3 ms·

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 adulterat

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
    You assume simply labeling the milk with the melamine is all that is required? Not just having melamine in the list of ingredients, but actually clearly labeling the danger. Obviously nobody would sell milk saying "Danger of death", therefore that case is irrelevant (selling without the label would still be illegal, since it's fraud, not just "protecting people from their own decisions", which is what I'm arguing against). 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). I fully agree, and I'm quite happy to live in the EU which has at least some decent privacy protections, but those aren't cases in which people are willingly giving up anything.

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
  You assume simply labeling the milk with the melamine is all that is required? Not just having melamine in the list of ingredients, but actually clearly labeling the danger. Obviously nobody would sell milk saying "Danger of death", therefore that case is irrelevant (selling without the label would still be illegal, since it's fraud, not just "protecting people from their own decisions", which is what I'm arguing against). 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). I fully agree, and I'm quite happy to live in the EU which has at least some decent privacy protections, but those aren't cases in which people are willingly giving up anything.