4 ms·

Pollution and privacy are just two examples of cases where we use regulatory laws to curb the natural tendency of for-profit corporations successfully. That th

by mundo 10y ago

Pollution and privacy are just two examples of cases where we use regulatory laws to curb the natural tendency of for-profit corporations successfully. That the regulations are implemented differently isn't very relevant; they're both regulations that a) shouldn't be relied on according to the article's rationale, but b) have proven effective in the real world. > I think what the author is saying here is that we shouldn't bet our privacy and safety on who is in charge, as we are always one flick of the pen away from losing those protections. Yes, and what I'm saying is that the same is true of every other regulation, which is why it's not a compelling argument against this one. You may have noticed that the same Congress currently gutting privacy protections is also gutting air quality protections...

asimpletune 10y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure I totally follow your thesis. I think what you're trying to say is that the right thing to do is for privacy to be protected by the legal system, right? Then I think you're analogy to support that is how we have regulations around pollution. So, on this point I agree. We should live in a world where lawmakers protect privacy and the environment, and the fact that they don't is disappointing and a short term (hopefully not long term) failure of government. So far we are in agreement. In addition to that, I think what I'm trying to add is that VPNs are absolutely a way to mitigate the need for lawmakers to do the right thing, a concept in the abstract we all agree on but in reality proves to be very difficult. I'm not sure you're disagreeing with that point or if you think they're mutually exclusive, maybe you can clarify. To go with your analogy about water filters being a substitution for having protection for keeping water clean. No, of course I don't think it's an effective substitute, but I'm still going to filter my water in addition to demanding that adequate protection is put in place. So hopefully we are in agreement on that point as well, as they're not mutually exclusive. But the overall, larger point to be made is we should just always do what we can. So voting is one thing, among other avenues within the process of government, however I'm also going to use a VPN, because, damn it, it works. One last thing I'd like to say from another comment that I wrote somewhere else in here is that hopefully this will be an impetus for full decentralization the internet further, because an ideal solution would be to make it logistically intractable to snoop. A distributed internet, similar to how it was originally envisioned.
- mundo 10y ago
  We're not really disagreeing much. I think that VPNs are a fine and effective solution for the problem "I want to keep my data private and I'm willing to pay for it" but not for the problem "I think corporations selling peoples' private information is bad and we as a society should try to stop it." I don't think VPNs are a realistic solution to that, and I think regulation is, and I think the author of the article would disagree with both of those assertions.

by mundo 10y ago

asimpletune 10y ago

Sorry, I'm not sure I totally follow your thesis. I think what you're trying to say is that the right thing to do is for privacy to be protected by the legal system, right? Then I think you're analogy to support that is how we have regulations around pollution. So, on this point I agree. We should live in a world where lawmakers protect privacy and the environment, and the fact that they don't is disappointing and a short term (hopefully not long term) failure of government. So far we are in agreement. In addition to that, I think what I'm trying to add is that VPNs are absolutely a way to mitigate the need for lawmakers to do the right thing, a concept in the abstract we all agree on but in reality proves to be very difficult. I'm not sure you're disagreeing with that point or if you think they're mutually exclusive, maybe you can clarify. To go with your analogy about water filters being a substitution for having protection for keeping water clean. No, of course I don't think it's an effective substitute, but I'm still going to filter my water in addition to demanding that adequate protection is put in place. So hopefully we are in agreement on that point as well, as they're not mutually exclusive. But the overall, larger point to be made is we should just always do what we can. So voting is one thing, among other avenues within the process of government, however I'm also going to use a VPN, because, damn it, it works. One last thing I'd like to say from another comment that I wrote somewhere else in here is that hopefully this will be an impetus for full decentralization the internet further, because an ideal solution would be to make it logistically intractable to snoop. A distributed internet, similar to how it was originally envisioned.

mundo 10y ago
We're not really disagreeing much. I think that VPNs are a fine and effective solution for the problem "I want to keep my data private and I'm willing to pay for it" but not for the problem "I think corporations selling peoples' private information is bad and we as a society should try to stop it." I don't think VPNs are a realistic solution to that, and I think regulation is, and I think the author of the article would disagree with both of those assertions.