[HN Gopher] Amazon lobbyists who kill U.S. consumer privacy prot... ___________________________________________________________________ Amazon lobbyists who kill U.S. consumer privacy protections Author : conductor Score : 221 points Date : 2021-11-19 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | fhood wrote: | So, not to play devil's advocate, and I'm sure they would push | against a federal law just as hard, but I can understand a | reluctance to allow state specific privacy laws. That sucks, and | compliance would be very expensive and complicated. | schleck8 wrote: | Each time I visit Amazon I am now reminded of Bezos' yacht and | space trip, which is great because I now tend to look around | elsewhere. Geizhals and Idealo are helpful for finding | alternative dealerships. | | Usually Amazon isn't the cheapest anyways. | kelseyfrog wrote: | 5300 words and I'm still left wondering, "Who are they?" People | have names. | jedimastert wrote: | Lobbyists are just messengers, from interested groups | (corporations, non-profits, individuals) to law-makers. Doesn't | matter who they are, another will just pop up. | specialist wrote: | If politics was a game of rock, paper, scissors: | | What is the counter to Amazon's lobbying? | | I've done some DIY lobbying myself. Fought city hall, won some | (very) minor battles, lost the war. Burned out after a few years. | | Still foraging for role models, case studies, examples of | effective policy organizations. Some kind of playbook. | | Keep hoping some one, some where has some ideas -- actionable, | reproducible, sustainable -- for bottom up organizing to | effectively counter the boa constrictor squishing the life force | out of civil society. | fungiblecog wrote: | Make lobbying illegal | krapp wrote: | Lobbying is protected by the 1st Amendment (the right "to | petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") | fsflover wrote: | Consider supporting Electronic Frontier Foundation instead. | jacquesm wrote: | Boycott. | gaze wrote: | Boycotts don't work unless they're organized on a massive | scale. Otherwise it's just a blip, or a relatively constant | background. People are boycotting Amazon right now and this | is incorporated into their decisions. | jdp23 wrote: | It's only one data point, but here in Washington state | grassroots organizers have stopped Amazon (and Microsoft) from | passing the Bad Washington Privacy Act three years in a row | now. The key has been the Tech Equity Coalition, a loose | coalition group of organizations and individuals (including | civil rights, labor, immigrant rights groups). Local | progressive activists have also gotten deeply involved, and of | course we've gotten help from national groups like EPIC, | Consumer Federation of America, and EFF. We also got the King | County Council to pass a ban on government use of facial | recognition -- and that's Amazon and Microsoft's home turf! | | Of course, we still haven't passed _strong_ privacy legislation | yet. In the 2021 session Amazon and Microsoft 's lobbying was | enough to prevent the bill we brought from even getting a | hearing. So, we'll see what happens in 2022. But it feels like | momentum is on our side. | PicassoCTs wrote: | This - is not it. He who plays in the defense has to be | eternally vigilant and can not loose once. | | Best approach in my eye is to form a "one" cause party, whos | only "cause" is to power-bust and promptly dissolve | afterwards, and not touch on partisan issue. "Block | Buster"Party might sound strange, but if the only purpose is | to disrupt power imbalances and then self-dissolve to trigger | the next election - that could get a majority. | rp1 wrote: | How would this one party overcome the partisan divide? | Seems like wishful thinking. Is there any evidence of this | strategy working somewhere? | oriettaxx wrote: | I always say to my out of Europe friends: just state you are from | EU in all your app settings, so you get all the benefits of our | privacy legislation (GDPR) at no cost! | kodah wrote: | > As executives edited the draft, Herdener summed up a central | goal in a margin note: "We want policymakers and press to fear | us," he wrote. He described this desire as a "mantra" that had | united department leaders in a Washington strategy session. | | The chairman of Amazon owns a newspaper and nearly every person | mentioned in this story works or has worked for a prominent | political party. | | Obviously there's some standouts and they deserve some accolades: | | > Cunningham has tried unsuccessfully since 2019 to require | companies to get consumer consent before storing or sharing | smart-speaker recordings. When Cunningham re-introduced the | measure this year, Amazon took a novel lobbying approach: It | argued the privacy protections would hurt disabled people. | | > Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and the ranking member | of the judiciary committee, was among Amazon's top-tier VIPs, the | 2014 watering-the-flowers document shows. Last month, Grassley | co-authored a bill with Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar that | would prohibit companies including Amazon from favoring their own | products on their e-commerce platforms. | | then... | | > Amazon recently has widened its lobbying strategy to focus less | on killing or neutering legislation it opposed and more on | drafting favorable bills and getting them passed in friendly | legislatures, a former public-policy employee said. That tack | paid off in a big way this year in Virginia, where Amazon | convinced Sen. David Marsden, a business-friendly Democrat, to | introduce privacy