Simply put, make the selling of personal information online illegal if the user does not consent or get money from it. Have government and security agencies have efforts to shut down and arrest the leaders of such organizations and entities who are brokers and sellers of the data unconsenting data from online users.
3 Likes
To do that, the communications infrastructure should be nationalized and put under the US Post Office so that constitutional protections can be put in place. How Do We Escape the Panopticon? - by V. N. Alexander
Iâm sure there is a better way to do this somehow. I think the first step is policy.
1 Like
Well, thatâs the way communication privacy was supposed to be protected per the constitution. This is Policies for the People, where people are supposed to come up with policies, not just say, this or that should be illegal. Recognize the Internet as Part of the Post Road to protect online privacy and free speech - #2 by VNAlexander
I think people should be able to say something should be illegal and why, because it should promote discussion which helps results in the construction of policy. Not everyone are lawyers and would know how to write the literature. However, bringing up the topic allows for discussion and brings awareness to public interest of a topic. This allows a community to construct the policy through awarness of interest.
Some 600 new laws are passed every year in Congress. There are so many laws now that it is not possible to count them, literally.
According to the Library of Congress (Frequent Reference Question: How Many Federal Laws Are There? | In Custodia Legis), in 1982 the Justice Department tried and failed to determine exactly the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses ⌠scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages. The IRS code is about 74,608 pages.
Why do we need so many laws if people canât even count them much less know what they are?
Letâs make it simple:
It is against the law to knowingly cause physical or financial harm. What more needs to be said? Let every unclear instance of harm be tried in a court with a jury of peers.
The Constitutional and Bill of Rights does a fairly good job of spelling out the kinds of protections are needed for individual freedoms. With every new law that passed, the government assumes more authority over the individual. The problem today with lack of privacy was addressed in the Constitution. They saw the need to protect individuals from a government that would spy and censor. They set up a communication system, the USPS, that guaranteed the right to privacy and freedom of speech.
If you let Congress make new laws about whatâs legal and whatâs not every year, you will be outlawing some things that are good for some people and you will be making legal some things that are harmful to some people. For instance, regulations almost always allow a corporation to harm some percentage of the people without the corporation being liable.
We donât need more laws. We probably need to expand the court system instead so that it can judge more crimes on an individual basis.
1 Like
You have a point. There are too many laws. Perhaps we need a review of all the laws. We can break them apart in teams and examine each area. We need a simplification of explanation and for the public to be involved to debate the reason, purpose, and history of these laws. I see too many laws that feel they cater to forign interests, corporations, and groups with an agenda through lobby groups which are wildly outside of the interest of the mainstream US-citizen-public. I feel this area definitly needs reform.
Perhaps you could be right using this method for online integrity. I would personally like to see an online bill of rights.
Thanks for your generous concessions. There is a fantastic bill that needs to be passed before anything worthwhile can be done about any further bills: The One Subject at a Time bill.
If all legislation had to be broken down in this way, far fewer bills would go to a vote. Each bill would be short enough that the people could read it and contact their representatives to urge them to vote one way or the other.
No more sweeping budget bills that have new unrelated âlawsâ buried in them.
3 Likes
Iâll check it out.
That would never happen. Google, one of the richest big tech companies thrives on your personal information. With their money they can influence the votes of any politician. Also Microsoft and Apple collect and sell your data. So if your running Windows or your using an Apple computer your data is being collected and sold. Even the government itself likes to collect and use your data among itâs many agencies.
Next time you get a home mortgage through Fannie or Freddie, or any of the thousands of lenders whom work with them, be ready for a third party unlicensed PDC (property data collector) to take a 3d LIDAR image scan of your complete interior space including all your personal belongings, and to have every image shared with additional fourth and fifth party companies whom are simultaneously creating a âhome fingerprintâ, entering your home into the IOT (internet of things), and selling your private spaces home photos after AI dissemination.
When do we get a vote on these massive data grabs?
Every time they threaten the people with a âgovernment shut downâ.
(Please take a very long vacation and never ever come back. Oh lord we could only be so fortunate. Please stay closed. Please stay closed.)
Montana has something similar to this. And they limit the amount of government session time to once every other year. Itâs important we keep pushing these sorts of bills and they routinely do surface. Sadly they never go anywhere because otherwise how could congress persons stay âdialing for dollarsâ full time? If they canât give special favors, there goes the rich constituent funding and lobbyist money. Now itâs one subject at a time. What happened to for every new law two old ones must go or no more than two pages?
For the rest of the country; an infinite stream of self asking regulation meant to corner markets, restrict open market competition, provide a liability shield, and require expansion of the legal community. The same companies being âregulatedâ are often the ones writing the bill texts.
âBut we followed the guidelines set forth by x y z.â As they exploit all your personal data, blast chemicals throughout your home and food supply, restrict all of our potential and ability, corner plunder and exploit every possible market setting.
Bureaucrats. Theyâll be the death of all of us.
1 Like