Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsync | Hacker News Reader

The more alarming piece of the article is this:

"The move might also invite legislation from Congress."

So ... presumably a govt body would define what a web browser is, then define what tracking is, and then ... what ? Legislate browser code ?

Would wget need defaults built in for the code that comes over ? What if I 'nc' to port 80 and redirect to a file ?

What is a "web browser" anyway ? What constitutes consumption of tracking codes ? Are there punishments involved ? Is the curl library at fault if it is misused in this government mandated way ?

Terrible, depressing, and predictable.

View on HN

Governments already (and appropriately) legislate all sorts of things about software.

* Some governments require windows to present a choice of web browsers.

* Some governments require websites, operating systems, or programs to provide for accessibility to the disabled.

Some governments also regulate information collection and sharing:

* Some governments (including the US) regulate what information credit card companies must provide to consumers.

* Some governments (including the US) regulate what info credit bureaus can collect, sell, require them to provide free copies on demand to those surveilled, and set up a framework for a dispute process.

It's perfectly reasonable for governments, as an agent of the people, to create laws and regulations around what can be collected and how. And yes, code may have to go into browsers to comply.

The long history of the interactions between relatively slow-moving governments and relatively fast-moving technology suggests that we should only legislate software as a last resort. One of the nice things about the proposed Do Not Track standard is that it requires no additional legislation. Once advertising bodies agree to some meaningful definition of DNT, any violations could be prosecuted using existing laws that protect consumers from deceptive advertising.

Online tracking is a difficult problem without a purely technical solution available. Even with 3rd party cookies blocked, advertisers will still use first party cookies (Google, Facebook), or more sneaky and difficult to mititgate mechanisms (browser fingerprinting, evercookies) to track Internet users.

Legislating is slow, uncertain, full of compromise, and riddled with conflicts of interest (hold the comparisons to the current DNT negotiations, please). While it is sometimes appropriate, or required as the only remaining recourse, it is far from an ideal solution - especially with a problem such as this where there is such an imbalance of influence between parties in Washington.

Might want to calm down with the hyperbole.

Governments routinely get involved in matters such as this and by every account it makes a lot of sense. Online advertising is a critical part of many businesses and there needs to be stable, considered policies that factor in everyone's interests.

Before this conversation gets out of hand let's analyze how asinine this is: you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software.

Let's move beyond that obvious stumbling block and assume their non-existent jurisdiction actually exists: how do you expect this to be enforced? Do we levy fines against any entity (human or otherwise) distributing non-compliant web browsers? Do we install ransomware on people's computers that locks their devices unless only authorized browsers are installed?

When bits pass by my router then I will do with them as I please.

> you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software.

If you build a house for free, does that mean it's exempt from building codes?

What I install on my device is nobody's concern except my own.

If people don't want to use my software then they don't have to.

What? You don't live in a piece of open source software.

Oh and by the way, you OWN a house.

So? Building codes aren't an artifact of ownership.

And, relatedly.... if I offer to perform allegedly-medically-beneficial surgery for free, am I exempt from all the laws about regulation of medical practice?

And relatedly, if I give away viruses for free, am I good to go?

Not that I'm particularly sanguine about the odds of legislators getting it right, but I agree with rayiner that "open-source" isn't a GOOJF card.

On the other hand, it seems clear that code I write only for my own use has different regulatory requirements. In general, laws often let people do riskier things for themselves, relative to risks they let people take on behalf of others. But in this case, if you write code for yourself, it's obvious that you opted in to its features.

> Not that I'm particularly sanguine about the odds of legislators getting it right, but I agree with rayiner that "open-source" isn't a GOOJF card.

Right. I think a law that said that open source browsers had to do this or that would be stupid. But that's a strawman anyway. The regulation would probably involve what advertisers could do, or regulate browsers sold with PCs or tablets, or whatever. Not that I'm in favor of regulating it at all... but the fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.

hmm, construction and medical practice require legislation because dodgy practices may well result in harm to individuals. I don't see that's relevant here. BTW, I support the move by Mozilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

That article states it's a logical fallacy, even though it's clearly not. When did this trend of labelling any argument you disagree with a logical fallacy begin anyway?

I dunno, but this guy has some opinions. http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html

Is the new trope to say "you are just citing fallacies instead of having an argument?"

OK. Then instead I will say:

"The fact that there will be some dividing line between a web browser and something that sends out packets doesn't mean that we cannot establish any regulations at all on web browsers. Like there is some speed that you will get you written up while some speed marginally less than it will not -- this does not mean that there is no such thing as a legal limit on speed. Nerds often think they are Kirk talking the super-computer into destroying itself for having some logical inconsistency, when in reality the world is full of inconsistencies, and the law has already had a long line of jokers line up in court thinking that they are going to use their superior minds to outsmart the system. You are nothing new, you are nothing special, look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair."

I think it's easier on everyone to just link to a Wiki page, but, hey, I can cut-and-paste from my private text files just as easily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com