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

Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#21

Post by pc86 »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #18
pc86 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a uniquely American opinion, but employees can opt out quickly and easily by not getting paid by public funds. Most public sector jobs have private sector equivalents. If you want to help people find jobs and your privacy is important enough to make public sector work untenable, get a job with one of the private sector organizations that does that. > elected officials...have to expose their street address to…

> I can think of no reason why constituents should not know where the people in power over them live. I can think of plenty of reasons. Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally, and not the sort of organized political violence that people might use to liberate themselves from the chains of oppressors, but rather the kind of lunatic political violence that is committed by irrational lone actors who ar…

Government employees, including and especially elected officials, are employees of the people and the people have a right to the same information any employer has about their employees.

> Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally

Citation needed, but even if we say for the sake of argument this is accurate, that doesn't naturally lead to this outcome.

What makes violence political?

Is political violence inherently worse? I think it is, but there's at least an argument to be made that it isn't.

Is stopping that political violence worth the worst case scenario where we make it harder for the public to get this type of information?

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#23

Post by anonymous908213 »

pc86 wrote: post #21
anonymous908213 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can think of no reason why constituents should not know where the people in power over them live. I can think of plenty of reasons. Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally, and not the sort of organized political violence that people might use to liberate themselves from the chains of oppressors, but rather the kind of lunatic political violence that is committed by irrational lone actors who ar…

Government employees, including and especially elected officials, are employees of the people and the people have a right to the same information any employer has about their employees. > Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally Citation needed, but even if we say for the sake of argument this is accurate, that doesn't naturally lead to this outcome. What makes violence political? Is political violen…

> Government employees, including and especially elected officials, are employees of the people and the people have a right to the same information any employer has about their employees.

I don't think any employer has any right to know their employee's home address, to be honest.

> Is political violence inherently worse? I think it is, but there's at least an argument to be made that it isn't.

I think this question is rather besides the point. Random acts of violence are bad, so let's not make anybody's home address public information. In the age of the internet, we routinely observe millions of people fixating on one person for some perceived grievance or another, wherein it only takes one lunatic among those millions having access to private information to result in a tragedy. We don't have to make it so easy for these tragedies to happen.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#24

Post by zbentley »

pc86 wrote: post #17
zbentley wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: DHS/TSA/ICE, credit scores, stock buybacks and self-dividends. All very, very recent systems in the grander scheme.

For the life of me I can't figure out what point your trying to make. These things are new so we should ban them? Some people will say these are good even though they're new? "In the grander scheme" interstate highways and air travel and scuba diving are new too, what about them?

Only that they are all quite new, but are frequently defended as if they are integral components of the country since time immemorial.

As you say, on balance some of them are good/should be preserved, and some should be reconsidered.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#25

Post by 16bitvoid »

pc86 wrote: post #21
anonymous908213 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can think of no reason why constituents should not know where the people in power over them live. I can think of plenty of reasons. Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally, and not the sort of organized political violence that people might use to liberate themselves from the chains of oppressors, but rather the kind of lunatic political violence that is committed by irrational lone actors who ar…

Government employees, including and especially elected officials, are employees of the people and the people have a right to the same information any employer has about their employees. > Political violence in democracies is on the rise globally Citation needed, but even if we say for the sake of argument this is accurate, that doesn't naturally lead to this outcome. What makes violence political? Is political violen…

I'd argue that employers shouldn't have access to employee's home addresses either, outside of situations where it's needed (e.g., employee chooses to get paycheck by mail instead of direct deposit). Most employers keep access to personal employee information (PII) restricted to HR/timekeeping/payroll departments anyway.

Why would my direct supervisor need my home address?

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#26

Post by Ms-J »

Why would we care more about public servants than regular people? Regular citizens need their info protected, not government servants.

If you are working in the public sector, your info will be completely out there. That is how a functioning government works with accountability.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#27

Post by gowld »

rbbydotdev wrote: post #6

I think EVERYONE is worthy of privacy. The ad cartel has millions (billions?) of lobby money in their war chest. Any real reform would be moving a mountain. Funny how it's framed this way; shows just how impossible it is to concede to privacy for all. Instead we have as another commenter said: "a two-tier surveillance state."

Everyone is worthy of privacy in their private activty, not in how they impose their will on the public (through official acts, removing real estate from the commons, and publish or finance mass media).

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#28

Post by TheJoeMan »

phil21 wrote: post #13
jdasdf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private payrolls are published though.

Not to the general public. Your neighbor very likely cannot just go to a website and look up your title and current salary, like I can for the guy who lives down the block who currently works for the city I live in.

https://theworknumber.com/login-help

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#29

Post by gowld »

amelius wrote: post #4

What would happen if we just banned data brokers?

Then many complex commercial activities would be eliminated or have far higher transaction/insurance costs.

For example, loans. They would be priced against average risk, and low-risk individuals with privacy would pay the same risk premium as high-risk individuals.

This may be fine for individuals who voluntary give up privacy at chosen moments for chosen partners. It would be more complex and expensive to operate that general open brokerages.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#30

Post by pc86 »

zbentley wrote: post #24
pc86 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the life of me I can't figure out what point your trying to make. These things are new so we should ban them? Some people will say these are good even though they're new? "In the grander scheme" interstate highways and air travel and scuba diving are new too, what about them?

Only that they are all quite new, but are frequently defended as if they are integral components of the country since time immemorial. As you say, on balance some of them are good/should be preserved, and some should be reconsidered.

Fair point; but to take one of the less divisive ones in your list, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that stock buybacks are integral components of the country. I have, however, heard pretty convincing arguments that the government should not in general prevent a company from spending its money the way it sees fit. It's not a straight line from "stock buybacks are generally bad" to "the government should ban them," and it seems to me a pretty consistent opinion to think both that stock buybacks are bad and that the government should not have anywhere near enough power to prevent companies from doing them if that's what they want to do.
Post reply on HN