5 ms·

But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all

by smokeyj 10y ago

But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". The solution here is obviously open-source and protocol based mediums. Proprietary social networks exist to extract data and sell ads. But let's ignore that and give politicians more power to regulate internet services as a whole. I'm sure the German government would love that.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". Yes, there are laws restricting how and when data can be processed. That someone has the ability to do something bad does not mean they cannot be restricted from doing it by the law.
Nursie 10y ago
Yes, just because you can do something with someone's data doesn't mean you should be able to do so. That this sort of restriction is largely missing from US data laws is one reason we see so much fuss about data centre locations and 'safe harbour' provisions.
technofiend 10y ago
>But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data That's exactly what the legislation constrains - Zuck's select * from where user_id = 'technofiend' returns 3 rows not hundreds or thousands, or zero if I've opted out of data collection entirely. You can't simply throw your hands up and say "Well Facebook has a billion users too bad so sad if they collect data you don't like" because there are in fact plenty of laws elsewhere that restrict their activity. It's entirely possibly to tell them to keep their grubby hands of my bits and their cookies out of my browser. And yes if that means I have to pay for sites I use for free now, so be it. I can't help but think that'll drive content towards quality anyway.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  Adopting an alternative to Zuckernet is the exact opposite. Continuing to hand your life's data to Zuck is to throw your hands up. Begging your politician for a little privacy from Zuck when strong encryption exists is to throw your hands up. People care enough about privacy to complain about it but not enough to do anything. I don't have much sympathy for them.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Getting your democratic government to legislate protections is doing something.
  - tjl 10y ago
    One problem is that they collect "shadow" profiles of people who aren't even on the service. If someone who has your contact info is on the service, they'll start a profile of you based on that. Plus, there's many web sites that are connected to Facebook and send info back to it without you even knowing about it, just by having a Facebook share button on the page. It's very difficult to avoid having any of your data on Facebook's servers.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Ah, shadow profiles again. Maybe the real problem here is that people talk about "your data". There's no "your data" in a shadow profile of you. There's data about you. I have a feeling that talking about the data as if it belonged to the person it refers to makes people reach weird conclusions. I'm having problems with articulating clear examples, but I don't like the very concept of ownership of facts - whether they're algorithms or phone<->name associations.
      - tjl 10y ago
        In my mind, it's one thing if a Web site that I go to learnt about me based on my interactions and a whole another thing when people start correlating data across sites. That's what Facebook is doing with its stupid buttons on nearly every news site. Amazon knows a great deal about my buying habits but that makes complete sense. Facebook knowing what articles I read from the Globe and Mail and the CBC is something else.

by smokeyj 10y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

> But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". Yes, there are laws restricting how and when data can be processed. That someone has the ability to do something bad does not mean they cannot be restricted from doing it by the law.

Nursie 10y ago

Yes, just because you can do something with someone's data doesn't mean you should be able to do so. That this sort of restriction is largely missing from US data laws is one reason we see so much fuss about data centre locations and 'safe harbour' provisions.

technofiend 10y ago

>But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data That's exactly what the legislation constrains - Zuck's select * from where user_id = 'technofiend' returns 3 rows not hundreds or thousands, or zero if I've opted out of data collection entirely. You can't simply throw your hands up and say "Well Facebook has a billion users too bad so sad if they collect data you don't like" because there are in fact plenty of laws elsewhere that restrict their activity. It's entirely possibly to tell them to keep their grubby hands of my bits and their cookies out of my browser. And yes if that means I have to pay for sites I use for free now, so be it. I can't help but think that'll drive content towards quality anyway.

smokeyj 10y ago
Adopting an alternative to Zuckernet is the exact opposite. Continuing to hand your life's data to Zuck is to throw your hands up. Begging your politician for a little privacy from Zuck when strong encryption exists is to throw your hands up. People care enough about privacy to complain about it but not enough to do anything. I don't have much sympathy for them.
- Nursie 10y ago
  Getting your democratic government to legislate protections is doing something.
- tjl 10y ago
  One problem is that they collect "shadow" profiles of people who aren't even on the service. If someone who has your contact info is on the service, they'll start a profile of you based on that. Plus, there's many web sites that are connected to Facebook and send info back to it without you even knowing about it, just by having a Facebook share button on the page. It's very difficult to avoid having any of your data on Facebook's servers.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Ah, shadow profiles again. Maybe the real problem here is that people talk about "your data". There's no "your data" in a shadow profile of you. There's data about you. I have a feeling that talking about the data as if it belonged to the person it refers to makes people reach weird conclusions. I'm having problems with articulating clear examples, but I don't like the very concept of ownership of facts - whether they're algorithms or phone<->name associations.
    - tjl 10y ago
      In my mind, it's one thing if a Web site that I go to learnt about me based on my interactions and a whole another thing when people start correlating data across sites. That's what Facebook is doing with its stupid buttons on nearly every news site. Amazon knows a great deal about my buying habits but that makes complete sense. Facebook knowing what articles I read from the Globe and Mail and the CBC is something else.