3 ms·

Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree wit

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.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. What if companies 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. Except that they don't. Heard of a certain Edward Snowden, maybe? Except that they can't because the data is already there and isn't under the control of the affected people? Except that the nature of data is that people don't know how it's being processed? Except that there are network effects that limit people's actual freedom to decline using a quasi-monopolist's services? Your argument could pretty much be applied to the Stasi in the GDR: Do you have an idea what the consequences were when individuals simply stopped providing more data?
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    I never disputed that there are dangers and negative externalities to lack of privacy. But democracy falling apart isn't one of them. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. I don't use Facbook and I am very careful with information I make available publicly. I just don't feel very threatened by any negative externalities created by those who choose to use Facebook. My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. There simply is no unidirectional causation between lack of privacy and lack of democracy. Obviously, the Stasi took away privacy in order to suppress democracy. And at the same time, the lack of democracy helped with establishing and maintaining the Stasi. It's a positive feedback loop. > Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Does using Google cause the NSA? No. Did the NSA take advantage of the data collected by Google (by eavesdropping on their internal communication), thus increasing their power? Yes. Things aren't simply a linear chain of causes and effects. There are lots of factors contributing to certain historical developments, there are feedback loops, it's complicated. In particular, the development of power structures doesn't care about intentions behind a source of power. When the Netherlands collected information about the religion of their citizens prior to WW2, they didn't have an intention of killing all jews. But the database confers the power to find them very efficiently. Which is what the Nazis did when they invaded. As you yourself say, the Stasi would have loved Facebook's database. Does that mean that Facebook is the Stasi? No. Does that mean that it cannot possibly attract interest from people who want to use it like the Stasi, who might end up getting access to it, thus contributing significantly to the establishment of an authoritarian dictatorship? > Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. 1. So, even if that abuse by the state did not happen, what about all the abuse by the state that indeed does happen? What do we know about which role the NSA plays in those cases? 2. More importantly: What kind of evidence would you accept to consider something a risk to democracy? So far, it seems like democracy needs to have been destroyed before you accept that whatever has caused it to fall apart could indeed cause a democracy to fall apart. > But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. Well, except that is a major way in which it does? Surveillance changes how people discuss their opinions. People changing how they discuss their opinions is how people end up making different choices in elections. An idea that's not being discussed is less likely to gain support in an election. Imagine a world where everything was being monitored by a Stasi-like entity, but with the exception of actually fair, secret, democratic elections, where citizens actually knew and could verify that the elections were fair and secret. Would you consider that a functioning democracy? > It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. 1. The externalities of people using facebook aren't voluntary either. 2. The point wasn't whether you have given them permission, but whether the majority of people have given them permission. Your claim was that people would stop volunteering their data. If you go by the general reaction to Snowden's relevations, people don't care. It's probably not informed consent, but neither is it with Facebook. > My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking. Except I don't, that's just your interpretation. Just because I don't write pages upon pages for a short HN comment, doesn't mean that there isn't any more reasoning behind it.

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.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. What if companies 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. Except that they don't. Heard of a certain Edward Snowden, maybe? Except that they can't because the data is already there and isn't under the control of the affected people? Except that the nature of data is that people don't know how it's being processed? Except that there are network effects that limit people's actual freedom to decline using a quasi-monopolist's services? Your argument could pretty much be applied to the Stasi in the GDR: Do you have an idea what the consequences were when individuals simply stopped providing more data?
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  I never disputed that there are dangers and negative externalities to lack of privacy. But democracy falling apart isn't one of them. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. I don't use Facbook and I am very careful with information I make available publicly. I just don't feel very threatened by any negative externalities created by those who choose to use Facebook. My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. There simply is no unidirectional causation between lack of privacy and lack of democracy. Obviously, the Stasi took away privacy in order to suppress democracy. And at the same time, the lack of democracy helped with establishing and maintaining the Stasi. It's a positive feedback loop. > Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Does using Google cause the NSA? No. Did the NSA take advantage of the data collected by Google (by eavesdropping on their internal communication), thus increasing their power? Yes. Things aren't simply a linear chain of causes and effects. There are lots of factors contributing to certain historical developments, there are feedback loops, it's complicated. In particular, the development of power structures doesn't care about intentions behind a source of power. When the Netherlands collected information about the religion of their citizens prior to WW2, they didn't have an intention of killing all jews. But the database confers the power to find them very efficiently. Which is what the Nazis did when they invaded. As you yourself say, the Stasi would have loved Facebook's database. Does that mean that Facebook is the Stasi? No. Does that mean that it cannot possibly attract interest from people who want to use it like the Stasi, who might end up getting access to it, thus contributing significantly to the establishment of an authoritarian dictatorship? > Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. 1. So, even if that abuse by the state did not happen, what about all the abuse by the state that indeed does happen? What do we know about which role the NSA plays in those cases? 2. More importantly: What kind of evidence would you accept to consider something a risk to democracy? So far, it seems like democracy needs to have been destroyed before you accept that whatever has caused it to fall apart could indeed cause a democracy to fall apart. > But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. Well, except that is a major way in which it does? Surveillance changes how people discuss their opinions. People changing how they discuss their opinions is how people end up making different choices in elections. An idea that's not being discussed is less likely to gain support in an election. Imagine a world where everything was being monitored by a Stasi-like entity, but with the exception of actually fair, secret, democratic elections, where citizens actually knew and could verify that the elections were fair and secret. Would you consider that a functioning democracy? > It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. 1. The externalities of people using facebook aren't voluntary either. 2. The point wasn't whether you have given them permission, but whether the majority of people have given them permission. Your claim was that people would stop volunteering their data. If you go by the general reaction to Snowden's relevations, people don't care. It's probably not informed consent, but neither is it with Facebook. > My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking. Except I don't, that's just your interpretation. Just because I don't write pages upon pages for a short HN comment, doesn't mean that there isn't any more reasoning behind it.