
With this hire, the FCC could soon get tougher on privacy and security - benologist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/24/with-this-hire-the-fcc-could-soon-get-tougher-on-privacy-and-security/
======
mfringel
"The Federal Communications Commission has hired Jonathan Mayer, a rising star
in privacy circles, to serve as its technical lead for investigations into
telephone, television and Internet service providers."

#savedyouaclick

~~~
biot
I put that saved click towards downvoting you. Here's why: your summary tells
me nothing about who Jonathan Mayer is, what his background has been, or why
this will be an effective hire. In order to do that and still save me from
clicking to read the original article, you or others will need to quote
additional parts of that article. If everyone did this, we would end up with a
poor, out of order retelling of most of the article in Twitter-length posts
that lack sufficient context.

~~~
mfringel
I view the point of #savedyouaclick as a way to fill in the missing
noun/verb/adjective in a clickbait title, so that someone can make a more
informed opinion on whether to click through.

The point is not to save you a click in all circumstances, but to save a
needless click due to frustration/curiosity.

~~~
dsr_
IN particular, if you know who Jonathan Mayer is, you don't have to read the
article at all.

I know HN likes to keep the original title if at all possible, but pretty much
every clickbait title could be profitably replaced by a clever submitter:

"FCC names Jonathan Mayer new chief technologist for enforcement"

The only other clickbait title I see right now is courtesy the Washington
Post:

"This might be the most controversial theory for what’s behind the rise of
ISIS"

which would be better as:

"Piketty says inequality drives terrorism"

although that doesn't quite replace reading the article, it's just a lot
better than what was there.

~~~
biot
The top story right now is far more clickbaity: "The secret message hidden in
every HTTP/2 connection".

------
cdubzzz
Hopefully.

A few days ago my wife received a letter from OPM saying that some of her data
was mixed up in their recent snafu. She received three years of free identity
fraud monitoring. I believe she now has two of these monitoring services
running as a result of data breaches. I also have two from different
companies.

I'd love to see more serious penalties/compensation for these sorts of
breaches.

~~~
pc86
You are due compensation if you are damaged as a result of the breach.

Your data being accessible as part of a breach does not entitle you to damages
if nothing actually happens to you.

~~~
Silhouette
_Your data being accessible as part of a breach does not entitle you to
damages if nothing actually happens to you._

The trouble with relying on a compensation principle alone is that invasion of
privacy is typically one of the harms you cannot entirely make good
retrospectively. A lot of personal data is like Pandora's box: once released,
it is out there forever and the data subject is forever at risk of adverse
consequences.

Not all of those adverse consequences can be quantified in purely economic
terms. Financial awards are merely the most pragmatic mechanism we have been
able to establish so far to give some form of compensation after the fact. If
you've ever been the victim of identity theft, or of a physical crime like
burglary, you'll probably understand the sense of violation I am talking
about. You'll probably also know that it doesn't go away just because you have
a monitoring service on your financials or you changed the locks on your home.

Financial compensation for actual damages can't remove the feeling of being
vulnerable that haunts you after you've been the victim of such an incident,
and so there is also a need for processes and deterrents to reduce the risk of
the incident happening in the first place.

------
iLoch
Can we get a non-clickbait title?

