7 ms·

So you think it is okay to model ethnicity and religion of 200 milion citizens? This is how my country got all their jews killed in WWII [0]. The mere thought

So you think it is okay to model ethnicity and religion of 200 milion citizens? This is how my country got all their jews killed in WWII [0]. The mere thought of compiling such information here would lead to some hefty jail time these days. I really cannot believe you can even defend such a thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_registration#Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_registration#Netherlands

protomyth 9y ago
For a US example look at NAACP v. Alabama (1958). If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks.
- Gargoyle 9y ago
  You're also on the side of every political campaign in America. Collecting and/or modeling this information is standard practice in the industry.
  - stdgy 9y ago
    Likely still covered by the aforementioned 'on the side of some pretty unpleasant folks.' ;)
    - protomyth 9y ago
      Well, the KKK and Jim Crow supporters were a bit farther up the ladder of 'unpleasant'. 'Unpleasant' being used in the same meaning and tone as a southern lady saying "aren't you special".
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        In their day they were only mildly unpleasant. Furthermore, those groups they believed they were acting to promote policy that believed was in the best interest of the nation, regardless of how we see them in hindsight. Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something?
        protomyth 9y ago
        Seems I have a different definition of 'mildly' since I have some strong opinions on burning crosses in peoples yards and other violences.
        verall 9y ago
        The context of the time doesn't make the actions of the KKK any less unpleasant or disgusting. Lynchings and laws codified to keep non white people sub citizens are and were far beyond unpleasant, whether the majority of white people at the time believed so or not.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        policy that believed was in the best interest of the nation Which nation, exactly? Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something? Probably not, not. I would certainly probe very carefully to see whether they had abandoned such a stance, since many aspects of personality and and political attitude are formed early in life. If you go back and look at documentary footage from around the time schools were integrated, in the 50s, you can see many youngish people protesting that and waving placards with swastikas and so forth on them (this less than 2 decades after the Nazis were defeated in WW2). A lot of those people held on to those ideas and passed them onto their kids.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    Yes, for internal use is fine and dandy, but revealing it to the world is scummy, a violation of privacy, and can lead to retribution.
    - 1024core 9y ago
      That's like saying "it's OK to have racist thoughts, just don't say them out aloud". Whether it's revealed or not is secondary to the act of compiling itself.
      - protomyth 9y ago
        So, you would have ruled for Alabama so the KKK and Jim Crow supporters could get the list and "talk" to the businesses and people supporting the NAACP?
      - Retra 9y ago
        It is ok to have any thoughts you like about anything. Once you act on them, that's when other people have to take into consideration their consequences. And speech is certainly something with consequences.
- philh 9y ago
  > If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks. I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. (I do not have a side in this particular fight.)
  - protomyth 9y ago
    > I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. I tend to favor protection of people as a whole.
    - philh 9y ago
      > I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. Taken literally, this suggests that you can't work out the consequences without looking at the supporters. If that's what you mean, I have to say it seems weird to me. Taken less literally: if you think the consequences of one side winning include "people get harmed", you can just say that. You can point at the consequences instead of the supporters.
      - protomyth 9y ago
        The people picking sides provides data and case studies for what that side really means. Its nice to think in the abstract about issues, but it is helpful to see the movements of the various actors in a situation to determine if a decision has a net benefit while not violating what I hold dear. The whole ignore the actors on both sides sacrifices getting a benefit from the analysis they did to pick a side. Plus bad actors are quite good at sounding very good in the abstract while showing their true colors in their actions.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        It's just a different value calculus from your own. You mention that you try to make choices based on 'what seems right' but surely you're aware that different people have different conceptions thereof. Violent extremists are typically very sure of their moral premises even though they may be drastically different from the popular norm.
marcoperaza 9y ago
In the United States, the First Amendment protects your right to compile publicly available data in any way you see fit. I have experience working on a political campaign and they ALL have databases such as this.
- thatcat 9y ago
  What is the publically available source to view voting history ? I thought that was protected information.
  - jellicle 9y ago
    How one votes is secret. Whether one votes is typically compiled by the government and made available to political parties and often the general public.
    - thatcat 9y ago
      enzanki_ars and BoiledCabbage cite the publicly accessible preference/views data categories which included the party you vote for
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        Sorry to be pedantic, but precision matters here. You can't find out who someone voted for, only what party they are registered as.
        thatcat 9y ago
        No need to apologize, that is a crucial detail.
    - donarb 9y ago
      Note that this is used by campaigns prior to the election to be able to target voters that have not yet voted. Here in Washington state, you receive your mail-in ballot 3-4 weeks before Election Day. I usually return mine as soon as I get it. Campaigns can query this data repeatedly up to Election Day. Knowing that I have already sent in my ballot spares me from needless phone and mailed campaign literature and saves campaigns the cost of sending out useless material.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
I almost made this same comment however it's not comparable because these were private firms compiling the data for a private political committee. This is NOT the government collecting this data. Rest assured the government has much better data on everyone already.
- ericcumbee 9y ago
  Would you like to put money on that?
