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

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

#81

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

nunyabuizness wrote: post #26

teddyh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless someone proposes a solution to the “massive amount of failure states”, I am going to continue to assume that privacy is a necessary protection from them.

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.

We currently have no legal system that can operate in a world without privacy. Maybe in a future someone could invent one, but current judge, jury, lawyer and prosecutor system require that each role has sufficient amount of privacy to be functional.

Imagine being in a trial against Google, knowing that they have access to information for all the participants and their family and friends. Internet searches, phone calls, purchases, browser history, location data, voice recordings, and all the analytic tools to analyze and extrapolate what details can be used for manipulation and sell an argument. How could such trial ever been conducted in a fair way?

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

#82

Post by miguelrochefort » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 5:16 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #78

miguelrochefort wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 informati…

I have just read your link.

I'm one of those people that don't believe humans to be special and would happily see them being replaced by what made them obsolete.

I don't believe in Friendly AI. Yudkowsky's thesis is flawed. We should be replaced.

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

#83

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 10:59 AM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #82

TeMPOraL wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 informati…

I have just read your link. I'm one of those people that don't believe humans to be special and would happily see them being replaced by what made them obsolete. I don't believe in Friendly AI. Yudkowsky's thesis is flawed. We should be replaced.

You don't like humanity, do you? :). Is your disagreement with FAI just about that we don't deserve to survive?

Also, I referred you to Meditations on Moloch not because of FAI, but because of the discussion on coordination problems. What do you think about the article's view of that?

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

#84

Post by sbov » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #38

sbov wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is important because people are assholes. My wife has an ex-boyfriend who went to prison. She was pretty terrified when there was an internet trail to our current home address (which I have since closed). Largely because of our Macy's wedding registry which showed up when you searched her name, which had my name, and there's only one of me in the US. We know he found the registry because he emailed her about…

Do you seriously believe that we can (or should) reach a point where nobody can be identified or located? Instead of getting rid of the bad guys (or preferably get rid of incentives that motivate actions you don't agree with), you seem to be suggesting that we should hide from them. I can imagine this would lead to a world with more bad guys (because no effort exists in preventing them), a lucky minority of people wh…

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth here. That said:

When people serve their time we let them out of prison. But it also doesn't mean people may not still be afraid of them because of what they've done in the past. You cannot lock someone up just because someone is afraid of them. "If they do it again he will go to prison" isn't exactly comforting.

As my father would happily point out, you cannot always lock someone up for being an asshole. Not all asshole behavior is prison worthy. But that doesn't mean that I want to have to endure it because I have an unpopular point of view.

No, I don't think Marijuana consumption should be illegal. If I did it, even if it were legal, I would probably not particularly care to have everyone in the world know about it. That said, making Marijuana legal will do little for the black community. The problems are much deeper.

Bringing up a 300+ year long struggle against oppression isn't exactly a point in your favor of having no privacy.

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

#85

Post by miguelrochefort » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

miguelrochefort wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have just read your link. I'm one of those people that don't believe humans to be special and would happily see them being replaced by what made them obsolete. I don't believe in Friendly AI. Yudkowsky's thesis is flawed. We should be replaced.

You don't like humanity, do you? :). Is your disagreement with FAI just about that we don't deserve to survive? Also, I referred you to Meditations on Moloch not because of FAI, but because of the discussion on coordination problems. What do you think about the article's view of that?

I have no reason to dislike humans. They're the best thing we have today. That doesn't mean something better won't come to replace them.

Friendly AI, by definition, is not true AI. It won't lead to singularity. It's worthless.

What I want is for the universe to evolve as efficiently as possible. We shouldn't slow down progress just because we want to survive. The only "we" is the universe. Selfless we should be.

I'm not sure what solution he's offering to coordination problems. He speaks of consensus and monarchy. He criticizes classical capitalism.

I feel like the capitalist model would be good if incentives were adequate. Money and personal wealth aren't adequate motivations. Selfless capitalism, where systems are optimized toward making the universe better. A system where we all adopt god's-eye-view. That's what I was referring to with my universal absolute moral truth.

Those entities who don't exist for the greater good will be naturally selected out. The fittest will be the most righteous. We need a system to measure righteousness. I'm working on just that.

TL;DR: We can coordinate through the universal absolute moral truth. We just need better tools to accurately grasp it.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #85

TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't like humanity, do you? :). Is your disagreement with FAI just about that we don't deserve to survive? Also, I referred you to Meditations on Moloch not because of FAI, but because of the discussion on coordination problems. What do you think about the article's view of that?

I have no reason to dislike humans. They're the best thing we have today. That doesn't mean something better won't come to replace them. Friendly AI, by definition, is not true AI. It won't lead to singularity. It's worthless. What I want is for the universe to evolve as efficiently as possible. We shouldn't slow down progress just because we want to survive. The only "we" is the universe. Selfless we should be. I'm…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #85

TeMPOraL wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't like humanity, do you? :). Is your disagreement with FAI just about that we don't deserve to survive? Also, I referred you to Meditations on Moloch not because of FAI, but because of the discussion on coordination problems. What do you think about the article's view of that?

I have no reason to dislike humans. They're the best thing we have today. That doesn't mean something better won't come to replace them. Friendly AI, by definition, is not true AI. It won't lead to singularity. It's worthless. What I want is for the universe to evolve as efficiently as possible. We shouldn't slow down progress just because we want to survive. The only "we" is the universe. Selfless we should be. I'm…

I see. I guess you're more selfless than I can ever dream to be - as long as it seems that we're alone in the universe, I want humans to shape and rule it :).

What you say would be a good solution, if we could actually shape incentives like that (and avoid the issue of incentivized incentivizers - an example of which are companies influencing governments to make laws better for those companies). You said that you're working on a part of this problem, on "a system to measure righteousness". This is something I think we could really use, at the very least to express the concept of "a douchebag" within legal system[0]. Can you share some details about your work? I'm interested.

--

[0] - Our legal systems try to stick to objective facts and avoid the topic of intent. Understandably so - without a way to read people's minds it turns into walking through a minefield. We can handle quite a lot this way, but in recent times a big part of suffering in this world is being created legally, by people with obviously selfish and malicious intent. We would want to discourage and/or punish such behaviour, but we can't because technically they aren't breaking any laws, even though everyone knows they are douchebags.

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

#88

Post by wfo » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:39 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #76

tremon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow I hope you never have any amount of power over any computer system that handles data. Even for the brief moment before you are fired, what a disaster.

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

#89

Post by wfo » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:41 PM UTC

nunyabuizness wrote: post #30

teddyh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read The Eternal Value of Privacy by Bruce Schneier: http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securi...

Everything he states in that article points to privacy being a defense against unchecked power, for which the simplest long-term solution is check the power , not admit defeat to unchecked power and shore up your defenses.

'Check the power' is a naive and impossible solution that has been attempted by essentially every human civilization since the dawn of time and has never, ever worked. Sometimes you just need to recognize truth when it smashes you in the face again and again over thousands of years and accept that we need some way to deal with it.

Also are you really advocating only one line of defense against unchecked power? "Just trust that people with power won't abuse it" isn't good enough and it's never going to be, but that's what you're advocating.