legislation that the company had drafted. | | Sounds conspicuously like the mission of ALEC. | | Anyone defending Amazon's recording collection practices should | pay particular attention to this feature: | | > Some recordings involved conversations between family members | using Alexa devices to communicate across different parts of the | house. Several recordings captured children apologizing to their | parents after being disciplined. Others picked up the children, | ages 7, 9 and 12, asking Alexa questions about terms like | "pansexual." | | You can use Alexa as an intercom. It's recording that too, which | does not fit into explanation of why they record regular Alexa | prompts. | | > Florian Schaub, a privacy researcher at the University of | Michigan, said businesses are not always transparent about what | they're doing with users' data. "We have to rely on Amazon doing | the right thing," he said, "rather than being confident the data | can't be misused." | | There are no easy answers to privacy. Regulations can only be a | first step, because _this_ is the paradigm and I 'm not going to | argue that it _shouldn 't_ be. There has to be something better | than these outcomes though. | | Maybe I'm biased and just see all the darkness woven into this | story. | landonxjames wrote: | There was a long article in Wired yesterday about Amazon's retail | side privacy failures https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-failed- | to-protect-your-da... | olliej wrote: | Amazon, google, Facebook, telcos | | The only realistic way to do anything in America is to make | something cost money. How about a law saying that the statutory | minimum fine for any data leak is $1 per person, for each | individual piece of data that is does not have legally mandated | collection? | tmaly wrote: | I wonder what would happen if the alexa recordings captured some | HIPPA protected medical information that a customer spoke | verbally in the privacy of their own home. | jedimastert wrote: | HIPAA (two a's, not two p's) is a regulation of communications | from and by _medical providers_. | | This is the same false information people spit about vaccine | cards. | andjd wrote: | HIPAA generally only limits what information healthcare | providers (e.g. doctors and hospitals) can disclose ... so | nothing. | 1cvmask wrote: | Amazon is a rational company and acts in its own interest. The | politicians we elect act in Amazons interest. So we are to fault | for this. No hiding the truth. If we to change (a big if) we have | to not vote for the corporate politicians. Till then it is just | whining and dining. | | From the article: | | The architect of this under-the-radar campaign to smother privacy | protections has been Jay Carney, who previously served as | communications director for Joe Biden, when Biden was vice | president, and as press secretary for President Barack Obama. | Hired by Amazon in 2015, Carney reported to founder Jeff Bezos | and built a lobbying and public-policy juggernaut that has grown | from two dozen employees to about 250, according to Amazon | documents and two former employees with knowledge of recent | staffing. | cowpig wrote: | I'm pretty tired of this trope about blind self-interest being | "rational", as if acting in the public interest is somehow | "irrational" | | There are perfectly "rational" ways of defending placing value | in either. | | Further, public interest and self-interest are not concepts in | direct opposition. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the | best socio-political systems are the ones which best align the | two. | | edit: Further thought: consumer protection laws exist to bring | those two into better alignment. In a market where there are | many small competitors, it wouldn't make economic sense for any | individual to lobby to destroy these protections, as everyone | is subject to the same rules. Amazon is large enough that | tipping the scales in favor of the self-interest of its | business affects it in an outsized way. I think a big part of | the problem here is the size of the market actor. | 1cvmask wrote: | I am using the academic definition of rational actor. | | But the true irrational ones are the voters. They elect the | same folks with a track record of serving the corporate | elites and then get upset when the same politicians act | against them. | | Blame the voters. Voters have agency. The voters are the | enablers of the politicians. | klabb3 wrote: | > Blame the voters. Voters have agency. | | Meta: I appreciate your candidness in getting to the point, | I wish more political debate was like this instead of | wrapped in layers of fluff. | | I disagree though, and I'd go further and say selectively | assigning agency - especially on a binary basis - distorts | the solution space and waters down any good faith attempts | to further the discussion, albeit unintentionally. | | Our implementation of democracy is not a magically balanced | game where incentives line up in perfection. As a result, | you cannot point to an outcome and blame the players any | more than you can do in a video game with a shitty meta. In | reality, players interpret and influence the rules of the | game itself. | | In particular, our modern version of democracy is based on | the fundamentals of marketing - where actors influence (aka | nudge) aggregate behavior and sentiments, to get what they | want. This system is vulnerable to feedback cycles leading | to large concentrations of power - both political and | corporate. The last decade is a prime example of both - not | just in the US, but globally. | uoaei wrote: | > I