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Money on what? That the USG has better cumulative info on the population than a few private polling firms? Yea I'll put money on that.
    - ericcumbee 9y ago
      That was meant for a different comment.
Normal_gaussian 9y ago
Its not a thought crime yet
briffle 9y ago
I had another friend suggest it was probably fine, asked how they would feel if it had "ATF Form 4473 status" on it. Then they could grasp the importance. The person is a huge 2nd amendment proponent, and afraid the government is going to take away all their guns, so it really pointed it out to them in a way they understand.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  You could also replace 4473 with "pro-recreational-weed" which is something that is not very popular at the federal level right now.
wyldfire 9y ago
Whoa! We got to Godwin super fast this time. Please re-read what I wrote and consider that I might have the best intentions to explore a discussion with HN. Note also that I discussed the nature of securing the data and not its compilation. Note that IMO several European countries forfeit some freedoms that I consider valuable and critical for democracy. IMO it is your right to observe the world as it is and note what you observe. Yes, I understand that this right conflicts with privacy and find it an extremely unfortunate consequence, especially given the emerging power of AI. However I think that it's also possible find people culpable for evil intent of a compilation, though difficult to prove.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Don't try to negate his point with a Godwin flag. This is not about you or your posting intentions; it's a fact that data like this can and has been used for precisely such purposes in many instances. Yeah yeah, that'snot what you are about, but citing your own comfy idealism to avoid dealing with unpleasant realities is exactly the mechanism that political bad actors seek to exploit.
- arianvanp 9y ago
  It's not an attack at you personally. The contrary. But I noticed that a lot of comments found this kind of data collection 'normal'. and apparently in the US this is very much legal. And I as a person find this very troubling, because in Europe these kind of decisions caused a Genocide, which is a result that should not be taken lightly. Do you really want the RNC to collect religious information about all 200 million voters? What happpens if this information falls into wrong hands (in our case it was Nazi's). You just handed someone a potential 200 million long hit list. So yes it went Godwin quickly, but it is the painful truth.
  - bryondowd 9y ago
    I'm no expert on the subject, so feel free to set me straight. It seem to me, though, that this is a bit like cargo culting. An association between some part of a process and the result that doesn't factor in the big picture. More specifically, wouldn't the presence of such lists have proven a minor and nonessential part of the genocide? If the Nazis didn't have those lists, would they have just thrown up their hands and went away? It seems they'd have just gathered the information by the usual 'everyone accusing his neighbor' witch-hunt means, with people using it to settle grudges or other nefarious reasons. Maybe it would be less accurate, and maybe a little slower, but ultimately, you'd probably have about the same amount of bloodshed, I would expect. The real keys to these situations are a powerful group with ill intent and a population that is at least willing to condone it. If those are in place, the list doesn't really matter, and if they aren't in place, the list doesn't really matter. So why does the list matter? Note, this is an invitation to enlighten me, not a firm belief on my part.
jellicle 9y ago
The US most definitely does think it is okay. Every political party and many corporations and non-party entities will have similar databases. If you wanted a list of every Jew in the United States, with their current address, and accuracy exceeding 99%, any number of data vendors would be happy to sell it to you, today. For better or worse, the US makes very different choices about privacy than many other advanced nations do.
smt88 9y ago
In the US, Nazis can march through Washington, and police will spend time and money protecting them. They'll do this for any group with any ideology. Needless to say, our countries have different ideas about which freedoms can and cannot be sacrified. Using public data to guess at someone's race isn't, out of context, illegal. It is in some situations, but not this one.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Yeah, and that's a Bad Thing. Turns out our institutions do not magically immunize the USA from authoritarian ideologies or operations, which is rather worrisome because if the USA were devolve from democracy to dictatorship then there's no other country that's going to ride to the rescue, so the likely outcome would be an extremely unpleasant civil war.
  - smt88 9y ago
    Who decides which ideologies are authoritarian or not? It isn't an objective or universal reality. There are plenty of people in this country who think a Bernie Sanders presidency would have been as dangerous as Stalinism. If we didn't have freedom of speech, we'd be just like Russia. The opposition is demonized at best, snuffed out of existence at worst.
creepydata 9y ago
Woah. Why don't you calm down and read the comment you are replying to. The comment you were replying to wasn't taking a position on the issue, and certainly not a strong one, merely asking questions. >The mere thought of compiling such information here would lead to some hefty jail time these days. No, not in the United States it wouldn't. Not only is it not illegal, it's standard practice by marking companies, data brokers, and others.
- pmyteh 9y ago
  "Here" in GP's comment is stated as being The Netherlands. Europe does in general have stricter data protection laws than the US, though I don't know them well enough to know which bits of this leak would be illegal here. Allowing the leak itself would be, at least under UK law.
  - creepydata 9y ago
    So? The GP said "these days," not "in my country these days" stating it like it was some sort of universal truth. We aren't talking about compiling data on UK citizens or Dutch citizens, this is American companies compiling information about American citizens.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      > here [...] these days. Not exactly "my country", but it's implied.
  - Maarten88 9y ago
    I think processing any data like that (ethnicity, political viewpoints, union memberships) is completely illegal in the Netherlands (and I assume in the EU) [1] (dutch). I would personally be very disturbed and angry if data like that about me would exist, let alone leak to the internet. No matter who has it, that data should not exist. Do people in the US really not feel that way? https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/watify/selling-online/hoe-kan-ik-voldoen-aan-de-regels-voor-de-bescherming-van-persoonlijke-gegevens https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/watify/selli...
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587602 and marked it off-topic.

