Idaho Company Sues FTC, Claiming Agency Threatened Suit Over Its Tracking Data (wsj.com) 49
A data-marketing and analytics company has sued the Federal Trade Commission, saying the agency is wrongly threatening to sue it for marketing geolocation data that might be used to track consumer visits to sensitive locations such as abortion clinics. From a report: The lawsuit by Kochava was filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Idaho, where the company is based. The FTC didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. The commission announced last week that it would begin considering rules to protect the privacy of a range of consumer data. The Kochava case represents an early salvo in what could be a lengthy battle over the privacy of some online healthcare data. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and leaving the question of abortion's legality to the states. In response, President Biden issued an executive order encouraging the FTC to take new actions to protect consumers' privacy when they seek information about reproductive health.
Re:Eliminated a constitutional right? (Score:5, Informative)
The constitution did not outlaw slavery either. We have an amendment process, but that doesn't cover all the nuances of modern life that happen faster than the constitution can react. Roe was one of those instances. The justices voting to remove Roe lied about their intentions in their confirmation hearings and, in at least one case, believe that Christian "values" trump constitutional issues. Freedom of religion is does not authorize injecting Christianity into the government or its institutions.
Re:Eliminated a constitutional right? (Score:4, Insightful)
The very same thing could be said for the modern idea (Heller, 2008) that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, when The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an "individual" or "personal" right to bear arms. [washingtonpost.com]
Or can you identify which of the Founding Fathers felt that gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right AND that it should NOT be left up to the states to decide? Post a link so we can all read what they wrote.
Re:Eliminated a constitutional right? (Score:4, Insightful)
The word "people" is plural, implying a collective right.
That was from early drafts of the Virginia Constitution, proving that he felt that the states should be allowed to decide whether gun ownership should be an individual or a collective right.
I'm not going to read and debunk all of your quotes. Could you find just one or two that you feel can "identify which of the Founding Fathers felt that gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right AND that it should NOT be left up to the states to decide?"
Re: (Score:1)
The word "people" is plural, implying a collective right.
Also plural in the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth and Seventeenth Amendments. And the body of the Constitution. Where it's pretty clear that what is being referred to is individual rights. Or why are you posting here without the consent of your collective?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, this is really a silly argument. YES, the founding fathers felt that everyone should be armed. They lived in a largely rural environment with slow transportation, and that was a reasonable belief in that situation. It's not reasonable in a largely urban environment with rapid transportation.
The constitution has been twisted all our of whack from the original intent. The 2nd Amendment is only one small place where that's happened. The real problem is that ever since the Constitution was ad
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty sure there are swaths of urban blight today that are all too concerned with police response times or police response at all. I wouldn't lean to heavily on that "slow transportation/rural" argument.
The real problem isn't that we've been reinterpreting the Constitution. It's that we've forgotten the start of the Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! So now it's your turn: find a quote that proves that one of the Founding Fathers "felt that gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right AND that it should NOT be left up to the states to decide."
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly! So now it's your turn: find a quote that proves that one of the Founding Fathers "felt that gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right AND that it should NOT be left up to the states to decide."
They wrote a Bill of Rights that stated "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and not "it's up to the states". They included it in the Bill of Rights. That's pretty much the ultimate written proof. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear and unequivocal. What other right in the Constitution is conditional upon state approval?
The Constitution says what it says.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st only limited Congress, which meant that States could limit speech etc per the Constitution, at least until the 14th passed.
Re: (Score:3)
You think the idea of collective rights is nonsense? Evidently you missed the part of the US Constitution that says, "We the people".
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something being passed around on Reddit that dismisses this mistaken idea using well-documented sources starting from 1689:
Nunn v State in 1846 (https://cite.case.law/ga/1/243/)
"... Rut that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids
Re:Eliminated a constitutional right? (Score:5, Informative)
Because they weren't activist judges that decided Roe v Wade. The majority on the court who made that decision were conservatives. Only very rarely is the supreme court activist (the current overturning might be one such example); generally they need to make a decision, both sides have the law or constitution on their side, and therefore the court is the abitorin the dispute.
The reason I suspect that it never got into the constitution is for the same reason the constitution was never changed to make abortion illegal as well. It's hard to change the constitition. At the same time, the need to create an amendment lessens over time as the decisions becomes established precedent.
Constitutional right to be lied to? (Score:2)
Sounds like you're feeding a troll, if not of the AC variety.
The actual point of the story is that advertisers should follow the advice of that dead comedian. Lying for a living has become too phucking profitable.
How dare the FTC suggest anyone should tell the truth!
There's also the free will argument, as in no one really has much of it. I recently came across a very interesting quote on the topic from Mark Twain. It's in Mark X: Who Killed Huck Finn's Father by Yasuhiro Takeuchi. In Note 2 on page 221 it
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually a non-story. If the a government agency threatens your business with action, but they don't follow through, you need to sue them in order to reduce risk by getting them to rule one way or another. Its not that uncommon. What this has to do with roe v wade, I have no idea. If the point of the story is to say something about the practices of the business that filed the suit, I might argue the story is "fake news". The real story here isn't that the FTC took action. Its that they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having trouble relating your reply to anything I wrote. Are you trying to defend deceptive advertising practices and increasingly sophisticated targeting of the deceptive ads? Are you attacking the government for being feckless? Or perhaps just a Libertarian arguing it's the sucker's own fault for not figuring out the scam? Care to clarify?
Maybe I should have used a different example? I remember seeing a different version of the same idea, though I can't recall the source. Perhaps V for Vendetta by Mo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm correcting you where you said this:
The actual point of the story is that advertisers should follow the advice of that dead comedian. Lying for a living has become too phucking profitable.
