4 ms·

> 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 consid

> 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.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I see what you are saying. In principle, I agree that laws shouldn't restrict people's freedom to choose to do such things but reality is messy, as always: This issue is more complex than a simple principle and there are different, equally valid ways to conceptualize it: * Most importantly, we often preserve people's fundamental freedoms by protecting them. You can't agree to be slave, for example; that is, you can say you agree and even play the role, but at any moment you can walk away and sue for unpaid wages and the employer/owner will be guilty of having violated labor laws. I think people's rights to privacy should similarly be protected. * While maybe we shouldn't outlaw people's rights to sell private data, we can outlaw others from buying them. * In some circumstances, people have literal freedom but not a realistic ability to make a choice, due to lack of expertise or exploitation: We don't let people choose to be part of dangerous medical experiments, for example; the experiments must be approved. People lack the expertise to make an informed choice (and even approved medical experiments take care with how prospective subjects are informed). We don't let vulnerable populations be used for medical experiments; For example, prisoners and children can too easily be pressured into participating, against their will. I'm honestly not sure to what degree privacy fits this category; people understand the concept, but they have no idea of how their information is used and the risks of that.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        I know we as western societies take similar positions on other issues; I'm generally critical of them. People don't need to be experts to make informed decisions; FSM knows politicians aren't experts on most things they decide upon. Informing, requiring consent and - especially - offering better alternatives to the "exploitative" option should, in my opinion, be used instead of the paternalistic prohibition (which is often just a cover for other interests).

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.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I see what you are saying. In principle, I agree that laws shouldn't restrict people's freedom to choose to do such things but reality is messy, as always: This issue is more complex than a simple principle and there are different, equally valid ways to conceptualize it: * Most importantly, we often preserve people's fundamental freedoms by protecting them. You can't agree to be slave, for example; that is, you can say you agree and even play the role, but at any moment you can walk away and sue for unpaid wages and the employer/owner will be guilty of having violated labor laws. I think people's rights to privacy should similarly be protected. * While maybe we shouldn't outlaw people's rights to sell private data, we can outlaw others from buying them. * In some circumstances, people have literal freedom but not a realistic ability to make a choice, due to lack of expertise or exploitation: We don't let people choose to be part of dangerous medical experiments, for example; the experiments must be approved. People lack the expertise to make an informed choice (and even approved medical experiments take care with how prospective subjects are informed). We don't let vulnerable populations be used for medical experiments; For example, prisoners and children can too easily be pressured into participating, against their will. I'm honestly not sure to what degree privacy fits this category; people understand the concept, but they have no idea of how their information is used and the risks of that.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      I know we as western societies take similar positions on other issues; I'm generally critical of them. People don't need to be experts to make informed decisions; FSM knows politicians aren't experts on most things they decide upon. Informing, requiring consent and - especially - offering better alternatives to the "exploitative" option should, in my opinion, be used instead of the paternalistic prohibition (which is often just a cover for other interests).