rastrojero2000 4 hours ago

Any particular reason yall can't just argue in court that by creating opportunities for your PII to be stolen your governments (state or federal or both) are actively harming you economically?

Sure, not much money to be had by fighting that fight but basically any PAC should have the means to do this and by claiming money is at stake and not people's actual safety you do have a better chance at this not being dismissed because of how your justice system /is/.

▲

3RTB297 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unless you've had fraud committed against you, that's a hard sell. What dollar figure do you use as the basis? Are you suing for years of credit monitoring? Because that's typically the solution for people who are the victims of PII leaks.

One could argue that it's a failure of law enforcement or telcos or regulators to do enough to prevent fraud and maaaaybe bring a class action or something, but that's a massive stretch.

	▲	rastrojero2000 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Given it's a physical impossibility to create an impregnable fortress for your data and said data both already has a dollar amount attached to it in the black market and an obligation to be cared for, the argument could be that the government is setting up companies to lose money unless they too get to sell that data themselves, which regulations -and basic decency- say they can't.
	▲	maerF0x0 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/your-money/annoyance-... Suggest phone scams are a $26 B per year industry.

▲

Hizonner 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The government is allowed to create regulations that harm people economically. Not much money to be had by instantly losing that fight.

▲

rastrojero2000 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Do those regulations often involve the creation and protection of the profit motive for foreign black markets?

▲

Hizonner 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sometimes. Your point?

▲

rastrojero2000 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505550 glad to help

▲

Hizonner 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Look, a lot of people make the mistake you're making.

Not every unjust, stupid, or evil thing is illegal.

Even when something is illegal, that doesn't mean you have standing to challenge it in court, or that a given court has jurisdiction to do anything about it.

Courts (theoretically) follow rules. They can't just randomly set things aside without some basis in those rules. Lawsuits are not a magic universal remedy.

You could definitely argue that courts don't always follow rules, and that the Trump administration is doing everything it can to make that worse, but the changes they're making aren't going to work in your favor, because those changes are in the nature of "we can do whatever we want, and fuck the courts if they don't like it".

▲

rastrojero2000 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, ok? Guess the official consensus is all you can do about literally anything that is detrimental to everyone is just sit on your ass and look pretty until it's too late and every asshole who could conceivably benefit from stealing from you is already done.

The true american dream.

	▲	Hizonner 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, the assholes currently screwing up the the USA got there by decades of miscellaneous political maneuvers, both fair and foul (most of the fair ones done by an earlier generation), culminating in actually getting elected (basically on a platform of then acting unconstitutionally, because that appealed to enough morons). And the people they replaced also got in through politics. What they did not do was to sue their way into power. I mean, yes, they used the courts at a few key points, but that wasn't the core of it, and the smart money says they could have done it without, say, Bush v. Gore. The new court approaches of the 1950s through 1970s were a product of politics way, way more than a driver of it, and so is the present reactionary judicial backlash. In fact, the biggest thing I'd say you could argue was the courts leading, Roe v. Wade, worked for a few decades, but at the same time set up a ton of resentment that was later exploited to help blow up the whole system around it. And if you go back far enough, you run up against a violent revolution, also not conducted in court. Although even there it's important to remember that revolutions invariably fail if they don't have huge political support first. So, if you want to actually do something, go elect some politicians who will clean up the mess. By the way, that doesn't just mean going back to the way things were one day before Trump. It means fixing the long-term institutional decay that let Trump and his manipulators cause so much chaos when they happened to win an election with honestly not overwhelming support.