I appreciate you and your idea.

After seeing how the ATF operates entirely autonomously to nearly eliminate the right to bear arms through increasingly more unnecessarily complex and ridiculous "rules" that make you felon for things that were previously (and should still be) totally legal, I have zero interest in giving executive agencies autonomy to make laws.

And it doesn't matter that the rules can be ruled as ineffective by a high court, because it takes ages to get through the whole court process. So in the time that the court took ruling something totally unconstitutional, people's rights are squandered (especially without any democratic consensus to enact it), and the people that enacted and enforced the later-deemed-unconstitutional rulings face zero repercussions. And guess what? They then move on to the next unconstitutional ruling that squanders as many rights as possible for as long as possible.

> unnecessarily complex and ridiculous "rules" that make you felon for things that were previously (and should still be) totally legal

Not going into the US-centric gun debate and assuming that guns are simply tools, isn't it reasonable that gun owners need to monitor the regulations? If you operate heavy machinery or run a chemical lab, I'd expect you to keep a close eye on upcoming legislation and rules. I'd not be surprised if a food truck operator would need to keep track of more rules than gun owners.

Both of these examples are enterprises, not something a private citizen does. I would also hesitate to say that you can become a felon overnight with either of these scenarios (remember all of the rights lost, including gun ownership, by being labeled a felon). And a majority of businesses shield themselves such that if they do violate the law it’s the business itself penalized, not the workers. In the case of gun ownership it’s the individual being penalized.

To make your example equivalent, imagine if the food truck or some piece of equipment in that truck was suddenly made illegal. And if you’re in possession of it you are now a felon. Yesterday (literally) it was legal and you were not given advanced notice anymore than waking up this morning and receiving notice.

If heavy machinery and food industries operated this way there would be much less competition and likely no food trucks at all

Food trucks are under the purview of fda and the local and state authorities of the jurisdiction they do business in. Health and fire inspectors do audit these locations or trucks in the event of an entirely self contained food truck. These businesses are still subject to the whims of these oversight bodies and may be arbitrarily shut down overnight.

Your comparison is factually incorrect on every count. I do hope that you’re just ignorant of the mind boggling amount of legislation your average food truck is subject to.

To bring this full circle, gun owners are de facto legally assumed to be reasonable and responsible owners that abide the law and diligently pay attention to the changes of laws. If you become a felon “overnight” because of an illegal weapon; well that’s on you. Being responsible sucks because it demands humility and accountability. If you’re neither capable of admitting your mistakes nor following the glacial pace of state/federal law making then you’ve no business owning tools capable of killing masses of people in seconds from hundreds of yards away. Great power, great responsibility. Lately some politicians have become tunnel visioned on the power part, I’d like to remind you that in order to maintain a lawful society we must be responsible lest the unwashed masses take Justice for themselves in whatever capacity they can. This is the compromise of a civilized society, you would be wise to learn more about why things are they way they are before you write up factually incorrect justification for your grievances.

> Your comparison is factually incorrect on every count.

Please explain how, exactly.

> I do hope that you’re just ignorant of the mind boggling amount of legislation your average food truck is subject to.

Operating one on the side with some in-laws, I'm quite well aware of the legislation. Yet I'm still not aware of a single instance where a food truck operator became a felon overnight because they had a "high capacity grill". In what cases can a food truck operator become a felon when their activities that made them a felon were legal the literal day before?

> If you become a felon “overnight” because of an illegal weapon

Why is overnight in quotes? Do you not believe I was using the correct definition of literally?

> Being responsible sucks because it demands humility and accountability.

I think you'll find that a great majority of us are responsible, that's why we know about these laws and the ATF. I can't say the same for those that are pro gun control, they tend to be very ill informed on the subject and assume others are. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be responsible, we're saying they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily remove rights from people because of who's politically in control of the ATF. If you take a step back and remove personal bias, every sane person in the US would agree.

> If you’re neither capable of admitting your mistakes nor following the glacial pace of state/federal law making then you’ve no business owning tools capable of killing masses of people in seconds from hundreds of yards away. Great power, great responsibility. Lately some politicians have become tunnel visioned on the power part, I’d like to remind you that in order to maintain a lawful society we must be responsible lest the unwashed masses take Justice for themselves in whatever capacity they can. This is the compromise of a civilized society, you would be wise to learn more about why things are they way they are before you write up factually incorrect justification for your grievances.

