31–40 of 68 posts
Because some of us want our government not to protect our Food and Cars as well. Data is one area where humanity has made the fastest progress compared to Cars and Food.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) could not even protect the information of people with security clearances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management... Trey Gowdy's questioning of the people in charge of the OPM is a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK-zEGjxuAA
That doesn't forgive the failure, but instead of saying "let's fix it then", the answer is always: private enterprise!
These days I can't help but read every NYT piece as a desperate plea to the govt for a rescue operation from its tech usurper. Also, the govt is demonstrably worse at protecting information than any FAANG, and they are all abiding by GDPR which is the right regulation IMO
Because some of us want our government not to protect our Food and Cars as well. Data is one area where humanity has made the fastest progress compared to Cars and Food.
Care to elaborate? Outside of unleaded gas, most externalities in the car industry seem to progress slowly in the absence of regulation. Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities
Many regulated risks in automobiles are not external, which is I think where they're out of bounds. I think a certain amount of regulation to ensure consumers are informed of the internal risks of an automobile is reasonable; but the government really oughtn't tell you how safe your car must be for you. Externalities, as you say, are the appropriate domain of regulation.
For some people, it may be preferable to have better fuel economy at a lower price (i.e. Honda can make the Honda Insight again) even if the operator risk is higher; but they should not be allowed to drive a vehicle without adequate stopping, acceleration, and speed, or one which poses excessive risk to fire and rescue workers, other motorists, or pedestrians, or has excessive emissions in their use case.
Right now, emissions regulations on automobiles focus on manufacturer fleet emissions (which is an unabashed pro-incumbent regulation), and emissions on a fixed test cycle; but this means you can pay for the privilege of being in the upper section of a fleet's emissions. Similar with the regulations on stopping speed, acceleration, and pedestrian safety: it seems to often depend on the class of vehicle, and so you can pay for the privilege of worse safety externalities.
Because some of us want our government not to protect our Food and Cars as well. Data is one area where humanity has made the fastest progress compared to Cars and Food.
I just don't get where this type of ideaology comes from. There are plenty of countries with weak governments and not one of them is successful.
Because our food and our cars are something made by someone else that we will buy in the future, at which point the government’s involvement ceases. “Our” data is something that is generated by us, about us, and is ongoing. The last thing some of us want is the government even having access to it much less charged with “protecting” it.
I am pro this idea. I am not sure it can be done via technical means alone.
But, govt is super dysfunctional too.
We, as people, have work to do in the US.