Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info | Hacker News Reader

Trump, Doge Are Trying to Get Around Privacy Laws to Gather Your Personal Info

rollingstone.com

39 pointsleotravis1013 comments

If you need unfettered admin access to modernise software, you're incompetent. You might need to be able to run tools that collect schema and sample records as admin, but that should be controlled and auditable. This is true in a moderate size enterprise company, and should be much more true in government IT.

The main reminder here (not even really a novel takeaway - this ends up happening like clockwork in some shape or form every few generations) is that laws can only be enforced after the damage is done.

Short of overwhelming activism e.g in the form of recall elections where applicable, constitutional conventions, etc., the degradation of both the rule of law and the standing of the United States on the world stage will continue for the next 21 months. And there's every reason to believe that voters suffering today will again be swayed through misinformation to vote against their own interests in the November 2026 congressional elections.

I remember saying the same thing about my girlfriend's conservative mother, in my mid-twenties, around the time when people were very worked up over GWB's supposed degradation of US World standing. It was a mistaken sentiment. What I didn't understand then is that they are voting for their interests. It's just that their and your idea of their interests differs, and they're obviously correct in their evaluation. Because they are them and you aren't. Common misperception.

GWB did indeed harm US's standing in the world, quite a bit. It's remarkable how far we've fallen, to be at all nostalgic for that regime.

That wasn't nostalgia on my end. I was only making an implied point. To remember that era clearly is to know that it is impossible for sentiment to be worse. My point is about the flaws of perception and memory, and regrettably immortal pabulum.

US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United States. Which is irrelevant, on balance, in the modern period.

What are these complaints about? DJT in general? Same record, different guy. Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.

A bottomless fall along which that particular immortal complaint is always relevant is no fall at all. Which was my implication about the relative silliness of the boilerplate comments.

This isn't even a defense of any particular issue. More like a wish for a better breed of critic, if nothing but for a change of pace and interest. Or maybe because we need actually effective critics, to maintain a healthy ecosystem.

I mean, "they aren't aware of their own interests" is truly basement tier immature rhetoric.

Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.

I'm going to just toss the entirety of your comment out to focus on the last line. Yes I can. We all lived through the same 4 years, saw and felt the disaster the first time, and now we're fucking doing it again. If your only policy issue is that you don't think women & gay people deserve rights & you want to be able to use slurs with impunity, you don't have policy positions.

Nobody should be falling into the trap of trying to approach these people as rational actors with a coherent idea of what they want or how the country should be run. They've proven to us, twice in the last decade, that they don't have anything resembling a serious idea.

I'm sure this comment will get flagged & I'll probably get a note about remaining civil, but fuck this whole comment. You may feel fine hand waving, equivocating, & telling yourself this is "business as usual." Sit this one out. Your head isn't in the game and the stakes are different this time.

Spare us the theatrics. Every four years wherein the opposition is in office is a perceived "disaster" for the other side.

Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why?

You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language.

Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else.

Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage?

What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem.

You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board.

It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise.

How do you intend to win?

> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.

87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0]

I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle.

> Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now.

Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate.

[0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024

[1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri...

[2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...

My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest.

Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing.

Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won.

Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent.

Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver...

Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-...

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...

In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs.

As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.

The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.

[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."

---

Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)

You tell me what I supposedly implied, and then set that up as a shifted-goalposts straw-man argument.

Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".

It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.

Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.

Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.

I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.

You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!

The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.

I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.

Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.

But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics on HN but please keep to the guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com