4 ms·

This is exactly the type of thing I'm afraid of when I read the link. Being doxxed due to something I did is one thing, but being doxxed due to something I didn

by desdiv 10y ago

This is exactly the type of thing I'm afraid of when I read the link. Being doxxed due to something I did is one thing, but being doxxed due to something I didn't do is something else altogether. Can you imagine how much it would suck if you woke up the next morning and the entire internet is convinced that you're Satoshi Nakamoto or a pedophile due to a false positive from this program? There is no due process and no chance of appeal; your social life is simply over at that point. All because of a 5% chance of a false positive.

colejohnson66 10y ago
That's already what happens with false rape/pedophile accusations due to America's love of "trial by media". One false rape accusation and your photo is all over the local media. Your life is ruined.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I've addressed this in part in my own reply to the parent. But the larger one is that with 1) pervasive information and 2) very cheap analysis or assertion, you're hugely increasing the potential for this type of abuse. The limit is in attention paid -- the public has a limited capacity to absorb information, and there are a few hundred, perhaps a thousand or so "top celebrities" at any one time. And some of those can attain a highly significant level of immunity to criticism. Ronald Reagan's presidency was the most scandal-prone in recent memory, and yet his moniker was "the Teflon president". William Jefferson Clinton took far more flack for far less, and Barak Obama takes the hit for complete fabrications. Meantime, a major party presidential candidate advocates overt violence to protesters and various other views ... and is only embraced all the more strongly by his supporters. The dynamics of this are odd.
dredmorbius 10y ago
That's among the true terrors of a global information domain society. It's not that you can prove the goods on anyone, it's that you can plausibly assert them. And proving a negative is very, very difficult. That said, I'm not sure the genie can be rebottled. It's an area of privacy in which law rather than technology must be applied. Including, say, exceptionally fierce penalties for misuse.

by desdiv 10y ago

colejohnson66 10y ago

That's already what happens with false rape/pedophile accusations due to America's love of "trial by media". One false rape accusation and your photo is all over the local media. Your life is ruined.

dredmorbius 10y ago
I've addressed this in part in my own reply to the parent. But the larger one is that with 1) pervasive information and 2) very cheap analysis or assertion, you're hugely increasing the potential for this type of abuse. The limit is in attention paid -- the public has a limited capacity to absorb information, and there are a few hundred, perhaps a thousand or so "top celebrities" at any one time. And some of those can attain a highly significant level of immunity to criticism. Ronald Reagan's presidency was the most scandal-prone in recent memory, and yet his moniker was "the Teflon president". William Jefferson Clinton took far more flack for far less, and Barak Obama takes the hit for complete fabrications. Meantime, a major party presidential candidate advocates overt violence to protesters and various other views ... and is only embraced all the more strongly by his supporters. The dynamics of this are odd.

dredmorbius 10y ago

That's among the true terrors of a global information domain society. It's not that you can prove the goods on anyone, it's that you can plausibly assert them. And proving a negative is very, very difficult. That said, I'm not sure the genie can be rebottled. It's an area of privacy in which law rather than technology must be applied. Including, say, exceptionally fierce penalties for misuse.