This view is unfortunately common among regular privacy advocates. That makes them politically useless.

To have a hope, this bill needs to target support outside tech, where civic laziness and nihilism are normalized. I’m not seeing any indication of that strategy here.

Dismissing an avenue of progress outright is to be defeatist or to sow defeat.

AI is going to use all this information against us. Because AI alignment can’t be better than people and corporations deploying the AI.

Lack of privacy is now a gaping security hole, being continually exploited on all our devices, across most sites on the internet.

[EDIT: And the leverage that information enables is being auctioned off to manipulators who we are exposed to continuously. This is just the beginning.]

We need to plug this security hole now, before power centralizes further and we can’t.

It contains following:

> (i) Finance and high-risk identity proofing.—No person shall extend credit, originate a loan, open a high-risk financial account, or provide another high-risk financial service based solely on a Social Security number, static identity information, or an uploaded image or copy of a government-issued identity document. A person engaging in such activity shall use multi-factor identity verification reasonably designed to verify both record consistency and claimant control, using less intrusive reasonably reliable methods where available.

> (j) Social Security number not sufficient identity credential.—A Social Security number, taxpayer identifier, or similar identifier shall not by itself be treated as proof of identity for purposes of this Act.

So, to me at least, it sounds like they actually mean "Providers must not use SSN for authentication (including fraud)".

For legitimate newsletters and similar: you delete any and all forms that allow signing up to receive emails without affirmative consent from that email address that they want to receive mail, and you offer a one-click effective-immediately "unsubscribe" to retract that consent at any time. Then, you can tell if you can send someone mail based on whether they're in your database of people who have explicitly consented to send you mail, and you don't ever send email to anyone else other than one-time consent requests and order-confirmation-style transactional mail.

The only legitimate database of emails is "these people have explicitly confirmed to us that we can email them"; any other database is radioactive waste, delete it.

1. User requests for email alice@example.com to be removed from database

2. Company removes "alice@example.com" from 'emails' table

3. Company adds 00b7d3...eff98f to 'do_not_send' table

Later on, the company buys emails from some other third-party, and Alice's email is on that list. The company can hash all the email addresses they received, and remove the emails with hashes that appear in their 'do_not_send' table.

You'd have to normalize the emails (and salt the hashes), but seems doable?