am using the academic definition of rational actor. | | No you're not. You're assuming specific time and influence | horizons for what can be considered an "outcome" of | allegedly rational actions, and using that to retroactively | define rationality. | | If we consider "avoiding fucking up the entire planet so | that the economy can boom by including more participants | and economic activity, so that Amazon can grow even bigger | and more profitable" to be the outcome that we are | considering, then what Amazon does is highly irrational. | missedthecue wrote: | "Rational self-interest" is a specific academic economics | term. | | https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis- | mon... | omnicognate wrote: | That doesn't change anything the post you're replying to | said. Rational self-interest in that sense is a simplifying | assumption made as part of the process of mathematically | modelling economic behaviour. It's not a prescription for | how a real world company like Amazon _should_ behave. | | Somebody will probably now bring up "fiduciary duty" and | "shareholder value" which are almost as irrelevant. | missedthecue wrote: | Why should we expect Amazon (or anyone for that matter) | to engage in behaviour that favors you at their own | expense? That makes no sense to me. Of course they should | act in their own rational self interest, just like you | and I do. | omnicognate wrote: | The point I made wasn't about what Amazon should or | shouldn't do. It was about the irrelevance of the | economic modelling concept of "rational self-interest" | (which describes behaviour, rather than prescribing it) | to that question. | | If you think humans or companies _should_ work solely on | the basis of self-interest then you 're in good company | (especially if you're from the US, though it's far from a | uniquely American view). I'm not going to dissuade you by | arguing with you on HN, but I do disagree. I hope at some | point you and the many, many people with similar views | learn to look at the world a bit differently. | missedthecue wrote: | How is it irrelevant to model that way when we're in | agreement that everyone tends to act in their own | rational self interest? | cowpig wrote: | A specific academic term that has philosophical | implications that I'm saying are harmful | | edit: maybe not in all contexts, but certainly in the | context of the comment I was replying to | nitwit005 wrote: | We get the choice between two candidates, both of whom will act | in corporate interests, most of the time. Even magical, all | knowing, voters that perfectly optimize the selection won't fix | the issue. | dfxm12 wrote: | Maybe if you only pay attention to national general | elections. We didn't get here overnight and yeah, one | election can't fix this either. That's not an excuse to have | a defeatist attitude though! Just being informed can help you | see there's more to it. Based on your comment, one thing I | would suggest you get more involved in primary elections. | avgcorrection wrote: | This is a fantastical claim when you think about it. You are | effectively claiming that both (1) US citizens systematically | choose politicians that are corporate friendly (because this is | the more general truth--they are friendly to all entities with | money) and that (2) this "choice" is so free that you can just | "vote for someone else" (who?). | | Another (less fantastical claim) is that _most_ politicians are | corporate friendly and in turn you don't really have such a | _free_ choise. | nescioquid wrote: | > Amazon is a rational company and acts in its own interest. | The politicians we elect act in Amazons interest. So we are to | fault for this. | | When I was young, I was told that even in totalitarian | societies, you got to vote. There might be one name on the | ballot, but you got to vote. People refuse to vote 3rd party | for fear of throwing a vote away, yet only corporatist | candidates will fly under D or R. Voting for different Ds or Rs | won't change anything. | | The passage you quote is merely one small illustration of | regulatory capture, a normalized form of corruption. | xbar wrote: | We have to not vote for the corporate politicians. | | Which ones are those? | avmich wrote: | We have to look at them and find out. We have to _constantly_ | look at them, politics isn't a single transaction - you can't | have democracy running by itself, you have to always | practically support it with attention and resources. | Nasrudith wrote: | Corporate isn't a useful term of division nor a guide to | policy. If say Maine lost their mind and decided to try to | autarkize their state government they would wind up just | running things far less efficiently from effectively a | neurotic a fear of companies as HP Lovecraft had of the | ocean. | | The entire framing of "the people vs. corporations" is a | massively overreductive us-vs-them cliche used in service of | demagoguery. It is divorced from the reality of not only how | the system works but even how any theoretical system could | and would work. Instead it is about emotional flattery. | | The whole dichotomy is worse than useless. Like trying to | divide politicians between who is a grey and who is a | snakeperson, a nonsensical distraction. There are always | conflicting interests in complex arrangements. Just look at | the dynamics and all of the interests for and against the | proposed "US made union manufactured electric vehicle | subsidy". | whoknowswhat11 wrote: | I am already swamped every year in California with annual privacy | notices which seem to have to be mailed in paper format. | | We