Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

escapebigtech.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#111

Post by JohnFen »

godelski wrote: post #110
JohnFen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would that society stop communicating openly and watch their words carefully? I think we already live in that society, to be honest.

I think this is starting, but I'm not sure it has been internalized. People still frequently quote Goebbels and saying "my data isn't useful." I think one key change that is happening now is that our data and decisions have really changed. For example, with the advent of LLMs I've thought of not just deleting accounts (despite being semi-anonymous) but purging them, so that my data cannot be used for future training.…

> I think this is starting, but I'm not sure it has been internalized.

Good point. But I see people doing a whole lot more self-censoring these days without even realizing they're doing it, too.

> with the advent of LLMs I've thought of not just deleting accounts (despite being semi-anonymous) but purging them, so that my data cannot be used for future training

I have removed my websites from the public web for exactly this reason, and I've heard from several others who have done the same. So, to some degree anyway, this is already happening at least at that level.

This sort of thing (self-censoring) worries me greatly, and I don't think there's anything I can do about it. The sense of powerlessness is very high sometimes.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#112

Post by godelski »

JohnFen wrote: post #111
godelski wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is starting, but I'm not sure it has been internalized. People still frequently quote Goebbels and saying "my data isn't useful." I think one key change that is happening now is that our data and decisions have really changed. For example, with the advent of LLMs I've thought of not just deleting accounts (despite being semi-anonymous) but purging them, so that my data cannot be used for future training.…

> I think this is starting, but I'm not sure it has been internalized. Good point. But I see people doing a whole lot more self-censoring these days without even realizing they're doing it, too. > with the advent of LLMs I've thought of not just deleting accounts (despite being semi-anonymous) but purging them, so that my data cannot be used for future training I have removed my websites from the public web for exact…

Ah yeah, in that context I'm agreement. Self-censoring is tricky because it can happen without people realizing it or viewing it as self-censorship. That's a good point.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#113

Post by ben_w »

jruohonen wrote: post #106
ben_w wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wires on synapses, however, are very good at sensing exactly what's up. They're too expensive right now, and I really hope Neuralink turns out to be as much of a business disaster as buying Twitter, because if it's as much of a world-changer as Tesla or SpaceX… …well, if cheap-and-good BCI comes, there's too many dystopian ways for it to be abused for comfort.

> ... well, if cheap-and-good BCI comes, there's too many dystopian ways for it to be abused for comfort. I am all for dystopia; already with VR/XR/etc. you can probably infer a lot, especially once they start (or have done already?) scanning retina movements and such. But still: stimuli is a one thing and mind-reading (thought control?) is another.

BCI is literal mind-reading: when the thought goes ping, it shows up on the wire.

The current limitation is that the number of sense-wires we can put on a BCI implant is a factor of ~2^30 smaller than the number of synapses in a human brain.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#114

Post by arthurcolle »

nologic01 wrote: post #98

Once the invasion of privacy proved monetarily and politically profitable and legally a gray area its fate was sealed. In a sense the age of moving fast and breaking things helped us see what the system is made of: What sort of moral reflexes exist, how quickly they get mobilized, where this happens institutionally, geographically and socially etc. Needless to say that it has been the bleakest of revelations. What is…

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#115

Post by uoaei »

jruohonen wrote: post #107
uoaei wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should be concerned with those who pretend that historical precedent is a thing when it comes to questions of ethics, indeed anyone who conflates ethics with legalistic frameworks. IMO the largest barrier to progress today is that too many people think the point of laws is to dictate ethics. This leads them to believe that legal things are good and illegal things are bad, and then you get horribly circular argumen…

So privacy is now an ethical question but not a human right? Historical precedents no longer matter, so we as a humanity can again commit all the atrocities of the past? Lunacy. Sorry to disappoint you: we ("people") should be especially worried about technologists eager to define what is ethical and trying to overcome laws with their own interpretations. No wonder many companies are constantly in courts because of t…

> So privacy is now an ethical question but not a human right?

Privacy is a human right precisely because of its weight in the question of ethics. I would hazard against playing false-dichotomy games, for they can only be lost, never won. I would say that your error appears to be in giving undue primacy to legal definitions over other kinds as holding some kind of authority. It is true that governments use laws to justify their violent actions but I don't think that gives them any more metaphysical weight over other forms of judgment. (To anticipate a quibble: judgment is inherently metaphysical, to claim metaphysics is irrelevant is to claim opinions are irrelevant and we get nowhere on questions of ethics and rights.)

