4 ms·

> So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers. Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a

by ashark 9y ago

> So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers. Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a small set of very narrow purposes would do the trick.

dalbasal 9y ago
”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.
- ashark 9y ago
  > ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work. Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data. If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    >>I can't tell if you're actually advocating... I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers. I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense). The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software. For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law. Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.
    - ashark 9y ago
      > Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance. I care about a lot more than browser data, though. I don't really care how they're getting the data, I think they shouldn't be able to, and if they do it should be because they have to have it in order to provide a service to their customers, and they should be so strictly limited in what they can do with that data that conducting any business unrelated to it is incredibly risky even if they don't intentionally leverage it to their advantage. Credit card companies collecting & selling data, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, banks, magazines selling subscriber lists, cable companies selling your data, all of it should be banned. When collecting user data can't be avoided, it should come with scaling, large bond or escrow requirements to cover customer damages (which ought to be set at a high level with the leak itself considered damaging, no further proof of damage required) in the case of leaks. I want companies to treat personal data of users as something like nuclear waste: try not to make any if possible, and spend a lot of money making sure it's safe if you must keep it around.
      - dalbasal 9y ago
        Can we still ban numbers though?

by ashark 9y ago

dalbasal 9y ago

”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.

ashark 9y ago
> ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work. Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data. If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  >>I can't tell if you're actually advocating... I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers. I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense). The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software. For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law. Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.
  - ashark 9y ago
    > Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance. I care about a lot more than browser data, though. I don't really care how they're getting the data, I think they shouldn't be able to, and if they do it should be because they have to have it in order to provide a service to their customers, and they should be so strictly limited in what they can do with that data that conducting any business unrelated to it is incredibly risky even if they don't intentionally leverage it to their advantage. Credit card companies collecting & selling data, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, banks, magazines selling subscriber lists, cable companies selling your data, all of it should be banned. When collecting user data can't be avoided, it should come with scaling, large bond or escrow requirements to cover customer damages (which ought to be set at a high level with the leak itself considered damaging, no further proof of damage required) in the case of leaks. I want companies to treat personal data of users as something like nuclear waste: try not to make any if possible, and spend a lot of money making sure it's safe if you must keep it around.
    - dalbasal 9y ago
      Can we still ban numbers though?