2 ms·
The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are t
by phailhaus 9y ago
The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are the two related?
Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
- Danihan 9y agoShe's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
- phailhaus 9y agoAgain, you seem to not have read the article, because it's not about having your private data leaked. Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict.
- Danihan 9y ago>Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict. Which is "mishandled."
- phailhaus 9y agoNo, it's not mishandling. It's not a mistake, it's not malicious, you just don't know how they're going to use it. "Mishandling" implies some sort of breach of trust or contract, but in this case you didn't realize what you were agreeing to when you handed over your data. They're handling the data as they've always intended.