Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lokar's commentslogin

The whole industry is based on breaking the law. You don’t get to be Microsoft, Google, Amazon, meta, etc without large amounts of illegality.

And the VC ecosystem and valuations are built around this assumption.


The composition and lyrics are owned separately from the recorded performance.

I'm pretty sure you could even have lyrics with a separate copyright from the composition itself. For example, you can clearly have lyrics without the music and you can have the composition alone in the case that it is performed as an instrumental cover or something.

But the query is of the whole name. In theory they could nxdomain blocked names.

But long ttls and caches would mostly break this as an approach


Ever since the Verisign coup in 2003, the world has had the idea of "delegation-only" and suchlike filtering on responses from superdomain servers. More recently, query minimization was invented. Both of these can militate against the root content DNS servers doing that.

Better still, one can run one's own private root content DNS server. I've been doing that (in several ways) for a couple of decades. If ICANN decided to blackhole (say) www.microsoft.com. tomorrow, my DNS lookups wouldn't be affected.

To affect them, the aforementioned "court action" would have to target Verisign.


I'm curious: how did you implement your "private root content" DNS server such that it keeps up with (valid -- and how would you know?) updates made by the TLD registries via IANA?

Yes and no. See QNAME Minimization (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7816.html).

Or block outbound 53 on residential networks

DNS literally would not work if they did that.

Comcast wonderfully intercepts port 53 traffic and shunts it to their own servers.

I was getting an A record for sending I knew didn't exist. Spent quite a bit of time investigating until I just tried opening the site up in a browser. Then I saw their lovely as page. Thanks guys...


Over the 200 years, most of the readers may have been farmers, or at least lived or worked on farms. That would have been much of the population back then.

No current employee of a corporation can promise that data collected today will not in the future be used for any particular purpose. It's simply not up to them, and companies change massively over time.

Get it in an air-tight legal agreement with some kind of audit provision, actual enforcement and penalties, or don't give out data you care about.


> No current employee of a corporation can promise that data collected today will not in the future be used for any particular purpose.

Yes they can, because data privacy laws forbid collecting data for one purpose and then using it for new ones without notice or consent.


This means that, possibly, I can sue if my data is misused: it does not prevent its misuse. It doesn’t offer any protection if the law changes, or any real protection against constant TOS changes, etc.

That argument is unreasonably strong. How many other illegal things are you worried about in case they become legal again later?

Quite a lot when it comes to privacy, actually.

Depends on where you are.

In the US, privacy policies change every week. And they don't gather consent - they just say "you're using our thing? Okay you consent". They'll send you an email with their new privacy policy. Which you don't read, because it's awful to read. And even if you do read it, it doesn't matter, because it's completely fake. The policy doesn't tell you how they actually use your data. It just says they can use any data for any purpose.


That would be meaningful if there were ever any enforcement.

https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/

And of course the EU does nothing but fine tech companies bazillions of euros for GDPR violations.


If they keep having to do it the fines are obviously not high enough.

The fines keep increasing for repeated violators, up to 4% of global revenue. The idea is to force companies to change behaviour, the fines getting larger is the mechanism for it, they might not be high enough yet but keep violating the law and it will definitely be high.

Having to do it? Why would they want to stop?

The entire point of laws and fines is to get bad actors to NOT DO THE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is literally the entire point of the exercise.

The point of the EU's tech laws is to find American companies violating them so they can charge them big fines. They're not going to be satisfied, they just want to fine them. This is called protectionism.

But it does lead to privacy protections.

(This is similar to how Americans have a religious belief that "regulations are written in blood" and so think it's immoral to ever undo any safety regulation; as a result their building code bans anything anyone has ever thought was bad with not a moment spared for cost-benefit analysis.)


Do you honestly expect a company like Anthropic to take data privacy laws seriously? I do not.

Have you seen GDPR penalties? It's like they fine you 300% of your revenue and then have all your children executed by firing squad.

Anthropic in particular is a PBC founded by weenies who thought the other labs weren't being safe enough. I believe up until a few months ago they never used any user data for training, even if you opted in.


> Have you seen GDPR penalties?

No, i would have love to see them (Hello Microsoft, Google) but, no.



And we can be 100% certain your data is safe because nobody ever breaks the law. /s

How would you even know your data is being used in a way you didn’t authorize?


And not just pushing the boundaries, working with the HW vendors to define them, asking for features and design elements that others don't really even see the point of.

The stock market is not the economy

You are right. It is a lot of your retirement funding, though. There is a lot of debt involved here too. Crash the companies, enough stakeholders get burnt, money gets sucked out of everything else.

How many Americans even have money for retirement?

It reminds me of 1990s Russia were the smart people didn't get caught up in capitalism casino and just kept tending their vegetable garden like they had done for centuries.

To quote Bob Dylan

"If you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose"


About half of Americans have zero retirement savings

Virtually no one under the age of 18 has any. So that's a lot of Americans. Should they have any?

this while factually correct probably requires age distribution. I did not have a penny saved for retirement until I hit mid-to-late-30's. I am 50 now and can retire comfortably today

The median for ages 45-54 is 115,000, for 55-64 185,000

> Russia were the smart people didn't get caught up in capitalism casino and just kept tending their vegetable garden like they had done for centuries.

Ha. Most people didn't have any money to get into the crony/gangster capitalism. Just peasants with their vegetable gardens. How many American have vegetable gardens?


It is insofar as when it does great we get nothing, and when it doesn't we get fired. And when it does bad enough, tons of retirees lose a shit ton of money for literally no reason.

And the people in government and their cronies are getting a cut

Depreciation only helps if you have revenue of the same basic scale to offset (to avoid a paper profit).

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: