8 ms·

The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externaliti

The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. Privacy is a necessity for a democracy, without it, democracy falls apart, that is extremely dangerous, and that's why a democratic society should protect itself against it.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
>The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. And now please explain to me what sort of voluntary agreement does not have negative externalities when it occurs en masse! Voluntary agreements inevitably create markets and markets have well known negative externalities. Even the democratic process itself has negative externalities. On that basis you can ban everything. I'm not against all regulation, but your justification is way too general. It leads straight into authoritarianism.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  How does it lead to authoritarianism? You're making some pretty sweeping statements there..
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    Because there are no personal freedoms that cannot be taken away if negative externalities alone are a sufficient justification. Outright bans are the strictest form of regulation. They should only be used as a last resort. We don't even ban industrial scale cruelty towards animals and now we should ban voluntary trade in personal data? That seems completely out of proportion.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      Are you suggesting that externalities alone cannot ever be sufficient justification for a ban, no matter how bad the externalities are?
      - jerf 10y ago
        No. "X is not always a sufficient reason" != "X is never a sufficient reason."
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        No, I just think the bar for banning consenting adults from entering into an agreement should be very high, because the negative externalities of doing it too often are extremely grave as well.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree with that. Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy that is quite common in stable democracies: You are usually not allowed to prove to third parties how you voted in an election. That's only because of the externalities that that can have on the democracy if third parties can pressure you into voting a certain way/can buy your votes.
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? Not just that, it's also about weighing the restrictions on personal freedoms against the extent of negative externalities. In some cases the protection of personal freedoms is absolute. The ban on torture is a precedent for that. >Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy [...] It's a precedent only if it's comparable, which it isn't. You are overstating your case. There is no reason to believe that letting an algorithm parse some of your data for clues as to what you might want to buy makes democracy fall apart. What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago

>The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. And now please explain to me what sort of voluntary agreement does not have negative externalities when it occurs en masse! Voluntary agreements inevitably create markets and markets have well known negative externalities. Even the democratic process itself has negative externalities. On that basis you can ban everything. I'm not against all regulation, but your justification is way too general. It leads straight into authoritarianism.

bpchaps 10y ago
How does it lead to authoritarianism? You're making some pretty sweeping statements there..
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  Because there are no personal freedoms that cannot be taken away if negative externalities alone are a sufficient justification. Outright bans are the strictest form of regulation. They should only be used as a last resort. We don't even ban industrial scale cruelty towards animals and now we should ban voluntary trade in personal data? That seems completely out of proportion.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    Are you suggesting that externalities alone cannot ever be sufficient justification for a ban, no matter how bad the externalities are?
    - jerf 10y ago
      No. "X is not always a sufficient reason" != "X is never a sufficient reason."
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      No, I just think the bar for banning consenting adults from entering into an agreement should be very high, because the negative externalities of doing it too often are extremely grave as well.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree with that. Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy that is quite common in stable democracies: You are usually not allowed to prove to third parties how you voted in an election. That's only because of the externalities that that can have on the democracy if third parties can pressure you into voting a certain way/can buy your votes.
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? Not just that, it's also about weighing the restrictions on personal freedoms against the extent of negative externalities. In some cases the protection of personal freedoms is absolute. The ban on torture is a precedent for that. >Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy [...] It's a precedent only if it's comparable, which it isn't. You are overstating your case. There is no reason to believe that letting an algorithm parse some of your data for clues as to what you might want to buy makes democracy fall apart. What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that.