Hacker News

points by MisterMunchkin 1 day ago | 0 comments

America is crazy, why are you letting people sell your data like this?

Define letting? The political system has de-criminalized vote buying by re-branding the bribers as 'lobbyists' and protecting it as a 1st Amendment right. Even Guilfoyle's controversy was asking for 100k to her Amex account from a "lobbyist". In most countries it's a jailable offense.

This lobbying means that the politicians might be elected by "us" but they work for "them" - the "lobbyists."

Does this answer your question sufficiently?

[–] rtkwe 1 day ago

Even worse the Supreme Court has actively made it quite difficult to pursue bribery cases recently basically requiring the parties to be stupid enough to put in writing "I will pay you X to vote Y on Z" and then "This is the payment for your vote that would not have happened if you had not voted Y on Z".

[–] greeneggs 1 day ago

And the Supreme Court did this because the Republican Justices were caught accepting bribes. It's become just another corrupt Republican institution, the same as the Presidency and Congress.

[–] FireBeyond 1 day ago

I mean the Chief Justice was asked by Congress - "It seems that every other part of the federal court system has ethics guidelines and processes, but not the Supreme Court. It seems reasonable that the highest Court in our land should have those." And he replied, almost verbatim, "We're not going to do that and we're offended that you feel the need to ask."

[–] rtkwe 1 day ago

I do hope a congress soon has the spine to fix the courts and some of their recent missteps, the list is getting very very long though.

[–] catlikesshrimp 1 day ago

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, but buying votes is more transparent now. They offered $5,000 for every adult if they win.

[–] AngryData 1 day ago

If it truly went to everybody to me it is just government paying dividends to the people. Which I think is far preferable and useful compared to corporate bailouts and tax cuts and most other allocations. We gave money to people during covid and it wasn't catastrophic.

[–] jmspamerton 1 day ago

How is that different than democrat socialists offering free healthcare and universal income?

[–] mancerayder 1 day ago

Free healthcare, I think you mean single payer healthcare or a public option for healthcare, exists in most countries in the world. How is it different? How about how is it the same?

[–] catlikesshrimp 1 day ago

Healthcare is a comprehensive quality of life improvement that indivuduals can't waste in fast fashion and such, which reduces the wealth gap, which will remain after election campaign, which is a cornerstone of societies of many developed countries.

[–] sillyfluke 10 hours ago

It's different because democrat socialists would presumably continue to vote and argue for those policies even if they lose. 5 grand handouts, on the other hand, are not some deep rooted policy out of the Republican playbook.

[–] ok_dad 1 day ago

If you can’t tell the difference you’re stupid or you support trump style fascism.

One is a bribe the other is a health insurance program.

I can’t speak to UBI but it’s not a common platform anyways.

[–] everdrive 1 day ago

Don't you get it?! What if a restaurant had a QR code and I had to ask the waiter what to eat? Or what if I had to pay more for a TV? Or WORSE -- not watch TV? I have to be comfortable and and everything must be convenient ALL THE TIME. I love the 4th amendment, but the MOMENT I suffer even the most minor inconvenience I MUST throw the 4th amendment out the window. Don't you see I have no choice?

[–] 3-cheese-sundae 1 day ago

At some point, foregoing everything that is similar to what you just mentioned moves out of inconvenience territory and into social self-exclusion territory. To remain ideologically consistent with your argument, one must fully self-exclude.

Consider all of the sources of the available tracking data on a person in the United States. If you don't have a cell phone, don't drive a car, don't walk around outdoor networked cameras, don't patronize businesses that have networked cameras, don't use a credit card, how exactly are you interacting with this society?

[–] everdrive 1 day ago

Except for the flock cameras, we opted into this system with open arms. If you're coming of age right now it must suck, but there has been a steady march towards a demolition of privacy for more than 20 years.

[–] slowin 1 day ago

This is maybe half correct (or fully correct for some people). It's not that simple though. We're talking about a web service the fascists didn't like. How do you host that anonymously other than Tor (which no one will use)? As someone who doesn't partake in any sort of MSM in the US and actively tries to avoid fascism, I would genuinely like to know what the solution is here.

Also re: AI, how do we not fall behind those who are willing/on the same team as Anthropic, OpenAI, X... SOTA models are currently fully captured by ideologies I would consider to be willfully and gleefully violating nearly all human rights.

