81–90 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.
EU rights do not apply in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP used the word correctly. It doesn’t HAVE to mean specifically “it’s like being a North American slave in that exact period of history” or something. define:enslaving (2): cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action.
When people hear slavery, they think of harsh, forced physical labor under inhumane conditions. Whether you think of American slavery, African slavery or Roman slavery, the common factor is clear. I'm from Germany, I'm decidedly not US-centric, but everyone I know would be appalled if someone described any facet of their western life using that word, because they'd be implicitly reducing the impact said word has when…
When I hear "enslaving", especially in the context of the sentence "Corporations are enslaving us digitally", I don't think "oh my god this guy is trying to say that our plight is exactly like that of roman slavery", no.
If you hear that, then I submit that this is for you (or rather, dr_dshiv) to fix. "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", as the guidelines say.
Now you in this conversation quite clearly understood the usage of "enslaving" to be its second definition, yet you choose to still criticize it by reducing it to its first definition.
There is no synonym you'd like for "removing one's rights and liberties". If you find one, feel free to suggest it, but my guess is that the people living in slavery now don't really care about this nonsensical argument a couple of well-off dudes are having over language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.
I'm not saying that this right is a bad thing, but the reality is that it's rarely enforceable. As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. No amount of legislation can outweigh the technical reality.
Maybe realistically any uploaded content can be found somewhere on the internet forever (I doubt that, tbh), but this doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and say "it's impossible to regulate".
We already have precedent for this in the form of copyright/DMCA takedown requests. The MPA/RIAA has a legal avenue to protect their content, why should it be any different for individuals?
I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?
Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.
I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?
Services are advertised as private. So why wouldn't people be acting like they are private. Oh, you're not tech literate and so don't know something "obvious?" Guess it's your fault for listening to your financial advisor and losing all your money too. We live in a specialized world. You don't want to go down this route and it is unreasonable because we can't have infinite knowledge and infinite time to gain that. There's absolutely no way you know in high detail: tech, medicine, economics, law, science, politics, or any other expertise. You don't even know one of these, but rather a small section of one.
Yes, they may be "public" but you can have an expectation of privacy in public. Also your lack of expectation in public is not infinite. The lack of privacy in public is an astonishingly new phenomena. Realistically in the last 10-15 years as we've seen cellphones become prolific. Things were way different just in the early 2000s, where there weren't nearly as many cameras either by CCT or just in peoples' pockets. Let alone microphones or high resolution images.
Most importantly, the environment has changed on the internet too. 10 years ago the only people scraping up the entire internet was big tech and govs. Now it's every startup and group of people that can. These are very different situations. 2015 image generation was still a joke. Goodfellow's GAN paper was posted in late 2014. That's not even 10 years ago that we're struggling to generate black and white faces at 32x32 pixels.
Things are VERY different and if you think you could have predicted this I'm going to call bullshit. Only Captain Hindsight could do that. This kind of thinking is simply just victim blaming and lording your particular expertise over others while ignoring your own ignorance because you let post hoc thinking rewrite your past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is similar to saying that if girls don't want to be molested, they should not wear a mini skirt in public. One may not have been aware of the future existence of AI when writing on a public platform. Or one simply may want his blog/thoughts to be intended for human consumption and not to train the latest commercial product which will reap from his content and not share any profit.
How is it similar to that strawman? There is no expectation of privacy in public. That is pretty much the definition. It’s not victim blaming.
This is claimed a lot but absolutely not true. Stop repeating this very obviously false statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. People were putting tons of stuff on BBSs, intranets, and other stuff 20+ years beforehand because people had the idea of "consent" back then existed: using someones information for a purpose they didn't intend was (and still is) wrong.
Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. I don't agree with that at all. I'm not even sure how to argue about that. Lots of art, science and technology can be considered as "using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend." It is extremely normal for people to find new uses for things; information is not exempt from this.
How? It seems obviously correct. Suppose we trade nudes. You now sell my nudes online without my consent. You bet I have the right to sue you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has no problem getting rid of CSAM and terrorist material, for practical purposes. It's not a technical problem.
The government has enormous trouble getting rid of CSAM. The FBI had databases of content that is decades old - basically images recognised as "classics" that are still shared amongst the consumers of such things. It is illegal to possess, but despite the most aggressive enforcement on the planet it is still out there.
In case of personal data in this article, they have already identify which legal entity have it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people hear slavery, they think of harsh, forced physical labor under inhumane conditions. Whether you think of American slavery, African slavery or Roman slavery, the common factor is clear. I'm from Germany, I'm decidedly not US-centric, but everyone I know would be appalled if someone described any facet of their western life using that word, because they'd be implicitly reducing the impact said word has when…
> When people hear slavery (...) When I hear "enslaving", especially in the context of the sentence "Corporations are enslaving us digitally", I don't think "oh my god this guy is trying to say that our plight is exactly like that of roman slavery", no. If you hear that, then I submit that this is for you (or rather, dr_dshiv) to fix. "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", as the gu…
Where have I ever used the word "exactly", friend? My point was that people intuitively recognize the emotional impact and importance of words like "slavery", and that the commenter was exploiting that well-earned impact to artificially inflate the importance of their comment.
> If you hear that...
The other side of good communication is expressing yourself in a clear, non-manipulative way instead of playing on people's emotions.
> Now you in this conversation...
Again there is a difference between understanding the meaning rationally and interpreting the seriousness of a statement intuitively. If I start calling every annoyance I face slavery, then the word will quickly lose most of its meaning and impact, since the dictionary definition is broad enough to apply to an entire range of issues, from tiny to massive.
> There is no synonym you'd like...
How about just using language that is specific to the issue being discussed? We're talking about a company retaining some personal information, how about we call that a violation of privacy? "Removing one's rights and liberties" as a general statement implies a high bar of seriousness, of significant violations of significant rights. I don't need to call myself a "survivor of human rights abuses" because Google stored some metadata about my shopping habits. I can simply say that my privacy was not being respected.
And again, I never made the point that enslaved people may feel offended by a post on Hackernews, I argued that this type of inflationary usage destroys our (as in well-off dudes who have the ability to help people) ability to intuitively judge the seriousness of an issue. It's the same with words like "racism", if we call every guy who sings along to rap music and uses the n-word a racist, then we implicitly support actual racists by compromising the seriousness of the term.