4 ms·

> I don't actually accept "the current state of affairs is bad" as a justification for new regulations. And I don't accept "a previous regulation turned out to

> I don't actually accept "the current state of affairs is bad" as a justification for new regulations. And I don't accept "a previous regulation turned out to be pointless and annoying" as an argument against trying new regulations to fix "the current bad state of affairs." I don't think there's some magical third way to resolve issues with the failure of self-policing that doesn't involve regulation. Such arguments tend to have little positive outcome and usually just serve to discourage any attempts to actually fix problems. Law, regulation, and enforcement are the solutions to reconciling the mismatch between selfish bad behavior and the public good. However, these regulations will undoubtedly have to be iterated on until a workable and effective solution is found.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> I don't think there's some magical third way to resolve issues with the failure of self-policing that doesn't involve regulation. I'm still hopeful about finding a magical third way, but I admit I'm short on answers. "Find a tech solution" is the common one, but it feels like a coinflip at best - with smart people putting their talents on both sides of anonymity, there's no real reason to count on an eventual victory for privacy. (And, troublingly, each retrenchment seems to raise the skill requirement for privacy - it's entirely out of reach of most average web users.) > Law, regulation, and enforcement are the solutions to reconciling the mismatch between selfish bad behavior and the public good. However, these regulations will undoubtedly have to be iterated on until a workable and effective solution is found. And here's where we differ, I guess. I don't think that the cookies regulation is a one-off case of "pointless and annoying", nor do I think it will be iterated on until an effective solution is found. I think "iteration until success" is entirely absent from the history of tech regulation. I think that regulators are currently too slow, uninformed, and biased to effectively address any but the most egregious technological issues - unless the right answer is "outlaw any behavior even vaguely resembling this" the task is simply beyond the bodies involved. The number of well-crafted, impactful, unsubverted laws protecting computer privacy and security is approximately zero. I think that this state of affairs can't be substantially changed with outreach or lobbying, but will remain a basically fundamental aspect of first-world governments for at least a decade. --- So... I guess my answer for now is hopelessness. I agree that the current state of affairs is bad, self-policing is hopeless, and no third solution is forthcoming. But I also think regulation is generally both destructive and useless, which is marginally worse than nothing at all. I guess that too is "discouraging any attempts to actually fix problems", but I'll be damned if I see a way out.

Bartweiss 9y ago

> I don't think there's some magical third way to resolve issues with the failure of self-policing that doesn't involve regulation. I'm still hopeful about finding a magical third way, but I admit I'm short on answers. "Find a tech solution" is the common one, but it feels like a coinflip at best - with smart people putting their talents on both sides of anonymity, there's no real reason to count on an eventual victory for privacy. (And, troublingly, each retrenchment seems to raise the skill requirement for privacy - it's entirely out of reach of most average web users.) > Law, regulation, and enforcement are the solutions to reconciling the mismatch between selfish bad behavior and the public good. However, these regulations will undoubtedly have to be iterated on until a workable and effective solution is found. And here's where we differ, I guess. I don't think that the cookies regulation is a one-off case of "pointless and annoying", nor do I think it will be iterated on until an effective solution is found. I think "iteration until success" is entirely absent from the history of tech regulation. I think that regulators are currently too slow, uninformed, and biased to effectively address any but the most egregious technological issues - unless the right answer is "outlaw any behavior even vaguely resembling this" the task is simply beyond the bodies involved. The number of well-crafted, impactful, unsubverted laws protecting computer privacy and security is approximately zero. I think that this state of affairs can't be substantially changed with outreach or lobbying, but will remain a basically fundamental aspect of first-world governments for at least a decade. --- So... I guess my answer for now is hopelessness. I agree that the current state of affairs is bad, self-policing is hopeless, and no third solution is forthcoming. But I also think regulation is generally both destructive and useless, which is marginally worse than nothing at all. I guess that too is "discouraging any attempts to actually fix problems", but I'll be damned if I see a way out.