You're clearly going on some rant here that I'm not sure where you're basing this argument from and it really shows your bias (which has no place on a forum of engineers and other technical people). The point being if this were laws being passed by congress, with months of advanced notice, nobody would be complaining. The ATF can release a rule right now stating owning an AR-15 with a pistol grip is a felony, active at midnight and you best hope you pay attention to the few hours notice you've been given.

> The ATF can release a rule right now stating owning an AR-15 with a pistol grip is a felony, active at midnight and you best hope you pay attention to the few hours notice you've been given.

ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/chapter-II

and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(...

and therefore are announced ahead of time in Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) published in the Federal Register

https://www.regulations.gov/search?agencyIds=ATF&documentTyp...

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%...

and later, upon finalization, published again in the same place.

I don't mean to defend the scope of ATF's (or other agencies') power or discretion, which is quite broad, but the ambush rule with just a few hours' notice is pretty implausible under the APA. Normally the APA calls for at least 30 days' notice, and months are more typical.

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...

There is an emergency rulemaking exception under the APA for "good-cause", but this is comparatively rarely used and (like other aspects of a rule) may be reviewed by the courts. ATF knows that it has a lot of critics who are likely to sue to challenge its rulemakings, and has often taken a considerable amount of time to make new rules even when there was a lot of political pressure brought to bear in favor of expanding regulations.

It's unfortunate that you might have to go to court to vindicate your rights under the APA, but that's almost equally unfortunately true of almost anything improper that any part of government might do to you. If a police officer decided to randomly seize your weapons because he just thought they looked scary and you oughtn't own something so dangerous-looking, you would also need to go to court to establish that the police office wasn't entitled to do that. Or if, like in the Hitchhiker's Guide, a local government authority decided to demolish your house without proper notice, you'd probably also have to go through the courts to get a remedy.

Great response, thank you.

To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in this country that has more gun involved MCEs (military conflicts excluded) than every other country combined.

As I’ve strayed a bit from the topic I’ll bring my point back by saying; sure there’s issues worth complaining about in almost every us regulatory process, but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender.

I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works.

I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning it, despite having been very clear on their goal. If they'd simply said that people shouldn't have this, full stop, right away, well, I imagine the D.C. Circuit would have been even more upset with them than it actually was. :-)

I'm glad you found my reply helpful.

We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs.

If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.

> we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence

With it already being illegal for certain criminals to own firearms, what regulation short of a total ban would help? This is where the "add more laws" logic fails. The thinking is that adding more laws will keep criminals hands off of guns. Criminals by definition ignore laws. Guns can be made via a 3d printer now. Ammunition used to be made (reloaded) by campfires. It's impossible in these days to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. If you have a CNC machine you can make your own AR-15.

Instead the solution is quite the opposite. More guns. You don't have to carry one yourself, just don't stop the rest of us. And by law if someone is carrying a concealed weapon near you and your life is in danger, they must protect it. We end up with peer to peer police. Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon.

As far as school shootings, that solution is quite easy and technical. AI powered cameras in classrooms and hallways that alert if someone not in faculty or the student body steps on the grounds. Alert for gun shaped objects. Ballistic class on the interior and exterior windows with doors that partition the hallway when closed and locked to block in any assailants.

The guns rights group has many solutions to the problems, but the gun control group doesn't want them. Gun control groups have created a situation where it's easier for criminals to get guns and use them than it is for law abiding citizens.

I agree with everything except for:

> Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon.

This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.

> This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.

There is a difference in practicing one's rights and endangering others. We require the same of our police officers. While I'm a fan of constitutional carry, I have no problem taking 8 hours of classroom courses and qualifying with my carry pistols.

The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons. Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate. I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument.

Your solution is naive, unsupported by research, reasonably hypothesized by people far more intelligent and accomplished than either of us, to be a failure on arrival, and conveniently requires no requires no acceptance of responsibility in the current horrific state of affairs nor does it requires a change in mind on anything.

More guns = more suicides and accidents. You should already know this.

the nra/federalist society, and similar organizations have been using their lackey’s to prevent progress on gun control for decades. Mitch McConnell has publicly taken pride in his ability to prevent anything from getting done regarding anything.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/27/texas-shooti...

> The solution is recognizing that the 2a side is belligerent regarding the consequences of easy access to cheap weapons

So now only wealthy people can exercise a right?

> Once we accept that all we need to do stateside is adopt sensible legislation that demonstrably works in countries without a belligerent group incapable of intelligent debate.

