Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

> Despite understanding that precise geolocation data is sensitive information that requires consumers’ consent, Respondents fail to take reasonable steps to confirm consumers consented to Respondents’ collection, use, or sale of this data and consumers do not, in fact, consent to the collection, use, and sale of their location data by Respondents.

Is there some actual law that this is based on? I am sympathetic to arguments that this should be a law, and is sketchy and gross, but the legal requirement of active consent for geolocation data seems to be something the agency is just declaring to be true and daring lawsuits to challenge.

View on HN

> seems to be something the agency is just declaring to be true and daring lawsuits to challenge

I'm pretty sure that this is exactly how it's supposed to work. Federal agencies like the FTC have (had?) the authority to make rules and reinterpret existing rules with the force of law.

In the (present) US government, it really can't work any other way. Without this sort of autonomy, any action by the FTC, EPA, etc would require congressional approval, which would mean that they effectively would never be able to function at all. Law moves far, far too slowly. FTC needs autonomy to go around the law to react to rapidly changing markets and technologies. Notionally their actions should be codified by Congress after the fact, but Congress is incapable of doing anything useful within 20 years.

This puts a bit of a weird spin on it.

Especially after recent supreme court decisions, which I support, Congress has to give an agency specific authority within defined boundaries in order to make regulations which have the force of law.

Congress doesn't have to get down to the very specifics (like for example emissions standards numbers for cars), but it does have to be specific enough (can't say: EPA, you're responsible for environment stuff, make whatever laws you feel like).

For example the origination of the FTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...

The legislation charges the FTC with preventing unfair business practices, defines what it means by unfair, and then gives authority to address these things through administrative actions or the courts.

There are two downsides to this new methodology:

1) Congress members are (generally) not experts outside of law and will probably leave out some word somewhere and then the new regulation gets overturned as the court rules it not in the agency's purview because congress forgot one thing.

2) Congress has been ineffective almost to the point of complete deficiency in the past 10 years, and will likely not pass many new regulations requiring specificity.

Too bad.

The solution to Congress being ineffective is not strengthening the executive to make law.

I don't want to live in a country ruled by bureaucracy driven by a dictator.

Federal agencies have discretion, sure - but it's not unlimited discretion.

It's based on Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices. The vast majority of "FTC cases" you read about are Section 5 cases.

IANAL the tech developed and then laws started to form.. slow walking the laws took over due to internal law enforcement and intelligence agency desire to use the data. Tech companies brutally compete with winners emerging controlling billions in cash flows. Both US political parties are completely complicit behind closed doors. "motivated individuals" by the tens of thousands built the tech and drank the kool-aide, reaping many mini-millionaires (reading right now?) $0.02

great, so look for EULA/ToS updates soon to be released by all of the other players in this area with explicit permission granted hidden behind legalese weasel words

Click-thru EULA's can be done away with with the flick of a pen.

Please, then flick the pen and make this improvement for all of society. What? It's actually not that easy. Okay then, thanks for playing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com