4 ms·

This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. It's true that n

This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that is true, and we definitely would all be better off if people took the accountability and personal responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. But really, what does that argument achieve? It absolves the centralized powerful entity of any responsibility, shifting it to a decentralized collection of individuals that lack cohesive power to effect change. In terms of pure efficacy, I don't think that style of reasoning is going to move the needle on actually getting the desired result out of the system. In other words, would it be easier to educate all of those people on proper usage of online services, or to maybe change some legal language somewhere so that these services have some responsibility to their users? I think we can try to encourage personal responsibility in people, and simultaneously acknowledge that it would also be good if the services that hold power and influence were more accountable to their users, because that's just going to be better for everyone collectively.

infinite8s 10y ago
It's true that a lot of those subprime loans were legal - however, they were moved off the originators books in a fraudulent manner. If no one would have bought the loans from the originator then they most likely would have never offered them to people with little means to repay.
madmax96 10y ago
> It's true that no obligation is created under our > current legal structure, but I think the statement > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if > people took the accountability and personal > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. I know what you're getting at here, but it's not really right to compare a policy that resulted in the loss a blog with a set of ethically questionable banking practices that objectively caused one of the worst recessions we've ever seen, resulting in literal death, poverty, and all-around regress. There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract. Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make. After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...
- resu_nimda 10y ago
  I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. Personally I would like to see society move in this direction. The data persistence guarantees should not be questionable, they should be legally enforced. I'm pretty sure we could come up with some terms that aren't realistically that onerous to Google (and other providers), but give users some assurances. We're treading new ground with the concept of digital goods that are extremely cheap to manufacture, distribute, and store, and this idea that ubiquitously useful services can be provided to everyone for free by extracting value from the data generated by their usage. In the pre-digital era, the government "ordering Google to supply a service at no charge" would probably be an untenable precedent, but today that could happen with almost negligible impact to their business, because it already operates like that. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. This is exactly why we should recognize it as a public utility and endeavor to reduce the inherent dangers, just like we go to great effort to make clean water available instead of teaching everyone how to test and treat it themselves.
  - madmax96 10y ago
    I respect that opinion, and I'm with you on treating (computation in general, in fact) as a public utility. It seems that you and I have different attitudes regarding the scope of government involvement in this sort of thing. I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful and forthcoming attitude:) Makes the internet much more enjoyable to use when disagreements are carefully examined rather than the usual tendency in comment threads to degenerate into being just plain mean.
    - resu_nimda 10y ago
      Likewise, thanks :)
- prebrov 10y ago
  While formally and legally you are correct, Money is data and data is money. I believe that argument at hand is that massive digital services providers, by power of the market forces, had become just as essential part of our infrastructure as banks. Their behaviour has played a huge role in establishing this position and setting this expectation. So, the philosophical question is whether Google, AWS, Facebook, et.al. are now "too big to fail" to be subjects of regulation due to their critical role in ensuring preservation and accessibility of human knowledge. They are already being regulated by tons of parties, domestic and foreign, to keep some (lots?) information inaccessible.
tedunangst 10y ago
What that argument achieves is educating people about the dangers of the decisions they make. The alternative is basically "carry on as you were and hope next time it works out."

infinite8s 10y ago

It's true that a lot of those subprime loans were legal - however, they were moved off the originators books in a fraudulent manner. If no one would have bought the loans from the originator then they most likely would have never offered them to people with little means to repay.

madmax96 10y ago

> It's true that no obligation is created under our > current legal structure, but I think the statement > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if > people took the accountability and personal > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. I know what you're getting at here, but it's not really right to compare a policy that resulted in the loss a blog with a set of ethically questionable banking practices that objectively caused one of the worst recessions we've ever seen, resulting in literal death, poverty, and all-around regress. There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract. Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make. After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...

resu_nimda 10y ago
I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. Personally I would like to see society move in this direction. The data persistence guarantees should not be questionable, they should be legally enforced. I'm pretty sure we could come up with some terms that aren't realistically that onerous to Google (and other providers), but give users some assurances. We're treading new ground with the concept of digital goods that are extremely cheap to manufacture, distribute, and store, and this idea that ubiquitously useful services can be provided to everyone for free by extracting value from the data generated by their usage. In the pre-digital era, the government "ordering Google to supply a service at no charge" would probably be an untenable precedent, but today that could happen with almost negligible impact to their business, because it already operates like that. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. This is exactly why we should recognize it as a public utility and endeavor to reduce the inherent dangers, just like we go to great effort to make clean water available instead of teaching everyone how to test and treat it themselves.
- madmax96 10y ago
  I respect that opinion, and I'm with you on treating (computation in general, in fact) as a public utility. It seems that you and I have different attitudes regarding the scope of government involvement in this sort of thing. I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful and forthcoming attitude:) Makes the internet much more enjoyable to use when disagreements are carefully examined rather than the usual tendency in comment threads to degenerate into being just plain mean.
  - resu_nimda 10y ago
    Likewise, thanks :)
prebrov 10y ago
While formally and legally you are correct, Money is data and data is money. I believe that argument at hand is that massive digital services providers, by power of the market forces, had become just as essential part of our infrastructure as banks. Their behaviour has played a huge role in establishing this position and setting this expectation. So, the philosophical question is whether Google, AWS, Facebook, et.al. are now "too big to fail" to be subjects of regulation due to their critical role in ensuring preservation and accessibility of human knowledge. They are already being regulated by tons of parties, domestic and foreign, to keep some (lots?) information inaccessible.

tedunangst 10y ago

What that argument achieves is educating people about the dangers of the decisions they make. The alternative is basically "carry on as you were and hope next time it works out."