Again, what legislation. I want specific laws you think will work.

> I’m not going to engage with you on a slippery slope argument.

It honestly sounds like you have no argument, just that you don't like guns and want them gone.

> More guns = more suicides and accidents. You should already know this.

I don't count suicides as deaths. This is used by the pro gun control groups to artificially inflate the numbers. Suicidal people will use other means if you take the guns away. And yes of course, the increased use of any object results in increased accidents with those objects. That's why some parents teach their kids gun safety early (I was handed a shotgun at age 8) and we develop proper procedures for handling weapons (Such as always visual and physically ensure the chamber is clear even if you "know" it's unloaded).

> the nra/federalist society, and similar organizations have been using their lackey’s to prevent progress on gun control for decades. Mitch McConnell has publicly taken pride in his ability to prevent anything from getting done regarding anything.

Do you think that perhaps the NRA is just representing the people that belong to its organization? Or said another way, if the NRA had nobody to represent would they exist?

While it may be hard for you to understand my position and the position of others like me, it's not the NRA fighting. It's me, other's like me. And we certainly aren't giving up anytime soon.

You’ve made liberal use of fallacious argument, taken my arguments exceptionally uncharitably, and have conveniently ignored many other of my arguments while projecting your own shortcomings onto me. You should read the site guidelines. At this point it is clear that you are arguing in bad faith and it is not worth the effort of even reading your replies as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in engaging in a rational discussion. Instead it is obvious that your goal is to spread to your widely debunked talking points; truth, evidence, merits, respect be dammed.

What have I ignored and what have I taken uncharitably? I’m asking for specific laws that you would enact that would help the situation. You have not provided any and you’re now attempting to derail this conversation.

Every scenario you’ve presented Ive disproven. Remember this was started when it was said that food truck operators can become felons.

Further what site guidelines have I violated?

I want specific laws you’d enact to resolve the issues as you see them. Can you provide them or not?

> but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender

What other enumerated rights shall we remove under the guise of saving lives? Should we remove access to vehicles? Alcohol? Shall we enact a speech control board that if you violate it you lose your enumerated rights? This would open the door for the same abuse gun owners receive for exercising their right.

You're right, I'm a gun rights absolutist. I will not settle for the removal of this right nor the government making it difficult to exercise. They don't do this with any other right why this one? Can other rights not be just as dangerous? (See Democrats stating they needed to misinformation due to the damage caused to democracy).

The entire argument used by belligerent guns right absolutists (belligerency follows absolutist views like butter on bread) is based on a maliciously broad understanding of the second amendment. Note that no one talks about militias, just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. But no, it’s too hard to buy a gun./s have you tried the dark web, other Americans have figured out how to carry straw purchases en masse.

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second...

> Note that no one talks about militias

Wait a second, who doesn’t? In fact on this board they have been discussed more than a few time, including by myself.

> just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period.

This is a biased rant again. None of what you said sounds dangerous to me. The problem is now with what law abiding citizens buy and own, they will never use the “dozens of long guns” kill innocent people. Why are you conflating criminals and law abiding citizens?

Can you also tell me, using your example, why any waiting period past the first one does anything? If someone already owns a gun, why are they being subjected to yet another waiting period? The entire point of a waiting period was to cool off and not do something stupid with your new purchase. But if the person already has a gun on hand then what is the point of it?

> ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations > and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act > and therefore are announced ahead of time in Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) published in the Federal Registe

Only if there is no exception that allows them to wave the comment period. The key being "emergency actions".

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrativ... https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/Regmap/REG_MAP_2020.p...

> There is an emergency rulemaking exception under the APA for "good-cause", but this is comparatively rarely used

Bingo. Now imagine living in fear because of a particular government body's overreach. You can clearly see that this can and will be abused based on political bent. The exceptions are the problem. Remove them. Require all rules have a 180 day waiting period.

I left the exercise of relating my arguments to your statements to you and am doing the same here.

Are you aware of the origins of the fda? Chefs and pharmacists got rightfully chilled by the dozens of bills it took to fully reign in their murderous proclivities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Food_and_Drug...

The only reasons that we’re having this discussion is because of elementary (bad faith) disagreements over the semantic interpretation of laws that predate world changing technologies our great grand parents took for granted in their childhood.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-conservatives...

Overnight is in quotes because your use of it is needlessly inflammatory. One felony conviction equates a lifetime felon. Your usage of overnight is superfluous and only acts as a conservative dog whistle in your comments.

