4 ms·

While I see some of the concerns about the _technicality_ of the law as completely legitimate, it still bothers me that so many people reject the whole spirit o

While I see some of the concerns about the _technicality_ of the law as completely legitimate, it still bothers me that so many people reject the whole spirit of this law, and cannot put the negative of "tax on startups" against the much greater good of personal privacy. I've just started a business myself, and this regulation affects my company too. It makes development costlier; it'll take from the precious little time we have to spend on compliance paperwork rather than work on our core business. In the short run, it does hurt our chances of success. Yet, none of the trouble is even comparable to what's to be gained here. And it bothers me (though doesn't surprise me) that some people don't see that. It also bothers me that such vocal opposition barely comes up when the discussion is just about bigger companies such as Google and Facebook. How can we expect "un-evilness" from bigger companies when we're barely willing to do anything in that regard ourselves?

fixermark 9y ago
Possibly because personal privacy as a "much greater good" is open to debate. People place wildly differing values on that property. Google's current ecosystem of data-sharing means that Assistant can make educated context guesses on what I mean when I talk to it based on my browser history and map navigation history. If the new privacy constraints damage that passive interconnection, that's not a net good for me.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Then opt into collection. This does not disallow that.
- AriaMinaei 9y ago
  > ... privacy as a "much greater good" is open to debate I agree, but that's a different topic, really. The comments here aren't about the (un)/importance of privacy. The main debate seems to be either about the technicality of the law and its possible unintended consequences, which are legitimate concerns, or they're about how "this is gonna make my job much harder," which is not really a legitimate concern in this context, and those comments were the ones I was talking about. > Google's current ecosystem of data-sharing means that Assistant can make educated context guesses on what I mean when I talk to it based on my browser history and map navigation history. If the new privacy constraints damage that passive interconnection, that's not a net good for me. I think we're overestimating a technical difficulty here, and downplaying a moral principle. Providing a personalised service without storing large amounts of personal information in a central location is not impossible. It's just technically harder to do. And even if it was impossible, then still, we need to sort out the moral consequences first. Not by banning technological progress of course, but perhaps by bringing more oversight to corporations. Or by making sure that people of lower socioeconomic background aren't hit harder than the wealthy.
closeparen 9y ago
I wonder how this will interact with accounting standards. Ledgers have historically been immutable. If I buy something from you and then demand deletion of my data, do you need to revise all previous financial statements to make it appear as if the transaction never occurred? The spirit of the law is nonsensical. It makes all commercial activity illegal, to the extent that all businesses keep records of their sales, inventory, etc. which reflect the activities of their customers, employees, and suppliers.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Accounting info must not be modified. This does not change that. Same way you can't demand deletion from credit reporting data.

fixermark 9y ago

Possibly because personal privacy as a "much greater good" is open to debate. People place wildly differing values on that property. Google's current ecosystem of data-sharing means that Assistant can make educated context guesses on what I mean when I talk to it based on my browser history and map navigation history. If the new privacy constraints damage that passive interconnection, that's not a net good for me.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Then opt into collection. This does not disallow that.
AriaMinaei 9y ago
> ... privacy as a "much greater good" is open to debate I agree, but that's a different topic, really. The comments here aren't about the (un)/importance of privacy. The main debate seems to be either about the technicality of the law and its possible unintended consequences, which are legitimate concerns, or they're about how "this is gonna make my job much harder," which is not really a legitimate concern in this context, and those comments were the ones I was talking about. > Google's current ecosystem of data-sharing means that Assistant can make educated context guesses on what I mean when I talk to it based on my browser history and map navigation history. If the new privacy constraints damage that passive interconnection, that's not a net good for me. I think we're overestimating a technical difficulty here, and downplaying a moral principle. Providing a personalised service without storing large amounts of personal information in a central location is not impossible. It's just technically harder to do. And even if it was impossible, then still, we need to sort out the moral consequences first. Not by banning technological progress of course, but perhaps by bringing more oversight to corporations. Or by making sure that people of lower socioeconomic background aren't hit harder than the wealthy.

closeparen 9y ago

I wonder how this will interact with accounting standards. Ledgers have historically been immutable. If I buy something from you and then demand deletion of my data, do you need to revise all previous financial statements to make it appear as if the transaction never occurred? The spirit of the law is nonsensical. It makes all commercial activity illegal, to the extent that all businesses keep records of their sales, inventory, etc. which reflect the activities of their customers, employees, and suppliers.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Accounting info must not be modified. This does not change that. Same way you can't demand deletion from credit reporting data.