441–450 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In my opinion, that is much more invasive Sorry, what? You’re saying a digitised deaths registry is more invasive than tracking all supermarket purchases?
No. That's not what the parent comment is saying. They're saying that digitising the health records of the deceased is much more invasive.
But to be honest, I don’t care what happens 10yrs after I die. I don’t want to be surveilled for the whole time I’m alive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That attitude makes sense if you come from a low-trust society where the state apparatus thinks it's running an empire. Especially if the country is large and actively trying to reshape the world. Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because…
Even if one happens to approve of the conditions under which personal data is being managed _right now_, even if one happens to approve of the current administrators and thinks they're entirely benevolent, there is no way to know who will be in charge of that data in the future, or what ends it will be used for. Once it's out there, it's out there forever.
Given that it's already out there, there's not much more to fear in terms of a slippery slope. All that's left is to at least force the public sector to disclose more of what's going on and regulate how private interests are allowed to use it.
Otherwise, we already have the dystopia you're imagining, we just don't see it as well.
Some might say 'I don't care' or 'only those who have something to hide have anything to worry about', but I respectfully disagree. For the same reason that I have curtains in my bedroom I want to have agency over my data.
What baffles me is that I'm fairly sure that similar views are shared by many in the HN community, yet the 'crypto/web3' communities receive almost undivided scorn. Yes, it's ridden with scams, but those are still the communities that do the most overall to push zero knowledge and similar privacy-preserving technologies (and contrary to the popular claim here that 'web3 doesn't do anything innovative', some of the zk stuff like STARK/SNARK/PLONK... they already put in production are pretty cutting edge).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow people really forgot that privacy is all about privacy with respect to the government because they are the ones with the monopoly on violence. It is tragic that people think private firms could ever be as evil as governments
Hard-power violence is mostly exclusive to governments, but don't underestimate the power of soft-power "violence" and coercion. Another thing that sets the government and private sector apart is that the government is under (mostly, even if indirect) democratic control, or otherwise accountable to the public, whereas the private sector can get by with bad press, so long as they can continue to operate. As an individ…
I'm not a hard disagree, but I think it's easier (though not easy!) to democratically will your government to regulate private companies than it is regulate itself.
It's happening in China, it's happening in arguably the most 'well-mannered' 'Western' country - at this point it's naive to assume mass data collection won't be coming to your country (and they might not always be as well-mannered as Norway currently is). Some might say 'I don't care' or 'only those who have something to hide have anything to worry about', but I respectfully disagree. For the same reason that I have…
Even if you trade on exchanges your entire order flow is immediately sold to the highest bidder, or if you're unlucky the exchange itself is trading against you. It's pretty horrible for privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow people really forgot that privacy is all about privacy with respect to the government because they are the ones with the monopoly on violence. It is tragic that people think private firms could ever be as evil as governments
At this very moment there are corporations worth trillions of dollars. More money than the worth of many countries combined. The people in charge of these companies command so much capital, they can more or less run the world if they so wish. All they need to do is set policies on loans and the entire world will literally change itself to conform. Corporations are no stranger to violence. They're no stranger to organ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on who _is_ the government. Once you have the data exactly on how unhealthy someone’s choices are, you can lean their behavior towards better behavior(according to those that want government to help people behave better).
I'm saying it does now in Norway and Sweden and they already have all of our medical records.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying it does now in Norway and Sweden and they already have all of our medical records.
We can’t predict how future humans will use this data, especially considering human’s desire to control the behavior of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow people really forgot that privacy is all about privacy with respect to the government because they are the ones with the monopoly on violence. It is tragic that people think private firms could ever be as evil as governments
That attitude makes sense if you come from a low-trust society where the state apparatus thinks it's running an empire. Especially if the country is large and actively trying to reshape the world. Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because…
Which country are you talking about? Surely not Norway, which is a monarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That attitude makes sense if you come from a low-trust society where the state apparatus thinks it's running an empire. Especially if the country is large and actively trying to reshape the world. Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because…
Even if one happens to approve of the conditions under which personal data is being managed _right now_, even if one happens to approve of the current administrators and thinks they're entirely benevolent, there is no way to know who will be in charge of that data in the future, or what ends it will be used for. Once it's out there, it's out there forever.
The government has the monopoly on violence. It always has access to the data held by private parties. The government and the people serving it may choose to respect laws and other promises. They may choose to avoid accessing private data without a valid reason. But if the government chooses otherwise and requires private businesses to hand over their data, the businesses will most likely comply. If you don't want to give a government-turned-bad access to some data, that data must not be allowed to exist in the first place.