At the risk of getting too political on HN, the knee-jerk reaction to national (sometimes even international) solutions for every problem is tiresome and unwise.
Some problems necessitate that, but most do not, this being one of them.
I can't find the source, but I read a strong argument about the difficult of moving between nations, states, and municipalities, and the conclusion was that the more localized the legislation, the greater freedom people have. "Vote with your feet"-type deal.
The only time I have ever heard of people moving somewhere because of laws is rich people moving to save on taxes. I have not personally known a single person who has actually voted with their feet on issues like this. Maybe I'm an outlier on that, but anecdotally it just doesn't seem like a real thing in practice despite it being a common theory. I would guess that is especially true on something like privacy which is likely very few peoples top priorities when choosing a place to live.
Many people move because of taxes, government programs, cost of living, education, social norms, housing, transportation, job opportunities, etc.
All of these are directly or indirectly influenced by policy.
---
Would you move purely because of a DMV privacy policy? No, probably not. But the basic principal of being able to choose your government by your location is sound.
At the extreme local level, consider HOAs. Their presence certainly influences people's choice to live there.
Almost all the things you listed that in my experience actually motivate people are indirectly influenced by policy. The things that are directly influenced by government action like government programs rarely seem to have an impact (taxes can be an exception like previously mentioned).
>Would you move purely because of a DMV privacy policy? No, probably not. But the basic principal of being able to choose your government by your location is sound.
But doesn't that last sentence invalidate the first? If no one actually moves based off privacy law, the idea of allowing people to choose their own privacy law through voting with their feet is pointless in practice.
I don't think HOAs are a good comparison because it is trivially easy to move a couple blocks within a city in comparison to moving to a different state or country. Also a lot of problems within HOAs stem from interpersonal conflicts and not fundamental differences in political ideology.
> it is trivially easy to move a couple blocks within a city in comparison to moving to a different state or country
Exactly. Extreme example of how the more localized we can keep politics, the better people can choose their government.
> If no one actually moves based off privacy law
A. Just like employment, there is a totality of factors to consider.
B. That should tell you how important it is.
> Also a lot of problems within HOAs stem from interpersonal conflicts
Have you ever seen state or national news?
---
I'm suggesting that as a rule, it's best to localize policy when possible.
Even if you disagree with the principal of "vote with your feet", there is still the point of how unnecessary it is to have 300 million people reach a consensus on DMV operation, when all you really need is the couple million it actually affects.
>Exactly. Extreme example of how the more localized we can keep politics, the better people can choose their government.
Using this logic, why doesn't every block in the US have their own local government? The reason is that these things don't scale linearly and that some decisions need to be made on a large scale in order to be practical. You can't have individual blocks creating their own privacy legislation and expect companies to be able to meet every law in every jurisdiction. There is a reason you have probably gotten dozen of "We have updated our privacy policy" emails over the last two months and that is because of the CCPA. Are we supposed to go through that process every time any individual municipality adjust their laws? Coming to a consensus on a singular approach to something like that is much more efficient even if large groups of people are unhappy with the final law.
Poor people move for Medicaid or housing. If you have a chronic condition in a state that doesn’t offer optional services, it may make sense to move to a state like NY that offers them. At one time, the county social services folks would offer you a bus ticket to help you on your way.
Housing is a similar issue, if circumstances call for subsidized housing, it’s often easier to move to a big city like NYC.
Schools are another big reason. If you have kids and live in place with poor governance like Kansas, you’ll likely benefit from moving.
There are also snowbirds who return to northern states for medical reasons, usually due to different policies.
Its a private association formed when a residential subdivision is developed. It sets up rules that the owners must follow in maintaining their homes. No junk in your front lawn. You might need to get prior approval for changing the outside of the house. Often times there is a monthly fee that goes towards landscaping or common amenities like pools. You agree to these terms when you acquire the home and subsequent buyers must do so also. After most of the homes are sold, the homeowners elect a board to run the association. Sometimes the members of the boards can be power hungry and vindictive. The homeowners can all vote to end the association at some point so older single family homes tend not to be under an HOA.
Homeowner association. They tell you the color you can paint your house, if your mailbox has a chip in the paint they can fine you and if you don't pay lose your house, a major story where a proud military veteran wasn't allowed to fly an American flag, someone got in trouble over the color of their swing set they bought for their kids, etc.. You pay a monthly fee to them. Some provide services like a pool, clubhouse, some are gated, etc... Some like them, some don't like... Probably depends on the community but some are over reaching. Some even try to tell people it's illegal to have satellite television service too, because they think the dishes look ugly but the Over-the-Air-Reception Devices (OTARD) law overrides that.