> Historical precedents no longer matter, so we as a humanity can again commit all the atrocities of the past?

This is such a perversion and misinterpretation of what I said that I'm struggling to see your response as anything but a troll's. Regardless, I will continue.

> we ("people") should be especially worried about technologists eager to define what is ethical and trying to overcome laws with their own interpretations

I agree -- the direction we both seem to be advocating for, then, despite your insistence that we argue about it, is that neither laws nor random technologists can define ethics for the entire society. It must be a bottom-up process of popular, consensual decision-making, as has been demonstrated in the past through mass political (dare I say populist) movements. There is no ethical way for a small group to impose such things on the populace without their input and control in that process.

> the interplay between ethics and law

This is just another variation of the "historical precedent defines ethics" argument, which has already been addressed.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#116

Post by nunez »

endisneigh wrote: post #31

privacy is important but the article is strange because all of the things described can be opted-out of. in the case of Telly you are explicitly trading off privacy in order to receive a free product. don't consume if you don't agree. there are certain situations in which you might be OK with the privacy implication. I, for example, would be OK with receiving a free car ride if I had to watch an advertisement while t…

This is ignoring the very very VERY possible reality of everyone and their dog signing up to get a free 55" TV.

They don't see a loss of privacy and a very easy conduit for constant surveillance; they see free TVs with a decent enough sound bar

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#117

Post by uoaei »

jjgreen wrote: post #71
vaylian wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "fundamental right".

Rights are an American way of saying that something is desirable and that one is morally justified in using violence to achieve it. They use this terminology for reasons of history. There is no such concrete object of course, just translate into your own world view. BTW, 'Define "X"' sounds rather childish, whoever says it.

The abject nihilists came out to play! If only they realized the irony of imposing their singular viewpoints on anything or anyone else while maintaining such a philosophy.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#118

Post by jruohonen »

uoaei wrote: post #115
jruohonen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So privacy is now an ethical question but not a human right? Historical precedents no longer matter, so we as a humanity can again commit all the atrocities of the past? Lunacy. Sorry to disappoint you: we ("people") should be especially worried about technologists eager to define what is ethical and trying to overcome laws with their own interpretations. No wonder many companies are constantly in courts because of t…

> So privacy is now an ethical question but not a human right? Privacy is a human right precisely because of its weight in the question of ethics. I would hazard against playing false-dichotomy games, for they can only be lost, never won. I would say that your error appears to be in giving undue primacy to legal definitions over other kinds as holding some kind of authority. It is true that governments use laws to ju…

> I would say that your error appears to be in giving undue primacy to legal definitions over other kinds as holding some kind of authority.

While I have nothing against ethics as such, it is a reality that digital rights have been advanced only through jurisprudence. I am quite disappointed with technology ethics in particular: despite immense amount of research and advocacy within companies and across society, technology ethics have not achieved anything of practical value.

> It must be a bottom-up process of popular, consensual decision-making, as has been demonstrated in the past through mass political (dare I say populist) movements. There is no ethical way for a small group to impose such things on the populace without their input and control in that process.

That is a long characterization for a single word: democracy.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#119

Post by FreshStart »

ChatGpt emulate a conversation while moving through the city. Topic: local sportsteams and the shops windows. Add:GPS markers and background noise + occasional synthetic screenshot. Generate parallel plausibel phone activity.

Hand as argument's to "NonOfYourBuisness.app" on my phone.

Re: Privacy: One of the Most Fundamental Human Rights, yet Constantly Under Threat

#120

Post by jjgreen »

uoaei wrote: post #117
jjgreen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights are an American way of saying that something is desirable and that one is morally justified in using violence to achieve it. They use this terminology for reasons of history. There is no such concrete object of course, just translate into your own world view. BTW, 'Define "X"' sounds rather childish, whoever says it.

The abject nihilists came out to play! If only they realized the irony of imposing their singular viewpoints on anything or anyone else while maintaining such a philosophy.

... abject nihilist ...

I'll take it! Wait a second while I get my leather jacket & shades

... imposing their singular viewpoints ...

I missed the bit where I imposed anything on anyone, but as you prefer. By the way, how do you have a non-singular viewpoint?

Post reply on HN