[–] smallmancontrov 1 day ago

Because "private good public bad" brainwashing has been so effective that most Americans see this structure as a good thing, even though the consequences are very obvious and very bad.

[–] deepsquirrelnet 1 day ago

That and a nice slight of hand. When they coupled that with a clear removal of corporate ethics, "a business' ONLY responsibility is to its shareholders" and then removed the barriers between the private and public sector (mostly via Citizen's United)... private sector effectively just became the public sector without any accountability.

Now they can just chip away at whatever regulation is left, and create mistrust in oversight bodies and the rigging of the game is complete.

Better than communism, the government hardly even has to pretend to work for the benefit of the people, because the wealth imbalance has a closed circuit of money between private entities and elections. They can bring suitcases of cash, walk in the front door literally holding a chainsaw and prune off every olive branch extended toward the citizens.

These election "investments" are clearly paying off at high multiples now. Why spend your money in a capitalist competition when you can more efficiently spend it in public elections to eliminate competition, divert tax revenue directly into your businesses and eliminate any responsibility you should have? Do a Nazi salute for the whole world to see, and watch the propagandized twist themselves into whatever shape pretzel you ask them to.

[–] jquery 1 day ago

I’m getting unsolicited texts all the time about how the “billionaire tax” in California is the worst thing ever. No matter if you think the tax is misguided, it’ll probably work at preventing the billionaire tax from passing, but it’s a good firsthand demonstration at how power accumulating to billionaires tends to accumulate even further. Only billionaires have the resources to fight back so aggressively against any encroachment on their power.

[–] hansvm 1 day ago

That gets into an idea I've been pretty adamant about. People say that capitalism is the worst system except for all the others, but its actual property is that it's inevitable. Money (power) can be used to gain more power. If even a few people choose to do so, if not countered intentionally by some outside force, wealth and power will accumulate.

Whether you see that as good or bad or something which needs to be checked and controlled is a separate discussion, but it's an obvious and expected result.

[–] jnovek 1 day ago

How are we gonna get them to do that? We have a choice between two parties each propped up by trillions of dollars in donations that are both cool with selling our data.

[–] jonnat 1 day ago

We need to fight back against this type of both-sidesism and other demoralization propaganda on HN.

[–] jnovek 1 day ago

This isn’t “both sides” stuff. We, the constituents, seem to have very little input on what values our parties represent anymore. We just get to pick the one we like best. This has gotten worse in my lifetime, esp after Citizen’s United.

I’m voting against the face eating leopard party every time. I’m not voting for someone. I would like very much to be voting for someone instead of against someone.

[–] N_Lens 1 day ago

It’s pretty pervasive and there’s plenty of tacit and overt support for Republicans here.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

With how successful the Republicans have been recently it would be very strange if that were not the case.

[–] belorn 1 day ago

Sure, there are third parties. It just that people associate that with wasted votes.

[–] vanviegen 1 day ago

That's because the two reigning parties designed the system such that votes for other parties are in fact mostly wasted.

[–] sneurlax 1 day ago

Are both parties not driven by their largest donors?

[–] SmirkingRevenge 1 day ago

Yes and no

The internet era has brought about the rise of small dollar donors making an outsized impact (for better or worse - it's not always a good thing)

This has given rise to more forms of populism (left and right, benign and toxic)

In any case, it does provide some counter weight to large donor class.

Money tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point, when it comes to elections.

And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

[–] cucumber3732842 1 day ago

>And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

They also see it like an insurance payment. Kick some amount to both sides in the hope that they leave you alone.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

Trump famously won without having the largest donors. He only had 1 big backer (Robert Mercer) in 2016 before the Republican primaries, he was assumed to be a joke candidate. After he won the primaries, he finally got some recognition from the establishment, but even then, they were tepid on investing in him because he was assumed to lose the election.

He’s basically proof of the power of the common man’s vote in the US.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man. Now, back to 2026, the richest person in the world has spent almost $500 million on helping Republicans in the midterms. Clearly him and Trump don't believe too much in the power of the common man's vote.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

>Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man.

He still spent the least and publicly eschewed donations. His skill was being able to connect with the voters that matter (unfortunately).

As far as I can tell, donations after he was elected in 2016 are simply bribes.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

When did he publicly eschew donations? He raised plenty of money, albeit bit as much as his competitors.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

He gave over $60 million to his own campaign and used his existing celebrity to get media coverage 24/7.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

not at all. wow people need to do some basic research on this. the Republicans are driven by a tiny handful of billionaires and with Musk, trillionaires. Democratic candidates OTOH rely to a vastly larger extent on millions of individual donors sending $100 or less - there are still large donors but their contribution to Democrats is close to an order of magnitude less than what GOP megadonors provide.

