4 ms·

I strongly disagree. This policy fight isn't a fight to regulate the market (like the automobile regulations you mentioned). It's a fight for a fundamental rig

I strongly disagree. This policy fight isn't a fight to regulate the market (like the automobile regulations you mentioned). It's a fight for a fundamental right to privacy. Any technology improvement that can protect privacy can be made illegal, and enforced by a boot on the face (see China). If the government makes encryption without government key escrow illegal (not at all outlandish, has been discussed in many countries), will you personally, nikcub, continue to use encryption without key escrow? If you are willing to risk imprisonment to do so, you are among the bravest people. It is a small group. The policy fight is massively more important than the tech. A tech that takes 100 years to develop can be made illegal in a day. If everyone starts using VPNs, ISPs will ban them. There might be some game of cat and mouse, but eventually the same lobbyists that lobbied to remove these privacy rules are going to lobby to take some of tech options off the table.

demonshalo 10y ago
> It's a fight for a fundamental right to privacy. Where did this right come from? and since when is this a thing? Don't mean to be condescending but "the right to privacy" isn't really a thing in this particular domain (legally speaking)
- agentcoops 10y ago
  Sticking to a Western context, this is a pretty fundamental distinction between the US and the EU in the understanding (and, crucially, in the implementation/enforcement) of human rights. I can't pretend to do justice to the long history of the concept, but we can at least say that for the latter, privacy has been considered an important human right since at least the UN declaration of 1948. This has been carried over into European law, see all the iterations on EU data protection laws. The UN statement is Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." For the US, this dimension of human rights did not deeply inform policy. Here discussion around a "right to privacy" really began in a different context with Brandeis and a right to be "left alone", largely meaning from the press. Many of the cases that inform privacy law in the US are oriented towards such scenarios and do not necessarily translate well to the context of data. See http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva.... There is rather a discussion on the accuracy of financial data about a person that stems from credit reporting. The other area that would have to be discussed is of course wire-tapping laws, but leave that for another day... In sum, the question of a "right to privacy" has a long tangled history even just within the West, but is decidedly a thing in the EU.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Fair point. I certainly don't believe in natural law. I don't think we should fight for a right to privacy because it's inhenrently owed to us by the universe or some such. I think we should fight for it because I think it makes life better and because I don't want to live under an oppressive government.
- lucideer 10y ago
  I really don't understand this line of logic on fundamental rights. If you're referring to the UDHR, it's a piece of paper put together by Eleanor Roosevelt a little over half a century ago. It's a human document of arbitrary concepts put together by people who believed enforcing those would improve the world in aggregate. The idea of basing our sense of right on what is law, rather than basing the laws we write on our sense of right seems to be bafflingly common.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Re your final sentence, there's a possible third option (though your second has merits): coming up with both rules (law) and guidance (rights, ethics, morality) based on what improves the overall common weal. Another archaic concept, I fear, most days.
    - lucideer 10y ago
      I guess I was conflating the latter two... In my mind: ethics = definition of what improves the common weal law (should)= enforcement of said ethics
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Hrm. I'm wondering now if there's a possible ethical case for actions which don't improve the common weal. Or how to resolve conflicts between short-term present vs. long-term future outcomes, or other conflicts -- say, you classic Trolley Problem. I also wanted to note that your dismissal of Fundamental Rights is a good point. I'm finding far more agreement with the Pragmatists (Dewey, James, etc.) than various Natural / Fundamental Rightists. If only because any idiot can jump up and claim "This is My Fundamental Right" and ... all rational discussion stops.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Maybe nitpicking, but: > a fight for a fundamental right to privacy Many don't consider this to be a fundamental right. > A tech that takes 100 years to develop can be made illegal in a day. As the recorded history goes, I think it was always the other way around - a new technological development suddenly invalidating a set of laws, and lawmakers playing catch-up with its use. I wish governments of the world got their collective shit together so we could have sane privacy laws, but as it is now, technology is an important leverage to push the policymakers in the right direction. Maybe you can't focus 100% on it, but it would be foolish to just ignore it. It's the single most powerful tool we have here.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  I partially agree with your points, but I still insist the policy fight is more pressing, because the tech is only possible to use with the right policy. If the US and Europe change to be like China, all that tech is worthless because the spooks can come knock down your door if they suspect you're "hiding something."
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    This really can't be overstated. "Engineering around" the failures of democracy in the West won't work. We need to fix the issues with our democracies and change the policies.
- shwouchk 10y ago
  > Many don't consider this to be a fundamental right. Is that why everyone agrees that the constitution protects this right in the physical domain?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    In physical world we differentiate between public and private spaces, with different expectations of privacy in each of them. There's a debate to be had about appropriate demarkations on the Internet.

