The video tape law was created basically a reaction to someone finding out and revealing Robert Bork (then a SCOTUS nominee)'s video rentals. The rentals themselves were bland, featuring stuff like Disney films, but I guess Congress got scared. It passed by wide margins at the time. I wonder if they are still scared the same way.
Would be interesting if this gets through, though I imagine clickwrap agreements largely negate this anyway. Would be cool if informed consent required a snail mail agreement, might hurt adoption/growth metrics enough that big cos would stop being so greedy. Though that idea could backfire itself.
This law was passed as a response to a business leaking the rental history of a political figure, not for protecting the privacy of individuals. So, as long as a business doesn’t leak a political figure’s private information, they can pretty much do whatever they want, the court case is just a reminder.
I don't think it's too cynical to say (based on their voting record) that that's the exact question the Heritage Foundation alums on the court as asking themselves at this moment.
I can highly recommend developing a habit of selecting words you don't understand, opening the context menu, and hitting search. Takes somewhere between 2 and 10 seconds to look up acronyms this way.
Sarcasm has nothing to do with bad faith. Posting comments in support of the Constitution costs karma half the time these days. And for virtue signalling, we sure had it pretty good. It would be nice if our society could go back to virtue signalling instead of vice signalling.
It's not plain sarcasm to purposefully misinform somebody asking a legitimate question. They asked for a definition, not your opinion. If you consider your parent comment "supporting the Constitution" maybe you should evaluate whether that was effectively communicated.
A 2 second Google search, GPT2, or reading the article before commenting could have answered their question. It's rude to readers of this site to litter the board with lazy questions like that.
Context - the sibling comments, the things I said afterwards, and that the answer is easily searchable.
IMO the toxicity here is from the other commenter insisting on taking what I said literally, and then digging in and fortifying that demand rather than just taking a step back.
Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
reply