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

51–60 of 126 posts

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

#51

Post by endisneigh »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #50
endisneigh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. They don't. What gave you that idea? Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance? > Honestly, that you think it's that easy suggests to me you don't understand the topic well enough to have an informed opinion. No, it's probably that I'm not as injected in the internet as you, probably. You can easily live a very full life and barely use the internet, l…

> Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance? There is no one who would describe that as "surveillance" and I'd expect you to know that. Voluntarily divulging information in order to make use of a service is obviously completely fine. Turning around and selling that information is not. Augmenting that information with additional data from across multiple sou…

> Turning around and selling that information is not.

Both Meta and Google do not sell your data. No point of continuing if the basics are wrong. Both companies also make it very explicitly clear how your data is used.

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

#52

Post by coremoff »

jruohonen wrote: post #47
coremoff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere. Also, what does it mean to free from arbitrary interferrence with privacy? Interferrence implies more than observation, in my view.

> This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere. So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

This discussion isn't about the word life, it's about privacy; I'm sure the question of "life" will become harder if we end up creating sentient AGI...

Privacy in this discussion can mean different things, where there are definite overlaps, but also distinction:

* privacy of action (being sure that no one is watching what I'm doing) * privacy in communication (being sure that my priviliged information isn't compromised)

We should be concerned with the second; the first is already lost

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

#53

Post by BaseballPhysics »

endisneigh wrote: post #51
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes they do. How could Google serve you email without knowing what your email address is, for instance? There is no one who would describe that as "surveillance" and I'd expect you to know that. Voluntarily divulging information in order to make use of a service is obviously completely fine. Turning around and selling that information is not. Augmenting that information with additional data from across multiple sou…

> Turning around and selling that information is not. Both Meta and Google do not sell your data. No point of continuing if the basics are wrong. Both companies also make it very explicitly clear how your data is used.

With respect to Meta and Google, fair enough. They collect vast troves of data themselves and then use it to monetize content on their platforms. That's still enormously problematic as a) it makes them juicy targets for data breeches (hence Cambridge Analytica), b) it makes them key players in state surveillance activities, and c) they could always change their policies in the future if the financial incentives are right.

But critically, they are far from the only players in the space, and it's the entire ecosystem that's problematic.

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

#54

Post by jruohonen »

coremoff wrote: post #52
jruohonen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere. So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

This discussion isn't about the word life, it's about privacy; I'm sure the question of "life" will become harder if we end up creating sentient AGI... Privacy in this discussion can mean different things, where there are definite overlaps, but also distinction: * privacy of action (being sure that no one is watching what I'm doing) * privacy in communication (being sure that my priviliged information isn't compromis…

If you want a philosophical debate, we can start from this classic (see particularly Section B):

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

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

#55

Post by BaseballPhysics »

coremoff wrote: post #49
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was? That's a strange argument. > I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property witho…

> So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was? How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag? I also think that if we had legislated for privacy, supposing that we had realised its important early enough, what would that battle look like? I expect it would go as well as the war against drugs; if nothing else miniaturisation makes it pract…

> How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag?

GDPR was a good start.

Creating transparency in data marketplaces, and giving people an affirmative right to have their data removed would be significant progress.

Frankly, I'd like to see the buying and selling of individualized data be made completely illegal, with massive fines for companies that misuse or otherwise fail to protect PII.

> I'm not saying that I'm immune to our societies' privacy hangups; but ideally I should be - I do think we should try and stop judging others for harmless actions.

Jesus, I don't even know how to respond to this. In essence you're saying: If there were no consequences for peoples words or actions we wouldn't need privacy.

Well, yeah.

Except there are, and so we do.

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

#56

Post by swayvil »

If we could trust the wolves to not eat us zero privacy would be excellent. Imagine how useful that would be for running a society. Bespoke everything. Crazy efficient.

But ya. May as well ask pigs to fly.

Which brings up another point. Isn't it crazy how our society bends over backwards and twists, chokes and contorts itself? To accommodate the existence of wolves.

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

#57

Post by commandlinefan »

coremoff wrote: post #13

I disagree that it's a fundamental right. Over most of history privacy has been rare for most people, with the provisio that if you really wanted a private conversation you could have one in the middle of an open field in daylight with a reasonable expectation that your conversation would not be compromised. These days there can be no such expectation, and we need to separate out discussion of day-to-day privacy from…

> I disagree that it's a fundamental right

That was my first thought - like, it would great if everybody agreed that it was a fundamental right, but other than as an empty political talking point, I'm not familiar with any government official in all of recorded history who's ever behaved as if they thought so. It's definitely not codified in any law I've ever seen.

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

#58

Post by printacorn »

coremoff wrote: post #32
sp332 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's talking about freedom from massive surveillance networks and unaccountable data collectors who use our data against us. Those didn't exist for most of human history. It's not just about neighborhood gossip.

I agree, however the article conflates mass surveillance and personal privacy, and I felt it worth highlighting the distinction.

They are both the same, because your neighbor contributes to mass surveillance. I don't feel that was worth highlighting at all because it's wrong.

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

#59

Post by uoaei »

coremoff wrote: post #52
jruohonen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This declaration uses the word "privacy" once, and doesn't define it - and that's what we're seeing here and elsewhere. So is the word "life" mentioned also once. Do we need to argue also about that? Declarations and constitutions are not supposed to include rigorous definitions. See also: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

This discussion isn't about the word life, it's about privacy; I'm sure the question of "life" will become harder if we end up creating sentient AGI... Privacy in this discussion can mean different things, where there are definite overlaps, but also distinction: * privacy of action (being sure that no one is watching what I'm doing) * privacy in communication (being sure that my priviliged information isn't compromis…

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 arguments like those above.

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

#60

Post by pierat »

coremoff wrote: post #49
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, I would argue that controlling information access to property should not be considered a fundamental right - in that it's practically un-enforceable for privacy purposes already; So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was? That's a strange argument. > I do think there should be an expectation that you can walk around your property witho…

> So you don't think it should be a fundamental right because we lost the right before we realized how important it was? How do you propose putting that cat back in the bag? I also think that if we had legislated for privacy, supposing that we had realised its important early enough, what would that battle look like? I expect it would go as well as the war against drugs; if nothing else miniaturisation makes it pract…

There's 2 parts of this: government, and corporations. We have 1 potential solution already for government:

4th Amendment

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Papers (things containing information), and effects clearly need to be interpreted to INCLUDE digital information storage and devices.

Privacy against corporations can be solved a few ways, but are also piecemeal.

A GDPR like law could definitely help.

Having the FTC ban "free" services would also be a good start, as under terms of bundling free to entrap people.

EULAs can just outright negated, as those onerous documents are effectively an after-sale blackmail. And many of 5hem contain questionable, onerous, or plain illegal terms.

The company aspect will always look for ways to gain money any way they can, so it's always an uphill battle. But we can do some reasonable roadblocks slowing down terrible privacy-destroying behavior piecemeal, and by enforcing laws on the books.

Post reply on HN