I'm not really a huge fan of HOA's personally, but maybe if I was a millionaire with a mansion some are nice, but some HOAs are just regular people with like 100K home values. So not only do you have the city telling you what you can do with your property, you have people who couldn't get elected to a real city government telling you what you are allowed to do with your property on top of what the city and state says.
Right now the only HOA I think I'd want to live at is the Golden Oaks one, which is a real estate development at the Walt Disney Resort, but not rich enough yet for that... Can dream I guess haha. One of the Walmart executives has a house there though, so super wealthy people. I think a lot of it is just vacation homes, but I'd like it year around. But only because of the location and being a huge Disney fan, otherwise I hate HOAs in general but maybe some other areas I might be a fan but in general I rather live without one... So many HOA horror stories online. but if I was some millionaire, living in a gated community I think I'd feel safer.
>I'm not really a huge fan of HOA's personally, but maybe if I was a millionaire with a mansion some are nice, but some HOAs are just regular people with like 100K home values.
I would worry more about neighbors who don't keep up their property in a neighborhood of cheaper homes than a neighborhood of millionaires.
In the last year I moved out of Washington state in response to the passage of 1639[1] and other similar laws. Unfortunately I will likely be paying more taxes now since the state I moved to has an income tax while WA did not. I can agree that it is probably uncommon to move in order to be away from one particular law, but I doubt it's too uncommon for people to move to an area that shares a more common political worldview.
As a member of the LGBT community, there are entire states I will not move to until they fix their legislation/legislators. I also will never move back to PA because of their filial responsibility laws.
But I think this is one of the problems which requires a national solution (or for small countries an international solution). Look at the EU where many of the member countries had their own privacy laws, some of them stricter than the GDPR, but until the GDPR few cared about privacy laws, not even all government agencies in did. A unified privacy law at the EU level got a much higher rate of adoption than the previous mesh of local laws.
Yeah but with other states and countries saying their privacy laws applies outside of the border, seems like a bunch of duplication and conflicting laws. Kinda insane as soon as you put something on a server, you are expected to comply with laws all over the world. For example School Districts in Ohio are suing Facebook for selling ads to a charter school that went out of business.
If someone from California buys a summer house and registers a car to keep in Vermont to garage there and never drives it to California, I wonder if California considers Vermont violating their new privacy law since no opt-out but wonder if they could really enforce it on Vermont anyways. Seems like uncharted territory, but I know some companies have said they plan to follow the sticker privacy laws even if you live outside of California or Europe since it's easier to developed processes that way.
Seems like privacy law in the US is all over the place. One for banking, one for children, one for education, one for health, one for email marketing and then laws scattered all over the different states. Then I think there's even a specific law about library books checkout history too. So seems bad for startups or even mid size companies to keep up with it, especially if states start saying it applies even if you don't have a office in California.
Then if you have a service, legal requests for peoples data you have to handle and the more popular you are, the more common people might misuse your services. For example drug dealers were using Sony Playstations to communicate with each other and then Jussie Smollett for example, Google has to hand over a year of Gmail relating to the hoax he pulled(Maybe he talked to others using Gmail when planning it), but I think if he was a European citizen then providers have to decide to break US or European law, but some stuff is as clear as mud. I feel in that case they'd follow the warrant and deal with breaking European law as I don't think they'd have much choice as a catch 22.
So even if you are trying to do the right thing following the law - maybe even helping get a dangerous criminal of the streets, so many conflicting privacy laws and different agencies responsible for different ones too. Not sure though if Europe has gone after any companies for handing over data to a foreign government relating to a valid legal request where they have offices or data centers but seems you could be screwed either way when trying to decide how to handle the conflicts. Then there was a case involving Microsoft, just because you are a US company if you keep servers anywhere in the world the US can subject them to requests. So sounds like a mess for a company to decide how to handle these edge cases where things conflict, so standardizing on one would help give businesses clarity. Maybe even treaties too.
Yeah but not sure how that works if the parent company is US based, since the US says legal requests even applied to foreign servers in that case. Since large companies have servers all over the world. Then with the cloud and globally accessible services, hard to isolate I think unless there were separate Facebook for each country where you can't friend your friends from Europe if you are in America. Just seems like a mess, but the big companies have enough lawyers to deal with this stuff and advice on conflicts but seems a blow to startups.
I am arguing for GDPR. Corporations and local entities will exploit workarounds if privacy policy is a patchwork across jurisdictions (imagining all servers in the country moving to Arkansas because their privacy laws are non-existent or absent). National standards and federal enforcement are the only way to guarantee consistency.
It's unclear if a Federal law dictating what states can do with information would even be constitutional. This is not a power enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution.
