5 ms·

Are you suggesting people should own information? That seems backward at best.

AlexandrB 11y ago
I'm suggesting people should be able to control who gets to see which information about them. This is not at all unlike NDAs and other intellectual property agreements that people enter into. You're right that this implies ownership, but by this definition people & corporations "own" information all the time - it's called patents and copyright.
- miguelrochefort 11y ago
  I see. You're one of those people who don't have an issue with the very idea of copyright and patents.
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    I do have a problem with them, and still mostly agree with gp.
  - spdustin 11y ago
    I've noticed you doing this over and over; you extrapolate an impossibly generalized statement from a user, inferring details which were not implied or explicitly stated. He made no such opinion statement on copyrights or patents. Your views on privacy have been questioned ad nauseum on HN, and your replies frequently do not address the very real concern that people raise: the misuse of "private" information by those in authority. Or, if you do, it's a very hand-wavy statement to the effect of "if information was freely available to anyone, that power wouldn't be a big deal". It's simply not a response that addresses the facts: the concern by those with a desire to protect their privacy stems from their "private" information being used by someone in a position to do physical, economical or psychological harm to them. You've never addressed that, that I can see. Your government, unless you are the sole government of your own little island somewhere, is in a position to harm you. They give a vanishingly small number of fucks about your life as an individual, and wouldn't bat an eye at taking your "private" information out of context and using it to disrupt your life if it suits their needs. I know statements like mine will never convince you that your perception of how the real world works is quite different from its realities; I do not make them to convince you. I appreciate the seed of hope for the future that you believe you're sowing by arguing your point on HN, and it would be an amazing place to live. Given, however, the ways in which the human condition manifests itself in a society where there are people with power over others - no matter where that power comes from - that world is a fiction. In our reality, we lowly citizens have few advantages over the powerful few, and until the human condition evolves to allow a Gene Roddenberry-esque utopian society to form on Earth, the right to privacy will always be sacred to those of us who want to have some semblance of control over our future.
    - miguelrochefort 11y ago
      Generally, when I disagree with a person, it's not about reality or the present. I disagree about the possibilities, the future. Nobody is saying that society is perfect, nor does anybody claim that we can get rid of all forms of privacy today and live happily. That wouldn't be reasonable. The reason I comment is because I'm convinced that a lot of people here never asked themselves - not even once - what privacy is and what purpose it serves. People blindly accept the idea that privacy is not only necessary, but a desired aspect of society. I find that idea destructive. The worst (and most telling) part is the blatant contradictions that people demonstrate across recurring debates. Gun control, SOPA/PIPA, Net Neutrality, Privacy/NSA, Patents/Copyrights, are all the same debates. They're all precisely the very same issues. Yet, people (who I feel lack the ability to generalize) appear to see these issues as different and unrelated things. The worst part, they hold different positions across these topics, effectively contradicting themselves. That is baffling. You can probably tell that I'm not a great communicator. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful, but most people don't put any effort into trying to understand what I'm struggling to convey. I don't blame people for that, but that sure is frustrating to me. TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others.
      - jnbiche 11y ago
        > The reason I comment is because I'm convinced that a lot of people here never asked themselves - not even once - what privacy is and what purpose it serves. In fact, the people I know who have actually thought about privacy and its implications the most, myself included, are the ones who hold it dearest. The people that I know who have never stopped to think about these issues are the ones who don't care what information big companies and the government has about them. >TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others. Hmm. Maybe try another approach? Maybe try being specific about what you want and/or advocate for?
        miguelrochefort 11y ago
        I believe that generalization is good. Many of the problems we face today are symptoms of lack of generalization.

I'm suggesting people should be able to control who gets to see which information about them. This is not at all unlike NDAs and other intellectual property agreements that people enter into. You're right that this implies ownership, but by this definition people & corporations "own" information all the time - it's called patents and copyright.

miguelrochefort 11y ago
I see. You're one of those people who don't have an issue with the very idea of copyright and patents.
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  I do have a problem with them, and still mostly agree with gp.
- spdustin 11y ago
  I've noticed you doing this over and over; you extrapolate an impossibly generalized statement from a user, inferring details which were not implied or explicitly stated. He made no such opinion statement on copyrights or patents. Your views on privacy have been questioned ad nauseum on HN, and your replies frequently do not address the very real concern that people raise: the misuse of "private" information by those in authority. Or, if you do, it's a very hand-wavy statement to the effect of "if information was freely available to anyone, that power wouldn't be a big deal". It's simply not a response that addresses the facts: the concern by those with a desire to protect their privacy stems from their "private" information being used by someone in a position to do physical, economical or psychological harm to them. You've never addressed that, that I can see. Your government, unless you are the sole government of your own little island somewhere, is in a position to harm you. They give a vanishingly small number of fucks about your life as an individual, and wouldn't bat an eye at taking your "private" information out of context and using it to disrupt your life if it suits their needs. I know statements like mine will never convince you that your perception of how the real world works is quite different from its realities; I do not make them to convince you. I appreciate the seed of hope for the future that you believe you're sowing by arguing your point on HN, and it would be an amazing place to live. Given, however, the ways in which the human condition manifests itself in a society where there are people with power over others - no matter where that power comes from - that world is a fiction. In our reality, we lowly citizens have few advantages over the powerful few, and until the human condition evolves to allow a Gene Roddenberry-esque utopian society to form on Earth, the right to privacy will always be sacred to those of us who want to have some semblance of control over our future.
  - miguelrochefort 11y ago
    Generally, when I disagree with a person, it's not about reality or the present. I disagree about the possibilities, the future. Nobody is saying that society is perfect, nor does anybody claim that we can get rid of all forms of privacy today and live happily. That wouldn't be reasonable. The reason I comment is because I'm convinced that a lot of people here never asked themselves - not even once - what privacy is and what purpose it serves. People blindly accept the idea that privacy is not only necessary, but a desired aspect of society. I find that idea destructive. The worst (and most telling) part is the blatant contradictions that people demonstrate across recurring debates. Gun control, SOPA/PIPA, Net Neutrality, Privacy/NSA, Patents/Copyrights, are all the same debates. They're all precisely the very same issues. Yet, people (who I feel lack the ability to generalize) appear to see these issues as different and unrelated things. The worst part, they hold different positions across these topics, effectively contradicting themselves. That is baffling. You can probably tell that I'm not a great communicator. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful, but most people don't put any effort into trying to understand what I'm struggling to convey. I don't blame people for that, but that sure is frustrating to me. TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others.
    - jnbiche 11y ago
      > The reason I comment is because I'm convinced that a lot of people here never asked themselves - not even once - what privacy is and what purpose it serves. In fact, the people I know who have actually thought about privacy and its implications the most, myself included, are the ones who hold it dearest. The people that I know who have never stopped to think about these issues are the ones who don't care what information big companies and the government has about them. >TL;DR: I generalize to a level that prevents me from understanding or being understood by others. Hmm. Maybe try another approach? Maybe try being specific about what you want and/or advocate for?
      - miguelrochefort 11y ago
        I believe that generalization is good. Many of the problems we face today are symptoms of lack of generalization.