also seem to have these cookie alert pop-ups in California - | also very annoying. | | Is anyone tired of this stuff rather than enjoying it? We keep on | being told this is all to help us. | | I find these cookie pop-ups stupid and annoying, just require a | policy on the site, if I care I can go look. | | I'd be far FAR more impressed if we actually BANNED these damn | things and switched to a basic enforcement model where even 1% of | the crap on the net got cleaned up. | dfxm12 wrote: | Compromise is when no one gets what they want. Corporations | ostensibly don't get unfettered access to your data, and you | have to navigate those pop ups. | | Of course, thanks to dark patterns and more importantly | regulations with no teeth, the corporations usually get their | way in the end. | | We're dealing with pop ups either way, so I'm not too annoyed | with the current status quo, but yeah, it would be great if | regulations could exist that just said no with real | consequences for non compliance. | whoknowswhat11 wrote: | This pop-up love is the stupids thing ever. | | The reality - they are too lazy to just put in a bait email, | watch it get sold improperly and prosecute. That's all it | would take, no pop-ups needed. | emodendroket wrote: | California, I've noticed since I've moved here, is in love with | giving you a million notices nobody ever reads and that have no | effect on anybody's behavior (the way every second thing you | buy "contains chemicals known to the state of California to | cause cancer" is just the most obvious example). If they want | to regulate something they should actually do it instead of | wasting everybody's time with that stuff, imo. | DavidPeiffer wrote: | California causes a large annoyance to supply chains and | manufacturing. Their strict environmental standards mean as a | trucker, you either service California or not. It's not | something you just decide to do starting next week. From | memory, the truck engine has to be under 10 years old and | meet really strict emissions standards, costing a significant | premium. | | For manufacturers, ensuring those stickers are in anything | sold in California is a pain, and when you make millions of | units, it often doesn't make sense to just apply the sticker, | labeling, and documentation to everything you make. | emodendroket wrote: | The environmental standards have a more tangible benefit | and can have a pseudo-national effect given the size of | California's market, so I'm not critical of that aspect. | Slapping warning labels on everything without changing it | feels like a waste of time, at least if you're not | selective enough to make them useful to consumers. | [deleted] | tuyguntn wrote: | This is crazy. Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. How | many laws are created for the convenience of corporations and | select people at the cost of ordinary because of lobbying? | | Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? | avmich wrote: | I think Lawrence Lessig was trying to focus on this before 2016 | presidential elections. | tuyguntn wrote: | yeah I think this must be solved before any other secondary | problems. | | If taxpayers need President, then let their campaign funded | only by taxpayer money. Same applies to Senate and everyone | who is elected. Limited and equal amount to all sides and let | them be as creative as possible. But never take corporation | money | pstuart wrote: | Indeed. The problem is not lobbying, but campaign finance | reform. Conceptually simple, politically impossible. | chefandy wrote: | Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some | fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I | mean, how rare is that among folks with political | aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too | far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too | much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion | dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support | for his ideas seemed plausible. | ZetaZero wrote: | It's nearly impossible to get your name on a state-wide ballot | without taking corporate lobbying. | jedimastert wrote: | > Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal | | What do you think "lobbying" actually means? | jimbob45 wrote: | What's wrong with lobbying? If you have a viewpoint that you | feel isn't being heard, you're free to form a non-profit and | have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to | you. | | Remember that laws are hard to create and usually incredibly | complex. Even something as simple as Net Neutrality isn't black | and white in terms of winners and losers. What you perceive as | "laws created for the convenience of corporations and select | people at the cost of ordinary people" may not be as numerous | as you may think. | Lich wrote: | Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't | have the money to do it. That's why it's almost always a | corporate lobbyist. Why do you think it's a good system to | have concerns heard only for those who have financial wealth? | That skews government policy towards elites and the wealthy, | and favors corporate benefit and health. Do you really | believe the government is in service to corporations or to | the American people? Even when it is an individual, it's | almost always a billionaire like Bezos or Bloomberg who is | trying to STEAL American taxpayer money so that they can go | on their stupid space trips. | avgcorrection wrote: | > Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they | don't have the money to do it. | | Meta-comment but this is how all HN threads on topics