protomyth 9y ago

For a US example look at NAACP v. Alabama (1958). If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks.

Gargoyle 9y ago
You're also on the side of every political campaign in America. Collecting and/or modeling this information is standard practice in the industry.
- stdgy 9y ago
  Likely still covered by the aforementioned 'on the side of some pretty unpleasant folks.' ;)
  - protomyth 9y ago
    Well, the KKK and Jim Crow supporters were a bit farther up the ladder of 'unpleasant'. 'Unpleasant' being used in the same meaning and tone as a southern lady saying "aren't you special".
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      In their day they were only mildly unpleasant. Furthermore, those groups they believed they were acting to promote policy that believed was in the best interest of the nation, regardless of how we see them in hindsight. Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something?
      - protomyth 9y ago
        Seems I have a different definition of 'mildly' since I have some strong opinions on burning crosses in peoples yards and other violences.
      - verall 9y ago
        The context of the time doesn't make the actions of the KKK any less unpleasant or disgusting. Lynchings and laws codified to keep non white people sub citizens are and were far beyond unpleasant, whether the majority of white people at the time believed so or not.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        policy that believed was in the best interest of the nation Which nation, exactly? Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something? Probably not, not. I would certainly probe very carefully to see whether they had abandoned such a stance, since many aspects of personality and and political attitude are formed early in life. If you go back and look at documentary footage from around the time schools were integrated, in the 50s, you can see many youngish people protesting that and waving placards with swastikas and so forth on them (this less than 2 decades after the Nazis were defeated in WW2). A lot of those people held on to those ideas and passed them onto their kids.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Yes, for internal use is fine and dandy, but revealing it to the world is scummy, a violation of privacy, and can lead to retribution.
  - 1024core 9y ago
    That's like saying "it's OK to have racist thoughts, just don't say them out aloud". Whether it's revealed or not is secondary to the act of compiling itself.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      So, you would have ruled for Alabama so the KKK and Jim Crow supporters could get the list and "talk" to the businesses and people supporting the NAACP?
    - Retra 9y ago
      It is ok to have any thoughts you like about anything. Once you act on them, that's when other people have to take into consideration their consequences. And speech is certainly something with consequences.
philh 9y ago
> If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks. I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. (I do not have a side in this particular fight.)
- protomyth 9y ago
  > I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. I tend to favor protection of people as a whole.
  - philh 9y ago
    > I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. Taken literally, this suggests that you can't work out the consequences without looking at the supporters. If that's what you mean, I have to say it seems weird to me. Taken less literally: if you think the consequences of one side winning include "people get harmed", you can just say that. You can point at the consequences instead of the supporters.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      The people picking sides provides data and case studies for what that side really means. Its nice to think in the abstract about issues, but it is helpful to see the movements of the various actors in a situation to determine if a decision has a net benefit while not violating what I hold dear. The whole ignore the actors on both sides sacrifices getting a benefit from the analysis they did to pick a side. Plus bad actors are quite good at sounding very good in the abstract while showing their true colors in their actions.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      It's just a different value calculus from your own. You mention that you try to make choices based on 'what seems right' but surely you're aware that different people have different conceptions thereof. Violent extremists are typically very sure of their moral premises even though they may be drastically different from the popular norm.