Of course, both of these funding models should be banned which would mean dismantling the Citizens United decision spearheaded by the now-known-to-be-fully-corrupt Roberts court, which might require a constitutional amendment.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

As always Trump is worse but the Democrats hands are by no means clean.

[–] Telaneo 1 day ago

There's a secret third political option, but it's usually frowned upon.

[–] rexpop 1 day ago

Labor organizing?

[–] noumenon1111 1 day ago

That's pretty normal. I think bro is pointing at either a general strike or regicide, both of which are highly frowned upon.

[–] rexpop 1 day ago

I guess I view a general strike as the inevitable precipitation of labor organizing critical mass.

And I also think of it as pretty esoteric to the mainstream, TBH.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

> both cool with selling our data.

I guess you can pretend Liz Warren, Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, dozens of house reps and thousands of Democratic legisltators in statehouses and towns around the country don't exist and just vote for the "party that lowered my taxes" again , right?

[–] jnovek 1 day ago

I’m not saying that there aren’t people who care in our government, it’s just that the political machines themselves — the political parties — are beholden to big corporate donors until such time that Citizen’s United is struck down.

[–] dmoose 1 day ago

You aren't wrong, but that doesn't mean that ranking candidates and then choosing the one that is more aligned with your ideas isn't a valid strategy. This system is deeply broken but pointing that out and then putting a period on the end helps ensure it stays that way.

[–] DANmode 1 day ago

You have to string more than 1 of them together to get any results besides “they voted for it and it still lost”.

[–] techteach00 1 day ago

Liz Warren is a fascist who would use every police state tactic you hate on her opposition.

[–] cucumber3732842 1 day ago

Warren? Come on. She is a TEXTBOOK example of someone who was a real person who arguably had morals who sold her soul to the party for a fancy title. Obama should have made her head of the CFPB since that was her pet project and career specialty. But no, everything "worked out better" for the machine if she just became an unremarkable senator.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

dont look at soundbites, look at legislation proposed. that's how Senators actually do their work

[–] cowlevel 1 day ago

Except for the part where they often propose legislation they know won't pass and then don't propose it later when it will pass.

Sometimes they miscalculate. Mitch McConnell once had to filibuster his own bill because he didn't mean for it to pass.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

We keep voting for people promising they won’t do things like this, who then proceed to do things like this.

[–] Tangurena2 1 day ago

The court rulings are based on telephone directories and the conflicts between their disparate companies (including Ma Bell). The phone company tried to claim that they owned the phone numbers (and any derivative intellectual property rights). The companies that published competing phone books successfully argued that the only property rights exist in the compilation of data - not in the data itself. The result of this pile of history is that whosoever owns the computer owns the data on that computer.

The GDPR comes from the opposite direction - you own the data about yourself.

[–] ajross 1 day ago

There's no "selling" of data. These are just connection logs kept as part of routine auditing/anti-spam/anti-abuse practice by the ISP (something we all agree here is a good thing). And ICE appears to have gotten a warrant for them, which showed them the personal IPs of their targets.

You can argue the warrant was poorly justified (and I'd agree!), but I don't see a plausible world where "ISPs aren't allowed to do connection analysis on their own networks" is going to help anyone. Well, anyone except spammers. They'd love that.

[–] lopsotronic 1 day ago

Because then daddy can make the scary people go away.

[–] shimman 1 day ago

America is a backwards country where unless something is explicitly illegal, apparently it's totally okay to engage in said thing.

[–] dgellow 1 day ago

In 2026 illegal just means it’s negotiable if you have access to the trump admin

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

I keep pushing the big "make it illegal to sell US citizens' data and arrest anyone who breaks that law" button on my wall here but nothing happens

[–] GJim 1 day ago

> America is crazy, why are you letting people sell your data like this?

Because of FUD spread about data protection laws… such as the GDPR?

[–] cowlevel 1 day ago

GDPR has a giant gaping loophole for government pressure. They're also writing a new one to allow AI training that would otherwise be illegal.

[–] GJim 20 hours ago

Annnnnnnnd the FUD has begun.

[–] cowlevel 15 hours ago

Check for yourself. Conditions c and e: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

The only FUD here is you pretending this is FUD.