like | this turn out: | | - Topic: Perpetual rights to all clean drinking water in | Nigeria put up for auction | | - Half the thread: It's nuts that rich people are able to | just buy something that should be a basic human right | | - The other half: Excuse me, but who said that only rich | people can buy these rights? There's no _law_ that is | stopping them from buying this right. Regular people can | crowdfund those $20B if they really want. Another option is | for the citizens of Nigeria to vote with their feet and | move to another country if access to clean drinking water | is so important to them. And should clean drinking water be | a human right anyway? What if we lived in the vacuum of | space and there was no drinking water, huh? Didn't think of | that, did you. And human rights are basically tantamount to | slavery since ... | jimbob45 wrote: | That sounds like you agree with the current state of things | though. You agree that citizens should form groups to lobby | to counter corporation lobbying. You agree that the | government should (and does) give these groups money to | lobby via tax statuses and tax incentives. The only | disagreement is that you believe these groups should be | given more money. | glitcher wrote: | I believe there are plenty of examples available of lobbying | that ends up benefiting companies at the expense of the | public. To counter your arguments, I would challenge anyone | to try to out-lobby Intuit when it comes to regulation around | tax filing. How well do you suppose that opposition has fared | so far in the face of huge corporate dollars? | cute_boi wrote: | The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby | which means its usually corporation that does it. And if | corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them | are not going to be billion dollar corporation. | | "you're free to form a non-profit and have the government | subsidize your quest to have them listen to you" This is a | common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to | happen. | | Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't | mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We | should always complain about wrong law that is created for | skulduggery. | | Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation | so we are clear its mostly good. | azinman2 wrote: | Because the people making laws benefit from it. It's the people | that are hurt. | | It's also not clear what would happen if you somehow were able | to make all campaign spending derived from public funds and | make lobbying illegal. It would likely just increase direct | corruption, but perhaps it would be less than you see now. | | On the other hand, while only available to the wealthy, | lobbying allows for a kind of direct democracy. | moritonal wrote: | I'm fairly sure what you described is the UK system? | jessaustin wrote: | _Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda?_ | | Rational people talk about it enough that eventually all their | friends beg them to stop talking about it. Perhaps you meant to | ask why this is never mentioned on popular commercial news | media? Or perhaps you meant to ask why no politician affiliated | with Democrat or Republican ever mention it? Those would have | been perceptive questions. | quickthrowman wrote: | Nobody talks about it because Citizens United v FEC would need | to be reversed to change anything in a meaningful way. | | Reversing that Supreme Court decision is about as likely as | admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state, it won't happen. | openasocket wrote: | I'm in the DC area, have friends in the lobbying space. | Lobbying generally doesn't involve money changing hands, or | campaign contributions, or anything like that. Lobbying | congresspeople generally consists of contacting them and | convincing them the value of certain positions. Realistically, | lobbying is essential for Congress to function. You can't | possibly expect every single member of Congress to be an expert | on everything they could ever possibly legislate about. They | require someone to provide them with background information so | that they can make an informed decision. To some extent they | can use their staff, or the Congressional Research Service, or | do some research on their own, but generally speaking that's | not enough. Legislators often maintain active relationships | with lobbying groups that they agree with, and can use them as | a source on input on legislation. This is no different than a | citizen choosing to support a particular bill because a group | they trust and respect supports it. A significant amount of | lobbying is done simply because a legislator values that | group's opinions. | | When we're talking about more coercive lobbying, it's often | done on influence rather than money. A good example is the NRA. | There are a significant number of voters for whom gun rights | are very important, and will vote for or against a particular | candidate based entirely on what the NRA says to do. The NRA | thus has a lot of power, and I'd argue more so than could be | achieved simply with money. | | Businesses can lobby based on influence too. If a particular | company or industry employs a significant number of your | constituents, as a congressperson it is in your best interests | to cater to that company or industry. If legislation is passed | that helps that industry, they may expand and you can come back | to your voters at election time showing you created jobs. If | you pass legislation that hurts that industry and people are | laid off, on the other hand, people may blame you for it. Even | the thought that you might pass a law that might help or hurt | an industry can change votes. | | Don't get me wrong, we need to reform campaign financing. But | lobbying in general is a perfectly reasonable and necessary | function. | s5300 wrote: | ? Citizens United was a long time ago | | Nobody has started killing any of the ultra rich involved in it | yet so nothing is going to happen. