4 ms·

For very similar reasons as the ones for which we deny people the right to unsafe food and drink. What do you think would happen if supermarkets were allowed t

For very similar reasons as the ones for which we deny people the right to unsafe food and drink. What do you think would happen if supermarkets were allowed to have shelves with cheaper groceries that are not subject to the usual health standards? People will gladly trade their health for discount coffee as well. Do you think that's a good idea as well?

icebraining 10y ago
As long as they were clearly marked, I don't see why not. They'd probably be better than the food from dumpsters that people get when they can't afford to buy from the supermarket.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  There has been some focus on dumpster diving for food in TV here the last few years, mostly positive. Also, as people who are into cheese or beef will tell you: you should go for the oldest one available at the shelf anyway ;-)
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Food safety is often about issues that by definition are not going to be labeled. The consumer, for instance, isn't going to know if the producer used adulterated ingredients irregardless of what is labeled, and sometimes irregardless of whether it is deadly or not. Likewise, it may not be obvious if something was stored at an improper temperature (or otherwise mishandled) and is also likewise unsafe to eat. These type of food safety issues aren't one where choice is an option, these are issues of malice or neglect. The right of privacy is individual, sure, and can be waived for purposes. Some might not mind. I'm personally okay with that side. But I also think it's pretty easy to come up with examples of private data being misused due to malice and/or neglect. (Particularly the later... it sure seems like companies have a poor track record in keeping data secure.)
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Food safety is often about issues that by definition are not going to be labeled. I don't understand your argument. Why are they by definition not going to be labeled? We're discussing the merits of replacing the current law that bans the sale of potentially unsafe food with one that requires such food to be clearly labeled. To know which food they can't sell, producers must know which food is potentially unsafe, therefore they could label it instead. And if you're going to assume that producers will break the law, why would they respect the law banning the sale? I also think it's pretty easy to come up with examples of private data being misused due to malice and/or neglect. It's pretty easy to find malice and neglect in almost every possible social interaction. By itself, it can't be a sufficient argument, otherwise we'd be prohibiting people from having children!
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      Let's take a sample case: the widely known case of Chinese milk producers that sold milk adulterated with melamine. You assume simply labeling the milk with the melamine is all that is required? That the responsibility of not ingesting what could be a lethal poison that can cause renal failure should fall entirely on the consumer alone? Personally, I doubt it (at any rate I am aware of no law where victim ignorance is a defense for a malicious act). Now, I do understand what you are saying for cases where the safety risk is more minimal or specific, labeling is all that is needed. So food safety laws often are fine with people consuming, say, undercooked / raw seafood, provided a warning is given that certain people probably should avoid this type of food. I think in a way we're talking about different things, but "food standards" cover a lot of things. Anyways, this is where I come from in regard to privacy. I don't believe that every time you waive your right to privacy, something awful happens. So I'm not talking about a general ban of waiving the right to privacy. However, I do believe privacy standards need to be strengthened to help prevent (or at least correct) such cases as malicious misuse of private data (example: doxxing) and neglect of private data (example: hacked websites that expose databases of information to criminals).
      - icebraining 10y ago
r00fus 10y ago
Just like poor health standards enable a toxic and possibly infectious environment... Could we not argue that poor privacy standards create a toxic environment for everyone, not just the poor who are directly subjected to it? By moving privacy to "only those who have paid for it" you're moving the liability for privacy to the victim rather than the perpetrator.

icebraining 10y ago

As long as they were clearly marked, I don't see why not. They'd probably be better than the food from dumpsters that people get when they can't afford to buy from the supermarket.

reitanqild 10y ago
There has been some focus on dumpster diving for food in TV here the last few years, mostly positive. Also, as people who are into cheese or beef will tell you: you should go for the oldest one available at the shelf anyway ;-)
soundwave106 10y ago
Food safety is often about issues that by definition are not going to be labeled. The consumer, for instance, isn't going to know if the producer used adulterated ingredients irregardless of what is labeled, and sometimes irregardless of whether it is deadly or not. Likewise, it may not be obvious if something was stored at an improper temperature (or otherwise mishandled) and is also likewise unsafe to eat. These type of food safety issues aren't one where choice is an option, these are issues of malice or neglect. The right of privacy is individual, sure, and can be waived for purposes. Some might not mind. I'm personally okay with that side. But I also think it's pretty easy to come up with examples of private data being misused due to malice and/or neglect. (Particularly the later... it sure seems like companies have a poor track record in keeping data secure.)
- icebraining 10y ago
  Food safety is often about issues that by definition are not going to be labeled. I don't understand your argument. Why are they by definition not going to be labeled? We're discussing the merits of replacing the current law that bans the sale of potentially unsafe food with one that requires such food to be clearly labeled. To know which food they can't sell, producers must know which food is potentially unsafe, therefore they could label it instead. And if you're going to assume that producers will break the law, why would they respect the law banning the sale? I also think it's pretty easy to come up with examples of private data being misused due to malice and/or neglect. It's pretty easy to find malice and neglect in almost every possible social interaction. By itself, it can't be a sufficient argument, otherwise we'd be prohibiting people from having children!
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Let's take a sample case: the widely known case of Chinese milk producers that sold milk adulterated with melamine. You assume simply labeling the milk with the melamine is all that is required? That the responsibility of not ingesting what could be a lethal poison that can cause renal failure should fall entirely on the consumer alone? Personally, I doubt it (at any rate I am aware of no law where victim ignorance is a defense for a malicious act). Now, I do understand what you are saying for cases where the safety risk is more minimal or specific, labeling is all that is needed. So food safety laws often are fine with people consuming, say, undercooked / raw seafood, provided a warning is given that certain people probably should avoid this type of food. I think in a way we're talking about different things, but "food standards" cover a lot of things. Anyways, this is where I come from in regard to privacy. I don't believe that every time you waive your right to privacy, something awful happens. So I'm not talking about a general ban of waiving the right to privacy. However, I do believe privacy standards need to be strengthened to help prevent (or at least correct) such cases as malicious misuse of private data (example: doxxing) and neglect of private data (example: hacked websites that expose databases of information to criminals).
    - icebraining 10y ago

r00fus 10y ago

Just like poor health standards enable a toxic and possibly infectious environment... Could we not argue that poor privacy standards create a toxic environment for everyone, not just the poor who are directly subjected to it? By moving privacy to "only those who have paid for it" you're moving the liability for privacy to the victim rather than the perpetrator.