marcoperaza 9y ago

In the United States, the First Amendment protects your right to compile publicly available data in any way you see fit. I have experience working on a political campaign and they ALL have databases such as this.

thatcat 9y ago
What is the publically available source to view voting history ? I thought that was protected information.
- jellicle 9y ago
  How one votes is secret. Whether one votes is typically compiled by the government and made available to political parties and often the general public.
  - thatcat 9y ago
    enzanki_ars and BoiledCabbage cite the publicly accessible preference/views data categories which included the party you vote for
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      Sorry to be pedantic, but precision matters here. You can't find out who someone voted for, only what party they are registered as.
      - thatcat 9y ago
        No need to apologize, that is a crucial detail.
  - donarb 9y ago
    Note that this is used by campaigns prior to the election to be able to target voters that have not yet voted. Here in Washington state, you receive your mail-in ballot 3-4 weeks before Election Day. I usually return mine as soon as I get it. Campaigns can query this data repeatedly up to Election Day. Knowing that I have already sent in my ballot spares me from needless phone and mailed campaign literature and saves campaigns the cost of sending out useless material.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

I almost made this same comment however it's not comparable because these were private firms compiling the data for a private political committee. This is NOT the government collecting this data. Rest assured the government has much better data on everyone already.

ericcumbee 9y ago
Would you like to put money on that?
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Money on what? That the USG has better cumulative info on the population than a few private polling firms? Yea I'll put money on that.
  - ericcumbee 9y ago
    That was meant for a different comment.

Normal_gaussian 9y ago

Its not a thought crime yet

briffle 9y ago

I had another friend suggest it was probably fine, asked how they would feel if it had "ATF Form 4473 status" on it. Then they could grasp the importance. The person is a huge 2nd amendment proponent, and afraid the government is going to take away all their guns, so it really pointed it out to them in a way they understand.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
You could also replace 4473 with "pro-recreational-weed" which is something that is not very popular at the federal level right now.