Who is us, precisely? Names, addresses, and gun permit numbers please. I like to stay as far away from anti-regulation outspoken second amendment types as possible. They’re too shooty and screamy. That said, what are you and your “responsible” gun owners doing to control the irresponsible ones? If responsible people set the rules we wouldn’t have drunk driving laws, or urine screens at work, or even currency. The nra has only supported gun control legislation when its toothless or black people are effectively asserting the same rights. If not The nra being the de facto national steering body and figure head for the “responsible gun owner” cohort then who? I’ve not heard of any organization with a fraction the membership of that side of the gun control war.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

Funny how you cast the people with your beliefs in a broad positive brush and those who consider your beliefs the direct cause of countless deaths in a broad negative brush. Some might consider that an argument in bad faith. The anarchist and socialist gun owners I know all know to code switch when talking to people proudly exclaiming the same beliefs as you.

Your appeal to authority is dehumanizing, fallacious, and thoroughly refuted by a sibling comment to your post. It’s up to you recognize that your beliefs create a perverse incentive to engage in illegal vigilantism and thus in order to protect democracy and secure the most rights for the most people we must continue to aggressively regulate firearms until their misuse is inline with peer countries. All other domestic attempts to curtail wanton gun violence and vigilantism have failed to have substantial. The time has passed for 2a absolutists to be taken rationally as we’re witnessing countless preventable murders of children go unaddressed.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Bookle...

Drop the bad faith flame bait and transparent insults. You’re sidestepping my points and demanding I engage you on your terms. It’s uncouth and ironically hypocritical. This is no rant, but I can understand why someone of your beliefs may feel that way. I am a recovered 1-2a absolutist libertarian myself, and I cannot help but full body cringe at the ridiculous justifications and mental gymnastics I used to justify my hatred, prejudices, and wave away the inevitable externalities in such a society that is so improbable it cannot even exist in fiction.

I am sorry to hear that you're a "recovered" libertarian. As a scholar of history, I will keep my guns, and die for it if I have to.

Flame bait? Libertarianism is a stereotypical collegiate belief system that collapses explosively and hilariously whenever it’s been attempted. Keep your guns, I’m fine with civilian gun ownership. I’m not fine with school shootings. First world countries manage responsible gun ownership without school shootings. Let’s get there and then quibble about these things.

> eliminate the right to bear arms

This is clearly not true as evidenced by the high rate of mass shootings in the US

I’m sorry, but if you really think gun rights are nearly eliminated in the US, you’re delusional.

I didn't say they were completely eliminated. I'm saying that is the inevitable conclusion if they are allowed to continue on the track they're on.

If fewer jurisdictions = better, then just adopt the GDPR as-is.

That seems obviously bad to me, having more jurisdictions to work out what the best laws are seems like a better idea.

I'm somewhat skeptical that giving more power and discretion to federal regulators will result in increasing freedoms for the American people.

I'm somewhat skeptical that the increasing power of private companies to gather and sell your personal data is increasing freedoms for the American people.

So a pragmatic person chooses a solution that maximizes the benefit and mitigates the tradeoffs.

>>Preemption would be an enormous mistake

Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything, without even touching the fact that Data privacy is in no way even close to any of the enumerated power of the US Federal Government

Federal Laws almost always favor large companies, the exact companies these laws are needed to protect the consumer from

Facebook, Microsoft, etc would love nothing more than to have the federal government take over because has "stake holders" they will be called on to write their own legislation, and will start the revolving door of hiring current, former and future regulators to work in the very corporations they are supposed to regulate.

Federal laws never work for the average citizen

> Preemption is always a mistake, i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything

So that my marriage is recognized across state lines, for a start.

eh poor example imo; that's guaranteed by the Constitution, not legislation.

oh? where, exactly? Is that why we needed Obergefell, and Loving, and … ?

Why would you the government to be involved in your marriage?

I think the point GP is trying to make is that sometimes state governments try to get involved in marriage and having a federal policy that preempts that can prevent further meddling.

This cuts both ways—with preemption, you can provide baseline rights or guarantees to citizens. The trade-off is that you have federal legislation in the mix and you then need to deal with laws that are slower/harder to change; a big issue if the law was badly written or needs to be changed in a timely manner.

Because that’s what marriage is?

Isn't a better question: why would you want /any/ government involved in your marriage?

This argues for federal legislation that defines marriage simply as a compact between two consenting adults with some basic legal record keeping.