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Why no one in the US brings up this to the political | agenda?_ | | Because the term "lobbying" is overinclusive to the point of | being useless. 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's | necessary to the functioning of a republic. It involves people | likely to be affected by the law telling lawmakers their | thoughts. These people can be companies. They are also, very | frequently, interest groups, nonprofits and individual voters. | | This is why "let's ban lobbying" is a siren call. If you have | representative democracy, you will have influence peddling, | _i.e._ lobbying. "Let's ban corporate lobbying" becomes more | tangible, but keep in mind this means you're basically banning | every business that can't fly its employees to D.C. from being | able to fully communicate with lawmakers. (It also leaves | untouched the community organizing side of lobbying, arguably | its most potent part, and would probably fall afoul of the | First Amendment.) | | The unfortunate effect of this overinclusiveness is it papers | over the bad stuff. The lack of enforcement around campaigns | coordinating with PACs. Board seats and cushy jobs offered to | former lawmakers. Campaign donations from non-natural persons. | This is the stuff I think people are actually offended by. But | it's currently too technical for the base that wants to "ban | lobbying." | | TL; DR If you want to push the needle on this issue, drop the | idea that lobbying is bad. If you've donated to the EFF, you've | hired a lobbyist. If you've called your Congressperson, you've | lobbied. | r00fus wrote: | This is a "everyone does it" excuse. The reality is that the | game rules are twisted by those who spend the most. | | Look at the dollars involved in Amazon or other corporations | vs. the EFF and you'll see enough of a disparity that EFF and | you calling your congresscritter are a rounding error in | comparison. | Nasrudith wrote: | Rights are symmetrical in a functional system. Everyone | does it isn't an excuse it is an acknowledgement that | trying to make it "nobody does it" won't work. At best the | courts will strike it down and at worst you will have just | established a small priveledged class of exceptions. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Look at the dollars involved in Amazon or other | corporations vs. the EFF and you 'll see enough of a | disparity that EFF and you calling your congresscritter are | a rounding error in comparison_ | | I agree with you. But people observing that disparity in | influence and access and concluding that the solution is to | call for banning lobbying is part of the problem. (There is | a host of problems, ranging from campaign finance laws to | disclosure rules. They each need a solution that, | unfortunately, hasn't yet found a compelling banner.) | gaganyaan wrote: | Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between | companies and legislators then. All communication must be | publicly available. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Let 's make it a felony to have any private contact | between companies and legislators then_ | | Don't know if it's a felony to violate. But this sounds | consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's | reporting requirements [1]. | | > _All communication must be publicly available_ | | This is a bad idea. It privileges those with physical | access to lawmakers. It will also crowd out a good amount | of honest communication in favor of theatre for public | consumption. | | That said, there might be a way to thread the needle such | that substantial communications around actual legislation | get captured. Mark-ups on drafts, suggested language, | official policy memos, _et cetera_. | | [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal- | finances/disclosure | pacifist wrote: | The same people who benefit from this relationship need to | pass the laws that kill the goose. Maybe you think there | are enough honest politicians to pull it off. I've been | been around long enough to have been disabused of that | notion. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _I 've been been around long enough to have been | disabused of that notion_ | | Unless you're younger than 20, you've seen a Congress | pass such reforms [1]. If you were around in the late | 70s, you may also recall the Ethics in Government Act of | '78. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Ref | orm_Act | avgcorrection wrote: | > 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's necessary to the | functioning of a republic. | | This message was brought to you by the Organization For the | Promotion of Ethical Lobbying. | dfxm12 wrote: | _Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda?