Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
righttoprivacyact.github.io
righttoprivacyact.github.io
https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests
There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement.
I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space.
100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
I could also ask my 5 year old to draw a bill for me, that's as successful as giving a generic bill.
It depends entirely on how you prompt them.
(a) In general.—There are authorizedWhen you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.
If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?
A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has.
Example usage:
“That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”
So it's a kind of mechanical recombination of ideas.
So, no, you are making the claim, first prove it is worth any of that effort.
Ad hominllm: the dismissal of a work or an argument because an LLM was, or may have been, used in its construction or editing.
I haven’t read through the bill and text yet, but credibility is important in this fight. Plus, this can change at anytime, so knowing who’s behind it amplifies the trust.
We need to be having these conversations yesterday. Our fundamental freedoms are under attack, and a bill like this would go a long way to protecting future generations
You could have a mail client with a static banner ad at the top.
b) Shouldn't our laws prioritize natural-persons over corporate desires?
Companies don't have a right to a specific revenue model. Humans should have a right to their own identity.
You can't actually do that. None of those companies are charities.
You pay one way or another.
Just not going to happen. But the post above was discussing wants.
The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins.
As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that are free, and once again, everybody wins: the costs are very low, and cities are far safer and cleaner.
Successful socialism if you want.
It has the benefit of being literally true, whoever thought the was necessary to have a bunch of hard to forge security measures on IDs which require physical inspection probably wouldn't be okay with easily faked scans being accepted.
> Require Social Security Numbers to authenticate preventing fraud.
There's a ton of stuff piled into the agenda on this page but that one in particular stumped me. Is it proposing that people (who?) are required to use their SSN to authenticate (for what?) or that the SSN agency is supposed to authenticate... something before doing something?
It contains following:
> (i) Finance and high-risk identity proofing.—No person shall extend credit, originate a loan, open a high-risk financial account, or provide another high-risk financial service based solely on a Social Security number, static identity information, or an uploaded image or copy of a government-issued identity document. A person engaging in such activity shall use multi-factor identity verification reasonably designed to verify both record consistency and claimant control, using less intrusive reasonably reliable methods where available.
> (j) Social Security number not sufficient identity credential.—A Social Security number, taxpayer identifier, or similar identifier shall not by itself be treated as proof of identity for purposes of this Act.
So, to me at least, it sounds like they actually mean "Providers must not use SSN for authentication (including fraud)".
Just leave your name and email on this contact form on github, so privacy can be solved once and for all!
(/s, but an interesting paradox for pro-privacy initiatives soliciting identifiable public support)
But I also don’t want to step on the EFF’s toes. They’ve been doing good work on this area for decades and I’d prefer we work with them on policy details.
Here’s a whitepaper on their policy positions: https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-onli...
Then how can I know not to send you another email if I don't have your email flagged in my database to do-not-send?
For legitimate newsletters and similar: you delete any and all forms that allow signing up to receive emails without affirmative consent from that email address that they want to receive mail, and you offer a one-click effective-immediately "unsubscribe" to retract that consent at any time. Then, you can tell if you can send someone mail based on whether they're in your database of people who have explicitly consented to send you mail, and you don't ever send email to anyone else other than one-time consent requests and order-confirmation-style transactional mail.
The only legitimate database of emails is "these people have explicitly confirmed to us that we can email them"; any other database is radioactive waste, delete it.
That's not actually how HIPAA compliance works. You're required to keep 7 years of communications, and part of those communications is who you sent it to. Amazon SES sends complaint notifications and you're not allowed more than 1 complaint per 1000 emails or they shut you down too. People who are repulsively anti-spam have ruined email as a medium.
I'm merely pointing out the technical aspect of this bill is ridiculous and everyone sending transactional emails will fight you, killing any bill you might have.
That is a ridiculous attitude. Spam has ruined email; anti-spam is the attempt to keep it usable. Anti-spam wouldn't be needed in the first place if not for spammers.
> Amazon SES sends complaint notifications and you're not allowed more than 1 complaint per 1000 emails or they shut you down too.
Good, that sounds like a reasonable step.
Now if only there were existential-level fines for sending spam, too.
Yes, I am aware of people who use the "report spam" button because they can't be bothered to hit "unsubscribe". Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if 1) they felt like they'd subscribed in the first place, rather than being tricked by a default-to-spamming "do you not not not want us to not spam you" checkbox, 2) spammers didn't act like having an "unsubscribe" link was all they need to do to make it okay to send unsolicited commercial email, and 3) unsubscribing reliably worked.
> transactional emails
Transactional emails have never been the problem. People buying lists of emails and sending email marketing spam and trying to defend that as in any way a legitimate practice have always been the problem, along with phishing, scams, etc.
Spam didn't close port 25 to residential ISP customers. Repulsive anti-spammers did that. I can't set up and run email on a rpi in my house without paying ridiculous fees to become "business" internet. And all you really get for that is port 25.
I've run my own email server at work. I doubt you have the experience I do. I sent 50,000 emails a day to patients for over a decade. Important emails, about their health. And repulsive anti-spammers come up with solutions like "you have to solve this captcha to send this important email to your patient on Earthlink!" So after a time, we simply had to give up running our own email server and run email through SES and let Amazon worry about the Earthlinks of the world for us. 99.9% no complaints sounds really really hard, but we actually cleared that bar pretty easily. Except that one day one of our doctors dumped hundreds of our emails, which HE PAYS TO RECIEVE, into the spam folder by accident.
I have ZERO empathy with repulsive anti-spammers. NONE. For they are the reason that email is the centralized shitshow it is today. We have AI now. AI should be able to tell us if email is spam very quickly now. Can we please have our port 25 back?
1. User requests for email alice@example.com to be removed from database
2. Company removes "alice@example.com" from 'emails' table
3. Company adds 00b7d3...eff98f to 'do_not_send' table
Later on, the company buys emails from some other third-party, and Alice's email is on that list. The company can hash all the email addresses they received, and remove the emails with hashes that appear in their 'do_not_send' table.
You'd have to normalize the emails (and salt the hashes), but seems doable?
This view is unfortunately common among regular privacy advocates. That makes them politically useless.
To have a hope, this bill needs to target support outside tech, where civic laziness and nihilism are normalized. I’m not seeing any indication of that strategy here.
Dismissing an avenue of progress outright is to be defeatist or to sow defeat.
AI is going to use all this information against us. Because AI alignment can’t be better than people and corporations deploying the AI.
Lack of privacy is now a gaping security hole, being continually exploited on all our devices, across most sites on the internet.
[EDIT: And the leverage that information enables is being auctioned off to manipulators who we are exposed to continuously. This is just the beginning.]
We need to plug this security hole now, before power centralizes further and we can’t.
Lets add Facebook, twitter, openai, claude + all the others.
then lets add Flock, Palantir.
Do you honestly think the lobbying from them would be more or less if this bill gained any traction?
That doesn’t change the critical need to make progress.
Surrendering power, even when apparently outgunned, is a far more insidious enemy than opposition.
Small communities are thwarting these companies’ datacenter buildouts. The difference is they show up. Defeating privacy in tech is easy because there is no functional opposition.