The /impact/ of that marriage can be both federal and state (e.g., federal vs. state tax laws).

Individual state laws defining marriage could mean your next of kin could change if you die in the wrong state. That way lies dragons.

I dont think government should be in the business of regulated interpersonal relationships at all, for the finances it should be covered by contract law, for everything else it is none of the government's business

> without even touching the fact that Data privacy is in no way even close to any of the enumerated power of the US Federal Government

In what way is data privacy regulation for corporations not a regulation on interstate commerce? That's like, the whole deal. That's the entire internet. If anything, Internet regulations applying at the state level is even more insane, because of the inherently cross-state nature of globally networked communication.

Because the original concept of "interstate commerce" was trade disputes among the states.

Wickard that expanded that to include all commerce that may touch another state even indirectly was / is one of the WORST supreme court decision ever and it is eternal dream that the Supreme Court will reverse it and instantly shrink the power of federal government by at least 75%

> i am not sure why everyone wants federal laws for everything

I'm not sure why anyone wants to be held to 50+ different and conflicting privacy and data protection requirements just to have a website or provide a service online because that's what we'd be getting if we left online privacy regulation up the states.

I dont, I want to be held to the standard of my State, for which I would have more control over than the federal government's one which is often influenced more greatly by states like NY, CA, TX or FL none of which I reside in an have no desire to live under either extreme's of those states

> I dont, I want to be held to the standard of my State,

that's not possible for people who do business with people who live in other states. If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens.

If you never create a business or service that anyone from any other state or country uses you'll never have to worry about compliance with their laws, but most of us want to build things for more than just the people in our immediate surroundings.

>>If I make a website in Ohio I'm responsible for following Florida's laws on how I handle data collected from Florida's citizens.

Why? For decades in the US we have had the concept of "Nexus", and just because a person visits your website in Ohio from Florida does not you have a Nexus in FL to where you need to follow FL Law

Just like today if I put up a website, and a person from the EU visits it, I as a US Citizen with no business interests in the EU have no obligation to follow GDPR or put up cookie notices or any other EU Laws

> Why?

Because the alternative is that businesses do for data privacy the same thing they already do for things like manufacturing and corporate taxes. That's even worse.

It's a lot easier for big business to control a single state government than all fifty of them.

> Just like today if I put up a website, and a person from the EU visits it, I as a US Citizen with no business interests in the EU have no obligation to follow GDPR or put up cookie notices or any other EU Laws

You'd possibly have an obligation under GDPR, but you are free to ignore that and face the consequences. Same with laws passed in other states. You're free to ignore them so long as you're fine with what ignoring them will cost you. If you enjoy being able to conduct business in and travel to places outside of your state it's probably a good idea not to violate the laws of those places.

This is exactly why Microsoft has been throwing money at lobbyists at the state level as well, pushing shitty "consumer privacy bills", both because they don't like strong legal privacy rights at the state level, but also in the hopes of forestalling and kneecapping a strong federal baseline privacy bill.

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

Yep. We've fought them off here in Washington ... but they and Amazon just took it to other, more pliable states. Todd Feathers and Albert Ng had a very good article on this in The Markup a few months ago https://themarkup.org/privacy/2022/05/26/tech-industry-group...

Did we though? What bills does Washington have that could compare to the CCPA?

None yet. Big tech companies have pushed various versions of the Bad Washington Privacy Act, which is weaker than CCPA. In 2021 and 2022, civil liberties, civil rights, and immigrant rights groups have supported the People's Privacy Act, which is a lot stronger than CCPA or ADPPA, but tech lobbying kept it from even getting a hearing. We'll see what happens in 2023 ... the Bad Washington Privacy Act's sponsor is retiring from the Senate (and is generally expected to become a full-time lobbyist), so the landscape should be different.

> Preemption would be an enormous mistake

It creates a national standard. If we’re still debating the solution, sure, devolve to states. But if we’re near consensus, preëmption provides scale. This is American strength in a nutshell.

Yeah, nobody wants to have to constantly worry about compliance with 50+ different required standards which may or may not conflict with one another. Having one clear standard for services to follow is absolutely preferred so long as it actually does the job of protecting people's data privacy.

Yep, I personally only want federal pre-emption for restrictions on government. Shall not infringe type stuff.

In this case I think preemption gives you widespread uniformity so it makes adherence easier to achieve and more predictability. Is those island gonna come up with weird stipulations, maybe Montana… uniformity in this case may be better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com