_ | | Some politicians do (especially progressives, like Sanders, the | Squad, etc.), but they are in the political minority compared | to politicians who are swayed by corporate money. The fact is, | your average voter singularly cares more about other things | (2A, abortion, taxes) than their own privacy. The average media | outlet is also very pro-corporation, which, in turn leads to | your average voter being pro-corporation as well. | user3939382 wrote: | > progressives, like Sanders, the Squad | | As far as I can tell: Bernie doesn't want to be run out of | town like Ralph Nader -- he will do nothing to actually buck | the establishment DNC. The squad feigns protest to the | establishment DNC (Pelosi et al) only when it's already | certain that their voice/vote won't actually effect the | outcome of the issue in the direction the establishment | wants. It's a scam to keep people voting for Democrats even | when they can see the party is corrupt. | gruez wrote: | >Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. | | Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, | whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to | persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff | (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve | "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or | groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their | representatives is part of the democratic process. | _jal wrote: | > Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging | with their representatives is part of the democratic process. | | That's the pretty way to present it. | | In practice, "Citizens, or groups of citizens" is true but | unfortunately vague, sort of similar to "Mammals, or groups | of mammals, are known to sometimes build buildings out of | prefabricated concrete." | | Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly | undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the | job. | nielsbot wrote: | Or "retired" government officials via the revolving door. | | This is also backdoor bribery: "help us out, you got a | cushy job waiting for you in the future." | gruez wrote: | >Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly | undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the | job. | | So you only object to the fact that lobbying is done by | specialists rather than laypersons? | _jal wrote: | I was objecting to intentionally obfuscatory language | that is frequently employed in attempts to obscure the | fact that lobbying as commonly understood is an activity | almost exclusively enjoyed by the well-resourced and/or | powerful. | gruez wrote: | 1. it shouldn't be surprising that well-resourced and/or | powerful have more resources to do _any_ activities, be | it lobbying, or going on european vacations | | 2. is your argument that lobbying should be banned | because almost exclusively enjoyed by the well-resourced | and/or powerful? I'm not sure that's a very persuasive | argument. We ban speeding because it's harmful, not | because the rich are well-resourced and/or powerful to | afford fast cars. | _jal wrote: | I have offered no opinion on lobbying itself in this | thread. | | The entire content of what I want to convey here is | contained in the comment you're replying to. | CabSauce wrote: | You could bribe someone to do something in the public | interest too... I'm betting it would still be 'illegal'. It's | a distiction without much of a difference. | avgcorrection wrote: | Yeah. So benign, right? "Anyone can do it". Only in practice | it's the people (and "people" (corporations)) with the most | money that do it the most. | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | Someone could be bribed to do "good" stuff too. | | I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of | things of value that does not conform to existing rules. | gruez wrote: | >I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer | of things of value that does not conform to existing rules. | | I didn't intend to say "well it could also be used for good | so we should keep it legal", but yeah this is probably the | better take. A better analogy might be: it's totally legal | to persuade a judge of your case (ie. what the | prosecution/plaintiff/defense does), and totally part of | the legal process, but persuading a judge via bribes is | illegal. | mmazing wrote: | This. | | All of these other topics you see on either side of the | political spectrum are convenient distractions for things like | the Panama Papers, lobbying, and corporate welfare. | | How do we keep topics that matter across the political spectrum | at the forefront of public view? | LeifCarrotson wrote: | > One 2018 document reviewing executives' goals for the prior | year listed privacy regulation as a primary target for Carney. | One objective: "Change or block US and EU regulation/legislation | that would impede growth for Alexa-powered devices" | | It's one thing to assume that corporations will act in their own | self-interests, but this is like they said the quiet part loud. | How do you write or even read that document and believe you're | acting in a moral or ethical manner? | tqi wrote: | If you reject the notion that Alexa-powered devices are bad, | would this be immoral or unethical? ie medical marijuana | lobbyists would probably say that they are looking to "change | or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede | growth for medical marijuana." | uoaei wrote: | > If you reject the notion that Alexa-powered devices are bad | | Why would we do that, considering the evidence available to | us? | crusty wrote: | If YOU were an Amazon executive in a role that had | influence over the program and wanted to keep our advance | your position. | | The comment author here is voicing the inner monologue of | one of these people, not one of the other 99.999+% of | people. | dantheman wrote: | Why are the bad? what evidence is there? | darksaints wrote: | What if it said: "change or block US and EU | regulation/legislation that would impede