4 ms·

Are you saying that accessing public data should be possible, but require a willingness to jump through hoops? What's your thinking behind that?

by jes 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dangrossman 11y ago
I'm not the person you asked, but to play devil's advocate... I think law enforcement agencies should be able to wiretap suspects of crimes to listen to their phone calls, subject to judicial oversight. I do not think they should have unrestricted, unlogged access to a database of recordings of every phone call ever made by every citizen. Same line of thinking IMO. There's a difference between an individual identifying themselves and signing a usage agreement before requesting public records from an individual county, versus dumping online a public database that lets you query the personal details of 191 million people. The same data is available, but the extra hoops you have to jump through change the potential for abuse.
- jes 11y ago
  I appreciate your thoughtful comment. With respect to the law enforcement example, the access there is to non-public data. That seems like an essential difference to me, but perhaps you're citing this situation in preparation for your third paragraph. In your third paragraph, I think I'm seeing a dilemma. I don't understand how jumping through the hoops changes the potential for abuse. Let's say 30 people go to the county records office and get the data. They all sign an agreement of some kind. 30 people now have (presumably) exactly the same data set. One of the 30 violates the agreement and publishes it anonymously on the Internet. The data is now "in the wild" and any potential for abuse that it held is now up for grabs. I recognize that I may be missing something, but if I am, I'm not able to see it. I might need more coffee. ;-)
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I agree that there's a difference between public and non-public data. With respect to the public data though, this is an issue which we've been wrestling with (and largely punting on) since various public records became readily available in electronic form. The fact is that, in the US, there's quite a bit of public information available about individuals. Much of this information (think home sales, past addresses, any court records) is public for historically sound reasons. However, there is a huge difference between scouring dusty town, county, and state records at considerable cost of time and money and making a few quick queries on the Internet, possibly paying a nominal fee if you really want to go deep. But, to your point, we effectively implement privacy through obscurity/bureaucracy to shield ostensibly public information that we don't feel comfortable about anyone having access to it. But it probably works about as well as security through obscurity.

Are you saying that accessing public data should be possible, but require a willingness to jump through hoops? What's your thinking behind that?

by jes 11y ago

Are you saying that accessing public data should be possible, but require a willingness to jump through hoops? What's your thinking behind that?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dangrossman 11y ago

I'm not the person you asked, but to play devil's advocate... I think law enforcement agencies should be able to wiretap suspects of crimes to listen to their phone calls, subject to judicial oversight. I do not think they should have unrestricted, unlogged access to a database of recordings of every phone call ever made by every citizen. Same line of thinking IMO. There's a difference between an individual identifying themselves and signing a usage agreement before requesting public records from an individual county, versus dumping online a public database that lets you query the personal details of 191 million people. The same data is available, but the extra hoops you have to jump through change the potential for abuse.

jes 11y ago
I appreciate your thoughtful comment. With respect to the law enforcement example, the access there is to non-public data. That seems like an essential difference to me, but perhaps you're citing this situation in preparation for your third paragraph. In your third paragraph, I think I'm seeing a dilemma. I don't understand how jumping through the hoops changes the potential for abuse. Let's say 30 people go to the county records office and get the data. They all sign an agreement of some kind. 30 people now have (presumably) exactly the same data set. One of the 30 violates the agreement and publishes it anonymously on the Internet. The data is now "in the wild" and any potential for abuse that it held is now up for grabs. I recognize that I may be missing something, but if I am, I'm not able to see it. I might need more coffee. ;-)
- ghaff 11y ago
  I agree that there's a difference between public and non-public data. With respect to the public data though, this is an issue which we've been wrestling with (and largely punting on) since various public records became readily available in electronic form. The fact is that, in the US, there's quite a bit of public information available about individuals. Much of this information (think home sales, past addresses, any court records) is public for historically sound reasons. However, there is a huge difference between scouring dusty town, county, and state records at considerable cost of time and money and making a few quick queries on the Internet, possibly paying a nominal fee if you really want to go deep. But, to your point, we effectively implement privacy through obscurity/bureaucracy to shield ostensibly public information that we don't feel comfortable about anyone having access to it. But it probably works about as well as security through obscurity.