Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation • Hacker News Board

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#71

Post by tremon » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 12:42 AM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #68

tremon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. It's not up to you. You have no right (or at least shouldn't) to expect me from ignoring or forgetting any data whatsoever But should I have the right not to tell you about myself? For that matter, do you have the right not to tell me your credit card number and expiration date?

Of course you have the right not to tell me something. I'm not advocating coercion, quite the opposite.

So, people are allowed to make their own choice that they want privacy? Then what were you responding to when you said "no, it's not up to you"?

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#72

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 12:44 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #29

nunyabuizness wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct democracy, free markets for law, representative democracy, voluntarism, etc. There are innumerable solutions to the emergent failure states of our legal system and as I stated elsewhere in this thread, if you declare privacy a greater need than better law, law-making and law-enforcement, you've already lost.

Let's assume for a moment that we can create a society with the most perfect law-making government, and that all laws are now perfect, and they're perfectly enforced. Would people still want privacy? I believe that the answer is yes. Simply because there will always be the fear that things may change. You only need one imperfect law or law enforcer and you need privacy to protect you. There will never be a point wher…

In this imaginary world, would you really be worried about the future like that? Would that be a reasonable fear? And if things would suddenly turn dystopian, do you really expect privacy would protect you from an evil government hell-bent on getting you?

Privacy seems to be a mitigation strategy. An insurance for the future, as 'jib said. It may seem like it's in your best interest to pursue it. But it is also worth considering whether this isn't a coordination problem - where the locally best choice for an individual is a very bad when aggregated over entire society.

Anyway, in real world we won't get either perfect privacy nor perfect transparency. The question is, in which direction we should move from the status quo? It's a multidimensional problem; there are many components to privacy that could go either way. Personally, I'm in favour of everyone knowing more about everything, and reducing both means and incentives to lie to one another. "Everyone" includes the government too. I want to trust them. But they do have to earn it, and trust is in short supply nowadays.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#73

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 12:48 AM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #43

onion2k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume for a moment that we can create a society with the most perfect law-making government, and that all laws are now perfect, and they're perfectly enforced. Would people still want privacy? I believe that the answer is yes. Simply because there will always be the fear that things may change. You only need one imperfect law or law enforcer and you need privacy to protect you. There will never be a point wher…

First, let's get rid of the idea that a central government has the authority to create and enfore laws. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster. A free market would pretty much eliminate the need for laws. What's wrong to you, might not be wrong to me. Therefore, you might refuse to help or trade with a person that does X, while I might have no problem with it and even help him. Moreover, do you have any idea what a…

I agree with the points about privacy you make all over this discussion thread, and with the last paragraph of your comment here in particular. But I also strongly disagree with the boo-government/yay-free-market proposal.

> First, let's get rid of the idea that a central government has the authority to create and enfore laws. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster.

That's not a recipe for disaster. That's the universal solution for coordination problems we keep arriving at throughout the history. Creating and enforcing universal laws is the one thing government is actually really good at. The market on the other hand, totally sucks at it. It has its strengths though, and whatever the solution is, it will involve a mix of centralized and distributed responsibility.

I refer you to [0] for an in-depth discussion on coordination problems. It's a long read, but totally worth it.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#74

Post by mindslight » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

mindslight wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree with everything but the last sentence... Defecting (reading things one "shouldn't") is economically profitable, just like walking into others' homes and making their stuff into your stuff. Furthermore, it's politically profitable to catch the "bad guys". So the best one could hope for is a social convention to not snoop, prohibition on private surveillance / data mining (what could that even look lik…

We could probably limit reasons for defecting by living a less competitive lives, but that's dreams of a better-than-Star-Trek-level utopia. Incentives are hard. As for the government - a world where only the government gets to have privacy is a scary nightmare. A world with a government as transparent as possible, maybe it's workable. Honestly, I don't know. I need to study this more. I just don't like the costs tha…

Even Star Trek has ranks, and I wouldn't want to be a red shirt.

I don't have much faith in the bad side of our nature not showing. Groupthink is a hell of a drug.

As far as costs, there's a continuum and it certainly has a lot of low hanging fruit. Some of the most glaring privacy problems could be easily fixed by people simply exerting a modicum of self-actualization when choosing software.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#75

Post by miguelrochefort » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 1:12 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67

miguelrochefort wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing that it's my responsibility to be careful and discrete when I commit crimes that should be legal in the first place? If both murder and sodomy are illegal to the eyes of the government, then wouldn't more accessible privacy protect both murderers and sodomists? Clearly, the issues in the examples you describe are with the expectations of the government and its citizens. I don't want to ever have to li…

> I want lying to be considered as the worst crime. I want a currency that's built on trust. I want every commitment and promises to be tracked and evaluated. I want fairness, and it starts with understanding reality. Hell yes. I too want people to start treating lying with seriousness it deserves. Lying, lying, lying. It's the thing that rots and destroys our societies. I too keep repeating that civilization starts…

I completely agree with you.

In a future where "proofs" will be manufactured easily, you can only trust witnesses. For that to work, you need to know that person says the truth. The most in-demand traits for a person (or smart agent or service) in the future will be "trust" (honesty, predictability, reliability).

In a world too complex to do everything yourself (milk the cow, mill the wheat, grow the tomatoes, to make a pizza), we need specialization and delegation. Again, delegating can only be seamless when interacting with parts whose "trust" is effectively tracked and measured.

The donated organ won't go to the first person to ask for it, or the person with the most money. It will go to the best human, whose value might be tightly correlated with their trust score.

Big data, IoT, AI. All the big technologies of the present and future will increasingly rely on our ability to predict the future. That's pretty much what logistics is. You can't predict the future without a reliable system. Again, your predictions are just as solid as the weakest member in your chain. One component lies (or doesn't do as promised), and the whole prediction breaks. That could mean minutes of commuting lost, or millions of people dead. Don't lie, kids.

We need a more general term that encompasses more than just lying. A person needs to accurately understand his abilities in order to commit to a task. Failing to do so affects one's score as if they did lie. I don't see them as being different things. If you misinterpret something and communicate that interpretation, that's also a "lie".

In any case, I think the human brain is losing a lot of energy trying to decide what to say and not say, and whether what an other person say is sincere, polite, or plainly misleading. We're not as smart as we could be, because of this social cancer. That's probably what destroys kids as they grow.

Being honest at a job interview is a sure way not to get the job. Better study the buzzwords the day before and bullshit your way thought. Repeat if you want to reach the top.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#76

Post by miguelrochefort » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 1:18 AM UTC

tremon wrote: post #71

miguelrochefort wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you have the right not to tell me something. I'm not advocating coercion, quite the opposite.

So, people are allowed to make their own choice that they want privacy? Then what were you responding to when you said "no, it's not up to you"?

Sure, you're free to decide whether you want privacy or not.

Just don't believe this magically prevent others from accessing and using data that involves you. Don't expect me to respect your preferences when I go through you data.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#77

Post by miguelrochefort » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 1:31 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73

miguelrochefort wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, let's get rid of the idea that a central government has the authority to create and enfore laws. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster. A free market would pretty much eliminate the need for laws. What's wrong to you, might not be wrong to me. Therefore, you might refuse to help or trade with a person that does X, while I might have no problem with it and even help him. Moreover, do you have any idea what a…

I agree with the points about privacy you make all over this discussion thread, and with the last paragraph of your comment here in particular. But I also strongly disagree with the boo-government/yay-free-market proposal. > First, let's get rid of the idea that a central government has the authority to create and enfore laws. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster. That's not a recipe for disaster. That's the univ…

Because I agree with everything you've said here, I will take a close look at the content of this link.