That's not what the story is about. The story is about a company trying to compel an agency to rule on something. They aren't fighting a ruling. They are trying to force a ruling to even happen. Which I think is a reasonable thing for them to do. I also think its reasonable for the FTC to rule that they are in violation of the law.
I'm having trouble relating your reply to anything I wrote
/shrug , I'm having trouble relating anything in this reply thread to TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
ACK just short of NAK
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution did not outlaw slavery either.
And? This is irrelevant to answering the question of whether X was a right written into the Constitution or not.
We have an amendment process, but that doesn't cover all the nuances of modern life that happen faster than the constitution can react. Roe was one of those instances.
And? If you don't like the pace of change in law that is possible under the Constitution, then you have to change the Constitutional amendment process itself. Anything else when it comes to enumerating new rights is a fraudulent process. Simply having judges go "X is now a right because we say so" is a recipe for disaster. As one justice put it, "The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, all the Rights came from the Common Law, with the Common Law originating from what Judges said. America is a Common Law country. So there are lots of Rights that are not Statuary.
Re:Eliminated a constitutional right? (Score:5, Interesting)
These aren't really "Christian" values, anti-abortion doesn't exist in scriptures, for protestant denominations that claim to follow sola-scriptura rather than the authority of a church hierarchy. Certainly for protestants there is nothing whatsoever anywhere that says a legally viable human life begins before you've had a chance to light up your post coital cigarette. And yet so many take it as a matter of faith, which is weird. Because that 16 cell blastomere is no more human than your discarded fingernail clippings, so the effort to ban morning-after and same-evening pills is ridiculous. That beating heart that's heard so early is not a heart, and it's not pumping blood.
But all that effort to preserve a precious human life vanishes once the baby is born; "thou shalt not kill" is quickly given exceptions; it's ok to kill in self defense, it's ok to kill in war, it's ok to kill someone who participated in a robbery that went wrong and who had a bad lawyer. They'd really have a stance that wasn't so hypocritical if the anti-abortion legislatures were also anti-death-penalty as well.
Now granted, there are some true believers out there who do think this out and come to the conclusion that clearly the mother must be cared for if being forced to carry the baby to term, and who open charities to support this, who provide free maternal supplies and financial assistance and who help with adoptions or who adopt themselves. Because banning abortion won't stop it, and if someone was truly opposed to abortion they'd find sensible ways to reduce the need for it .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a strict reading of the Bible, namely Genesis, says that you become alive when the breath of life is given by God. Seems about right.
Re: (Score:2)
God must have a full schedule what with all the breathing life into things.
It's just unfortunate that this activity takes up so much of his time that he can't help people dying from cancer, can't stop horrible dehumanizing wars and can't make the lives of hundreds of billions of people something better than misery.
Actually, now that i think of it, god should fuck off with the breathing life into clumps of cells because the largest problem humanity has is overpopulation.
But you know, god is gonna god...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you wrote is true, but that doesn't make this a wrong decision. Perhaps it *should* be a state level decision. I have a strong feeling, though, that if the government, at whatever level, prevents an abortion, they that same government has a strong obligation to ensure that the resulting child has a worthy life. Somehow governmental bodies don't seem to feel that obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because it so happens that in 1973, in the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to have an abortion actually was in the Constitution.
So which Supreme Court do we believe ? the 1973 one, or the 2022 one ? And what if 49 years from now, the 2071 Supeme Court reinstates Roe v. Wade ? How many times do we play that game ? Are Supreme Court decisions not worth more that the paper they're written on ?
A Supreme Court decison should be final and unrepealable. Not happy with the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court did not "eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion". They ruled that such a right was never in the Constitution in the first place.
Correct, they eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion. It's in the 9th Amendment, the one which says, "Just because we didn't list all your rights, doesn't mean you don't have it." It's the opposite of, "The government can do no more than what the words say."
But since a bunch of so-called justices went to diploma mills and never learned what
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st is the big one as deciding when life begins is a religious question. Bible says when breathing, Koran says something like the 2nd trimester, the Pope says at conception and so on.
Meanwhile women have always practiced their right to terminate a pregnancy if they so chose, traditionally with certain plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why has Congress passed so many laws limiting speech that the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional? The government used to censor movies based on the idea it was business speech and not covered by the 1st. Then there are laws like the Espionage Act, originally used to throw pamphlet distributors in prison with the OK of the court of the day (they did change their opinion on that part of the act) amongst other kinds of speech.
Why has the Supreme Court ruled that it is OK to abridge arms ownership in many
Re: (Score:3)
What's unfortunate is not whose side is pushing for more privacy but what it took just to get us this far.
No easy way to opt out. (Score:2)
Also if you look at the customers listed on their main page, it is a lot of heavyweight corporations.
-oh no our business model, we better sue first!
Pre-emptive lawsuits? (Score:2)
So let's ignore the question of abortion rights for a second.
Did I seriously just read that a company is suing a federal agency... because that federal agency threatened to sue the company?
(facepalm)
Re: (Score:1)
It is Idaho. They are a tad slow in the intelligence department. But they make up for that in the anger, emotional response and conspiracy theory departments.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not envision any possible harm coming to a company by receiving a credible threat of an FTC lawsuit?
Nice business you've got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have a nice business. At least, not "nice" as it's defined in any dictionary.
Predatory? Sure. Morally bankrupt? Sure. Nice? Not really.
Re: (Score:3)
For one, businesses that might be the target of a new law can sue to have the law enjoined while it is challenged in court, before anyone has been charged based on the new law. The abortion clinics in all those trigger-law states did this to try and buy themselves time.
I also recall companies suing the government preemptively out of a desire to remove an uncertainty that what they were doing was something that could result in ch
Re: (Score:3)
weapons (Score:1)
Dems weaponize everything for political purposes.