bill

One idea behind the PoC Right to Privacy Act is having tests. A recurring theme with conservative Justices is clarity of legal text. Testing may not exhaust all scenarios but it is useful to see where loopholes may exist or whether a bill that sneaks in while you aren't paying attention is unfavorable to your values. https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/blob/main/tests/te...

Full text: https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/blob/main/bill/rig...

What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.

The bill text is at https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/blob/main/bill/rig... 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 o