I am the kind of person that believes in the existence of a universal absolute moral truth. I don't believe in subjectivity. A disagreement implies that at least one person is wrong. Yet, I don't think a central and rigid infrastructure should exist to enforce this ideal even if we were to discover it.

Can you provide one example of a law that should be enforced by a government?

And you're right about coordination, I don't have all the answers either. Scarce resources, ownership, roads, defense, languages. I'm still not sure how to deal with these in a free market.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#78

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 1:54 AM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #77

TeMPOraL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the points about privacy you make all over this discussion thread, and with the last paragraph of your comment here in particular. But I also strongly disagree with the boo-government/yay-free-market proposal. > First, let's get rid of the idea that a central government has the authority to create and enfore laws. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster. That's not a recipe for disaster. That's the univ…

Because I agree with everything you've said here, I will take a close look at the content of this link. I am the kind of person that believes in the existence of a universal absolute moral truth. I don't believe in subjectivity. A disagreement implies that at least one person is wrong. Yet, I don't think a central and rigid infrastructure should exist to enforce this ideal even if we were to discover it. Can you prov…

> I am the kind of person that believes in the existence of a universal absolute moral truth. I don't believe in subjectivity. A disagreement implies that at least one person is wrong. Yet, I don't think a central and rigid infrastructure should exist to enforce this ideal even if we were to discover it.

I have a similar view of disagreement - it is my belief that two rational people should, having the same information, reach the same conclusion. I don't believe in an "universal absolute moral truth" (after all, where does it come from, and why?), but I think humans share enough of their basic morality to make it de-facto universal for us. We should delegate only the bare minimum of it for the law to enforce, but the government is literally an embodiment of the concept of people getting together and agreeing on things, so I see no problem to it being a way to scale up what in small groups you can do through social customs.

> Can you provide one example of a law that should be enforced by a government?

I think you enumerated some examples yourself - "scarce resources, ownership, roads, defense, languages". Those things are suitable for being managed centrally, and management involves enforcement - even if you delegated most of it to the market, you still need to steer the market to do the job, lest it bails out when it's profitable to do so.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#79

Post by nunyabuizness » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 2:04 AM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #42

jpollock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans lie all the time. We lie to each other, we lie to the government. We cheat, break rules and break laws all the time. Societies rely on privacy to limit the intrusion of others into our lives. It becomes really easy to avoid enforcing a law when you can't see it happening. For example, without privacy, sodomy laws become much easier to enforce. No longer would it be 2 closeted gay men living together happily, i…

Are you arguing that it's my responsibility to be careful and discrete when I commit crimes that should be legal in the first place? If both murder and sodomy are illegal to the eyes of the government, then wouldn't more accessible privacy protect both murderers and sodomists? Clearly, the issues in the examples you describe are with the expectations of the government and its citizens. I don't want to ever have to li…

>I want a currency that's built on trust. I want every commitment and promises to be tracked and evaluated. I want fairness, and it starts with understanding reality.

I'm working this exact problem right now and would love your input. Email me at sunny.gonna at google's mail service.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: Technology Will Create New Models for Privacy Regulation

#80

Post by greggman » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #15

mindslight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians/regulators can never be encryption utopians because they always seek more power. However, widespread adoption of secure encryption [0] could turn proposals to ban it from being seriously "debated", to the equivalent of that state senator who wanted to legislate pi = 3. "Physics drives finance drives politics", and all that. [0] Obviously without centralized database MITM, using software not distributed by…

It's not even a matter of "politicians wanting more power." The public wants the government to have power over people, because they are (reasonably or not), more scared of other people than they are of the government. People fall on different places on the spectrum for how they weigh the loss of privacy versus the need for security, but very few are willing to say "we need pervasive unbreakable encryption, whatever t…

The problem is it isn't a debate about privacy vs security. Backdoored encryption = not secure = bad guys can steal your id, your money, shut down essential services, ...