demonshalo 10y ago

> It's a fight for a fundamental right to privacy. Where did this right come from? and since when is this a thing? Don't mean to be condescending but "the right to privacy" isn't really a thing in this particular domain (legally speaking)

agentcoops 10y ago
Sticking to a Western context, this is a pretty fundamental distinction between the US and the EU in the understanding (and, crucially, in the implementation/enforcement) of human rights. I can't pretend to do justice to the long history of the concept, but we can at least say that for the latter, privacy has been considered an important human right since at least the UN declaration of 1948. This has been carried over into European law, see all the iterations on EU data protection laws. The UN statement is Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." For the US, this dimension of human rights did not deeply inform policy. Here discussion around a "right to privacy" really began in a different context with Brandeis and a right to be "left alone", largely meaning from the press. Many of the cases that inform privacy law in the US are oriented towards such scenarios and do not necessarily translate well to the context of data. See http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva.... There is rather a discussion on the accuracy of financial data about a person that stems from credit reporting. The other area that would have to be discussed is of course wire-tapping laws, but leave that for another day... In sum, the question of a "right to privacy" has a long tangled history even just within the West, but is decidedly a thing in the EU.
jaredklewis 10y ago
Fair point. I certainly don't believe in natural law. I don't think we should fight for a right to privacy because it's inhenrently owed to us by the universe or some such. I think we should fight for it because I think it makes life better and because I don't want to live under an oppressive government.
lucideer 10y ago
I really don't understand this line of logic on fundamental rights. If you're referring to the UDHR, it's a piece of paper put together by Eleanor Roosevelt a little over half a century ago. It's a human document of arbitrary concepts put together by people who believed enforcing those would improve the world in aggregate. The idea of basing our sense of right on what is law, rather than basing the laws we write on our sense of right seems to be bafflingly common.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Re your final sentence, there's a possible third option (though your second has merits): coming up with both rules (law) and guidance (rights, ethics, morality) based on what improves the overall common weal. Another archaic concept, I fear, most days.
  - lucideer 10y ago
    I guess I was conflating the latter two... In my mind: ethics = definition of what improves the common weal law (should)= enforcement of said ethics
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Hrm. I'm wondering now if there's a possible ethical case for actions which don't improve the common weal. Or how to resolve conflicts between short-term present vs. long-term future outcomes, or other conflicts -- say, you classic Trolley Problem. I also wanted to note that your dismissal of Fundamental Rights is a good point. I'm finding far more agreement with the Pragmatists (Dewey, James, etc.) than various Natural / Fundamental Rightists. If only because any idiot can jump up and claim "This is My Fundamental Right" and ... all rational discussion stops.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Maybe nitpicking, but: > a fight for a fundamental right to privacy Many don't consider this to be a fundamental right. > A tech that takes 100 years to develop can be made illegal in a day. As the recorded history goes, I think it was always the other way around - a new technological development suddenly invalidating a set of laws, and lawmakers playing catch-up with its use. I wish governments of the world got their collective shit together so we could have sane privacy laws, but as it is now, technology is an important leverage to push the policymakers in the right direction. Maybe you can't focus 100% on it, but it would be foolish to just ignore it. It's the single most powerful tool we have here.

jaredklewis 10y ago
I partially agree with your points, but I still insist the policy fight is more pressing, because the tech is only possible to use with the right policy. If the US and Europe change to be like China, all that tech is worthless because the spooks can come knock down your door if they suspect you're "hiding something."
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  This really can't be overstated. "Engineering around" the failures of democracy in the West won't work. We need to fix the issues with our democracies and change the policies.
shwouchk 10y ago
> Many don't consider this to be a fundamental right. Is that why everyone agrees that the constitution protects this right in the physical domain?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  In physical world we differentiate between public and private spaces, with different expectations of privacy in each of them. There's a debate to be had about appropriate demarkations on the Internet.