4 ms·

I down voted and left a comment. Appealing to child stalking as a way to emotionally charge your argument about radio reception is a disingenuous tactic for th

I down voted and left a comment. Appealing to child stalking as a way to emotionally charge your argument about radio reception is a disingenuous tactic for this conversation. What's more, people who actually work to promote and secure a safer environment for kids don't need people like you constantly exacerbating parental paranoia with a constant back chatter stranger danger. Please refrain from emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

kuschku 10y ago
Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. Or anything else that's that personal. The point isn't about what is collected, but that this type of broad data collection exists in the first place. Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. But Google collects SSIDs? Collecting only the router mac or BSSID might possibly be justifiable, because it's just a map of technical data, but collecting a string where people but creative works in, or names, or jokes? I've seen families where the WiFi for the first floor had another name than that for the ground floor — specifically, the names of their two children, whose room was on first floor. Collecting such PII can be problematic.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. No. That's not my job to arbitrarily re-interpret what you said to give you a free pass for your disingenuous rhetoric. > Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access. > Collecting only the router mac or BSSID might possibly be justifiable, because it's just a map of technical data, but collecting a string where people but creative works in, or names, or jokes? Look, responsibility has to be exercised in all forms of data collection. But it's also the case that the light that shines out of your house is subject to public interpretation. Standing nude in your window facing a crowded street CAN be illegal in both our countries, as could placing a sign that says threatening things to passerbys. The trigger conditions for this vary between our countries, but they exist in both cases. > Collecting such PII can be problematic. COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later. For example, there are people who claim that transactional data can be "anonymized". Do not believe these people; it is nearly impossible to anonymize transactional data. Even mixing users and attempting to delocalize vendor strings will not fix the problems.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access. But they literally can not at any point ever do it. Video surveillance of public space is a crime, even for the police, government, or security agencies, and it does not happen. > COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later. The law literally makes that a crime. You have to stop collection of PII, not just delete it at any later point.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      > But they literally can not at any point ever do it. Video surveillance of public space is a crime, even for the police, government, or security agencies, and it does not happen. Surveillance of public environments via the private security systems is how your government (and ours really) accomplishes this "legally." > The law literally makes that a crime. You have to stop collection of PII, not just delete it at any later point. The law's definition of PII in your country is woefully out of date. Same in mine.
- xapata 10y ago
  What do you think of high-resolution satellite imagery? Do you imagine that a satellite operator needs to get opt-in consent from anyone who happened to be looking up at the sky at the moment of the photograph?

kuschku 10y ago

Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. Or anything else that's that personal. The point isn't about what is collected, but that this type of broad data collection exists in the first place. Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. But Google collects SSIDs? Collecting only the router mac or BSSID might possibly be justifiable, because it's just a map of technical data, but collecting a string where people but creative works in, or names, or jokes? I've seen families where the WiFi for the first floor had another name than that for the ground floor — specifically, the names of their two children, whose room was on first floor. Collecting such PII can be problematic.

KirinDave 10y ago
> Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. No. That's not my job to arbitrarily re-interpret what you said to give you a free pass for your disingenuous rhetoric. > Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access. > Collecting only the router mac or BSSID might possibly be justifiable, because it's just a map of technical data, but collecting a string where people but creative works in, or names, or jokes? Look, responsibility has to be exercised in all forms of data collection. But it's also the case that the light that shines out of your house is subject to public interpretation. Standing nude in your window facing a crowded street CAN be illegal in both our countries, as could placing a sign that says threatening things to passerbys. The trigger conditions for this vary between our countries, but they exist in both cases. > Collecting such PII can be problematic. COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later. For example, there are people who claim that transactional data can be "anonymized". Do not believe these people; it is nearly impossible to anonymize transactional data. Even mixing users and attempting to delocalize vendor strings will not fix the problems.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access. But they literally can not at any point ever do it. Video surveillance of public space is a crime, even for the police, government, or security agencies, and it does not happen. > COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later. The law literally makes that a crime. You have to stop collection of PII, not just delete it at any later point.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > But they literally can not at any point ever do it. Video surveillance of public space is a crime, even for the police, government, or security agencies, and it does not happen. Surveillance of public environments via the private security systems is how your government (and ours really) accomplishes this "legally." > The law literally makes that a crime. You have to stop collection of PII, not just delete it at any later point. The law's definition of PII in your country is woefully out of date. Same in mine.
xapata 10y ago
What do you think of high-resolution satellite imagery? Do you imagine that a satellite operator needs to get opt-in consent from anyone who happened to be looking up at the sky at the moment of the photograph?