wyldfire 9y ago

Whoa! We got to Godwin super fast this time. Please re-read what I wrote and consider that I might have the best intentions to explore a discussion with HN. Note also that I discussed the nature of securing the data and not its compilation. Note that IMO several European countries forfeit some freedoms that I consider valuable and critical for democracy. IMO it is your right to observe the world as it is and note what you observe. Yes, I understand that this right conflicts with privacy and find it an extremely unfortunate consequence, especially given the emerging power of AI. However I think that it's also possible find people culpable for evil intent of a compilation, though difficult to prove.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Don't try to negate his point with a Godwin flag. This is not about you or your posting intentions; it's a fact that data like this can and has been used for precisely such purposes in many instances. Yeah yeah, that'snot what you are about, but citing your own comfy idealism to avoid dealing with unpleasant realities is exactly the mechanism that political bad actors seek to exploit.
arianvanp 9y ago
It's not an attack at you personally. The contrary. But I noticed that a lot of comments found this kind of data collection 'normal'. and apparently in the US this is very much legal. And I as a person find this very troubling, because in Europe these kind of decisions caused a Genocide, which is a result that should not be taken lightly. Do you really want the RNC to collect religious information about all 200 million voters? What happpens if this information falls into wrong hands (in our case it was Nazi's). You just handed someone a potential 200 million long hit list. So yes it went Godwin quickly, but it is the painful truth.
- bryondowd 9y ago
  I'm no expert on the subject, so feel free to set me straight. It seem to me, though, that this is a bit like cargo culting. An association between some part of a process and the result that doesn't factor in the big picture. More specifically, wouldn't the presence of such lists have proven a minor and nonessential part of the genocide? If the Nazis didn't have those lists, would they have just thrown up their hands and went away? It seems they'd have just gathered the information by the usual 'everyone accusing his neighbor' witch-hunt means, with people using it to settle grudges or other nefarious reasons. Maybe it would be less accurate, and maybe a little slower, but ultimately, you'd probably have about the same amount of bloodshed, I would expect. The real keys to these situations are a powerful group with ill intent and a population that is at least willing to condone it. If those are in place, the list doesn't really matter, and if they aren't in place, the list doesn't really matter. So why does the list matter? Note, this is an invitation to enlighten me, not a firm belief on my part.

jellicle 9y ago

The US most definitely does think it is okay. Every political party and many corporations and non-party entities will have similar databases. If you wanted a list of every Jew in the United States, with their current address, and accuracy exceeding 99%, any number of data vendors would be happy to sell it to you, today. For better or worse, the US makes very different choices about privacy than many other advanced nations do.

smt88 9y ago

In the US, Nazis can march through Washington, and police will spend time and money protecting them. They'll do this for any group with any ideology. Needless to say, our countries have different ideas about which freedoms can and cannot be sacrified. Using public data to guess at someone's race isn't, out of context, illegal. It is in some situations, but not this one.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Yeah, and that's a Bad Thing. Turns out our institutions do not magically immunize the USA from authoritarian ideologies or operations, which is rather worrisome because if the USA were devolve from democracy to dictatorship then there's no other country that's going to ride to the rescue, so the likely outcome would be an extremely unpleasant civil war.
- smt88 9y ago
  Who decides which ideologies are authoritarian or not? It isn't an objective or universal reality. There are plenty of people in this country who think a Bernie Sanders presidency would have been as dangerous as Stalinism. If we didn't have freedom of speech, we'd be just like Russia. The opposition is demonized at best, snuffed out of existence at worst.

creepydata 9y ago

Woah. Why don't you calm down and read the comment you are replying to. The comment you were replying to wasn't taking a position on the issue, and certainly not a strong one, merely asking questions. >The mere thought of compiling such information here would lead to some hefty jail time these days. No, not in the United States it wouldn't. Not only is it not illegal, it's standard practice by marking companies, data brokers, and others.

pmyteh 9y ago
"Here" in GP's comment is stated as being The Netherlands. Europe does in general have stricter data protection laws than the US, though I don't know them well enough to know which bits of this leak would be illegal here. Allowing the leak itself would be, at least under UK law.
- creepydata 9y ago
  So? The GP said "these days," not "in my country these days" stating it like it was some sort of universal truth. We aren't talking about compiling data on UK citizens or Dutch citizens, this is American companies compiling information about American citizens.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    > here [...] these days. Not exactly "my country", but it's implied.
- Maarten88 9y ago
  I think processing any data like that (ethnicity, political viewpoints, union memberships) is completely illegal in the Netherlands (and I assume in the EU) [1] (dutch). I would personally be very disturbed and angry if data like that about me would exist, let alone leak to the internet. No matter who has it, that data should not exist. Do people in the US really not feel that way? https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/watify/selling-online/hoe-kan-ik-voldoen-aan-de-regels-voor-de-bescherming-van-persoonlijke-gegevens https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/watify/selli...

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587602 and marked it off-topic.