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.
Progress for whom?
The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#12Because 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.
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#13Probably because the threat is relatively new. It took hundreds of thousands of deaths and decades to get us to the current mandated safety standards for cars. It’s going to take a while for tech to catch up.
The perceived impact is much less noticeable than deaths. When the bodies pile up you invest in seatbelt regulations, and may even create jobs making them. What if there's no bodies to count?
There will be bodies eventually. Just, you know, at scale.
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#14The 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:
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heck, most people in government simply don’t even understand the issue, let alone figuring out how to solve it. AFAIK only one US 2020 presidential candidate atm is even talking about data rights.
This is a good argument for term limits. The old timer's holding on to their power is not doing anyone any good.
There are arguments for term limits, but this isn't one of them. No person can be an expert in everything the government can potentially regulate.
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#16[deleted]
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#17These 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
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#18Because that would grant the government the power that enables it to become a worse perpetrator even than the big tech?
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#19I know that HN’s libertarian views often conflict with the top down EU bureaucracy. But when I heard about GDPR here in europe I thought to myself - that looks very close to what all those people have been wishing for - and its actually here now.
It remains to be seen if it holds up in practice what it offers in spirit. But the idea that companies are forced to think about my personal data as if it was payment credentials, with similar rigor, and penalties, just sounds so awesome to me as a customer.
In the EU personal data _is_ protected as if its cars, food, trains or planes. And honestly its great :)
Re: The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data?
#20These 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
GDPR is literally the government protecting people's privacy and data. That's what this article is advocating for.