growth for BigCo | Marijuana Vape Pens"? | | See the difference? One is protection for an industry, the | other is a protection for a specific company. | HWR_14 wrote: | That's a horrible difference. You're talking about phrasing | determining morals and ethics? I mean, do you condemn | politicians who talk about helping a specific person with a | policy to try to make it real? Obviously Amazon's lobbyists | are trying to protect Amazon's interests. | | If you think Alexa should be regulated, you can think it's | immoral. But I have no problem with Amazon identifying why | they care. Unless you think that the lobbyists read that as | "make sure there is an Alexa named exemption". | Jensson wrote: | > You're talking about phrasing determining morals and | ethics? | | The courts certainly do care about phrasing. You are | taught to not say "we will destroy the opposition" at big | companies so that they can avoid lawsuits, instead you | say things along the lines of "we will provide the best | user experience". Ultimately it is basically the same | thing, but the second is safe in courts, the first will | create a problem. | | Edit: Case example: Google said AMP was to "provide the | best user experience". But it also helps Google "destroy | the opposition". So why isn't there a court case over | Google abusing their position? Because they didn't say | the second part here, just repeated the first. Words do | matter a lot. | roystonvassey wrote: | Not sure about morality but yes it's unethical and borderline | illegal. If an elected body is planning legislations, | actively blocking it means you're suppressing the voice of | the public and the voters. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _If an elected body is planning legislations, actively | blocking it means you're suppressing the voice of the | public and the voters_ | | This is reductive. When the Congress was writing | cryptocurrency reporting rules, the crypto industry asking | for clarifying amendments (to avoid classifying miners as | exchanges) wasn't suppressing anyone's voice. It was | supplementing it with specialist knowledge. | elliekelly wrote: | When we write laws about speeding should we ask sports | car owners to supplement the legislative record with | their specialist knowledge? | MrLeap wrote: | If the legislation, as worded, applies to cars on race | tracks -- probably? I think these metaphors are getting | far afield. | | Privacy is a fundamental thing that's more important (and | harder!) to protect than most things. | | It's probably also a good idea to get a breadth of | stakeholder's opinions on an issue. Lobbyists definitely | have a massively outsized portion of this breadth. | judge2020 wrote: | They're not "actively blocking it" any more than someone | holding a protest outside of the Capitol building is. The | difference is that they have lobbying money, which is | allowed and generally encouraged by the congresspeople | themselves. Any consumer regulation that directly targets | an industry is more often than not a call-to-action for the | lobbyist to dedicate more of their budget to the | lawmaker(s) in question. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lobbying_in_the_Un | i... | hogFeast wrote: | Because the purpose of a govt is to make laws for everyone. | The tyranny of the majority is just tyranny in the end | (this is what authoritarian govts, ironically, fail to | understand about democracy...debate and disagreement seems | weak and decadent to them, it is not, I think that US | politics has relatively weak controls on lobbying but the | perfect outcome is not a ban on lobbying...most successful | authoritarian govts operate by claiming to represent the | voice of "the people"). And btw, this is how US politics is | designed, the people who created the US constitution were | very aware of how democracy ended the first time. | HWR_14 wrote: | > the people who created the US constitution were very | aware of how democracy ended the first time. | | Being conquered by a foreign power? | | How does that relate? | LeifCarrotson wrote: | That's a good counterpoint, I guess the obvious question is | why your viewpoint is opposed. | | Medical marijuana lobbyists have an easy, obvious answer: | impediments are the result of a failed and ill-considered war | on drugs that's actively causing lots and lots of harm. It's | easy to see yourself as virtuous in that scenario. | | Anti-privacy lobbyists have to go through more difficult | mental contortions: large movements of people are concerned | about the privacy invasions our devices represent, and that | puts our future profits at risk. People are very capable of | being irrational when their paycheck depends on it, but that | feels too far to me. | judge2020 wrote: | That's going into arguments on merit, though. The point is | that trying to influence regulation shouldn't be seen as an | issue. Berate the company for doing something you're | against, but everyone has a voice, even corporations with | more money to influence congress than the average person. | mitigating wrote: | What if corporations are acting against the public good | the majority of the time and there aren't alternative | methods of stopping this (boycotts don't work etc). | | It's better to ban it since it's mostly evil. | colpabar wrote: | Do you really think C-level people at amazon care _at all_ | about acting morally or ethically? They have lots of money, and | US politicians accept bribes to make things go a certain way. | This is just business as usual for everyone involved. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-19 23:00 UTC)