4 ms·

> Why should we deny these people their right to abandon their own privacy? Because desperate people can be coerced to give up anything, whether they truly wan

> Why should we deny these people their right to abandon their own privacy? Because desperate people can be coerced to give up anything, whether they truly want to or not. Because these sorts of issues form the basis for many kinds of discrimination that society finds unacceptable. Big="L" Libertarians and Randians opinions notwithstanding, there are worse things than preventing a race-to-the-bottom society built on degradation of the weakest individuals.

nostrademons 10y ago
Privacy issues aside, I'm not sure that the folks who trade their privacy for a discount coffee count as "desperate" in any sense of the word. I do think that they perhaps haven't thought through the implications of what giving up their purchasing history could mean in a decade or two. Or maybe they have, and they're making the very rational choice to focus on the concrete effects of the here & now rather than some abstract consequences in the future. Data has an expiration date, after all.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I think that, as the fight over 'metadata' implies, most people haven't realized how powerful non-central data can be. People who wouldn't tell you their home address, relationship status, or buying history share that information with a dozen companies that collect it implicitly. Of course, we do make some conscious decisions to give up privacy - I don't give a damn who knows what I buy at the grocery store, so I'll have it tracked for 3% off - but a lot what people agree to isn't.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I'm not sure that the folks who trade their privacy for a discount coffee count as "desperate" in any sense of the word. I think you have a point, but consider that there are many people who are counting every penny. But more importantly, consider the larger point that privacy shouldn't be only for those who can afford it.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    If people are selling their private data because they need every penny to eat, we shouldn't prohibit it and ensure they actually starve! We should instead offer them a third alternative. Prohibiting doesn't fix the actual problem, only the symptom. It does, however, allow many to sleep well at night knowing they "helped" the poor.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Prohibiting doesn't fix the actual problem, only the symptom Society prohibits many things and often it works fine. You can't run red lights, violate sanitation laws in your restaurant, defraud your customers, violate zoning laws, burn down your neighbor's house, practice medicine without a license, etc. Many of these rules have demonstrable positive outcomes. Rather than applying an ideological theory to reality, I think we need to examine the data - the messy details - on what actually has worked and what hasn't, and where that's unavailable use serious, non-ideological economic analysis. We successfully regulate many business practices to protect consumers, and Europe appears to successfully regulate privacy. Privacy doesn't seem particularly difficult to regulate, but I'm open to research on it. > It does, however, allow many to sleep well at night knowing they "helped" the poor. This starts with a fallacy about 'prohibiting', creates a fictional person who 'sleeps well' (implying the fictional person has some shallow view of the world), and mocks the fictional person. It's possible their feelings are hurt; perhaps you should consider apologizing?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Society prohibits many things and often it works fine. Yes it does. I'm talking about this specific kind of prohibitions - taking away options from the poor for "their own good". And I fully agree that privacy can be regulated and the EU does a decent job of it. They also happen to not prohibit me from giving/selling one's personal data away, so I'm not sure how it helps that argument. As for the fallacy about prohibiting, the context of this conversation is about "deny[ing] these people their right to abandon their own privacy". What's denying a right if not prohibiting? If your argument is that privacy should be regulated in general, not that people should be denied the right to give it up, then you should say so, we're not mind readers.

nostrademons 10y ago

Privacy issues aside, I'm not sure that the folks who trade their privacy for a discount coffee count as "desperate" in any sense of the word. I do think that they perhaps haven't thought through the implications of what giving up their purchasing history could mean in a decade or two. Or maybe they have, and they're making the very rational choice to focus on the concrete effects of the here & now rather than some abstract consequences in the future. Data has an expiration date, after all.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I think that, as the fight over 'metadata' implies, most people haven't realized how powerful non-central data can be. People who wouldn't tell you their home address, relationship status, or buying history share that information with a dozen companies that collect it implicitly. Of course, we do make some conscious decisions to give up privacy - I don't give a damn who knows what I buy at the grocery store, so I'll have it tracked for 3% off - but a lot what people agree to isn't.
hackuser 10y ago
> I'm not sure that the folks who trade their privacy for a discount coffee count as "desperate" in any sense of the word. I think you have a point, but consider that there are many people who are counting every penny. But more importantly, consider the larger point that privacy shouldn't be only for those who can afford it.
- icebraining 10y ago
  If people are selling their private data because they need every penny to eat, we shouldn't prohibit it and ensure they actually starve! We should instead offer them a third alternative. Prohibiting doesn't fix the actual problem, only the symptom. It does, however, allow many to sleep well at night knowing they "helped" the poor.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Prohibiting doesn't fix the actual problem, only the symptom Society prohibits many things and often it works fine. You can't run red lights, violate sanitation laws in your restaurant, defraud your customers, violate zoning laws, burn down your neighbor's house, practice medicine without a license, etc. Many of these rules have demonstrable positive outcomes. Rather than applying an ideological theory to reality, I think we need to examine the data - the messy details - on what actually has worked and what hasn't, and where that's unavailable use serious, non-ideological economic analysis. We successfully regulate many business practices to protect consumers, and Europe appears to successfully regulate privacy. Privacy doesn't seem particularly difficult to regulate, but I'm open to research on it. > It does, however, allow many to sleep well at night knowing they "helped" the poor. This starts with a fallacy about 'prohibiting', creates a fictional person who 'sleeps well' (implying the fictional person has some shallow view of the world), and mocks the fictional person. It's possible their feelings are hurt; perhaps you should consider apologizing?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Society prohibits many things and often it works fine. Yes it does. I'm talking about this specific kind of prohibitions - taking away options from the poor for "their own good". And I fully agree that privacy can be regulated and the EU does a decent job of it. They also happen to not prohibit me from giving/selling one's personal data away, so I'm not sure how it helps that argument. As for the fallacy about prohibiting, the context of this conversation is about "deny[ing] these people their right to abandon their own privacy". What's denying a right if not prohibiting? If your argument is that privacy should be regulated in general, not that people should be denied the right to give it up, then you should say so, we're not mind readers.