SCOTUS to decide if 1988 video tape privacy law applies to internet uses

2/9/2026 at 6:42:08 AM

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.

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

by throwaway81523

2/9/2026 at 1:22:35 PM

Now they'd just pass a law providing only themselves privacy, like how chat control in the EU always has an exemption for those in power.

by deltoidmaximus

2/9/2026 at 11:27:59 AM

It's one of my favorite examples of those in power absolutely losing their shit when surveillance and violation of privacy happens to them.

by chmod775

2/8/2026 at 4:41:17 PM

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.

by j-bos

2/8/2026 at 8:00:26 PM

How will this benefit big business and punish everyone else?

by frogperson

2/9/2026 at 5:03:47 AM

> How will this benefit big business

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.

by nielsbot

2/9/2026 at 12:39:38 PM

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.

by itopaloglu83

2/9/2026 at 3:39:35 AM

I know what POTUS is, but extending the "OTUS" to other people is a tad irritating. What's the SC stand for?

by kristianp

2/10/2026 at 3:51:20 AM

A fun fact, SCOTUS as a term predates POTUS by over a decade. So actually -OTUS was extended to POTUS from SCOTUS, not the other way around. Though both are well over 100 years old at this point. I think POTUS is probably the more well used term today, but in any legal context SCOTUS gets used more or less constantly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/scotus-potus-flotus

by svpk

2/9/2026 at 3:41:22 AM

The first sentence of the article should make that clear. In any case, it's a pretty well-established abbreviation in US policy discussions.

by valleyer

2/9/2026 at 11:39:21 AM

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.

by chmod775

2/9/2026 at 3:42:19 AM

supreme court

by doubletwoyou

2/9/2026 at 10:46:52 PM

Thanks, I'm not a USA person.

by kristianp

2/9/2026 at 5:02:02 AM

[flagged]

by mindslight

2/9/2026 at 5:53:57 AM

Supreme Court, not council. Are you sure you live here?

by llbbdd

2/9/2026 at 5:54:50 AM

Woosh

by gib444

2/9/2026 at 5:57:43 AM

My bad for assuming a good faith answer lol. I didn't realize we were just karma farming and virtue signaling, carry on

by llbbdd

2/9/2026 at 6:06:31 AM

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.

by mindslight

2/9/2026 at 6:22:04 AM

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.

by llbbdd

2/9/2026 at 1:37:52 PM

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.

by Larrikin

2/9/2026 at 6:41:50 AM

"Misinform" ? You do realize we're supposed to be like humans talking, and not robots exchanging PDUs, right?

by mindslight

2/9/2026 at 6:54:30 AM

If that's your excuse to respond with a useless charged non-sequitor, whatever works for you.

by llbbdd

2/9/2026 at 8:08:23 AM

Listen, nobody likes the whoosh but you'd do better treating it as an opportunity for growth.

by mindslight

2/9/2026 at 8:23:52 AM

You're right, I'll leave the defense of the constitution to you. o7

by llbbdd

2/9/2026 at 9:03:07 AM

Please don't.

by mindslight

2/9/2026 at 11:44:39 AM

What a toxic response.

by 7bit

2/9/2026 at 11:43:56 AM

There's nothing in the reply that suggests sarcasm. How do you expect people who don't already know the answer, to identify the response as sarcasm?

by 7bit

2/9/2026 at 4:57:10 PM

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.

by mindslight