4 ms·

> "but a century from now when all of us are dead who cares if our confidential info gets released to the public then?" Your descendants probably. Especially i

> "but a century from now when all of us are dead who cares if our confidential info gets released to the public then?" Your descendants probably. Especially if grandpa earned a lot of dough which by heritage would be theirs now. Or just for the sake of privacy. Would you care if your private social network data was dumped after your death? To me, when I sign up for confidential that means now and always. Not until death do us part.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
skissane 9y ago
> Your descendants probably. Go back three or four generations, and most people can't even remember any of their ancestors names. Why should I care about the privacy of people who died long before I was born, and whose names I can't even remember? > To me, when I sign up for confidential that means now and always. Not until death do us part. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. But why should I care about what happens to my personal info long after I am dead? Once I am dead, and my children are dead, and their children too, and nobody alive can even remember who I was–what difference does it make to me then? (Maybe 100 years is too short, since a century from now I might still have living grandchildren – but I think the principle is sound whatever the exact timeframe should be.)
- gervase 9y ago
  Although I agree with you in general, to play the devil's advocate, it's also possible that the current state of affairs is a side effect of the state of record keeping over the past couple hundred years. Given modern data storage paradigms, with perfect[0] recording of a wide range of data, it's entirely possible that people might care in the future. For example, if you have an ancestor who was near-sighted, you are automatically disqualified from any colonization missions (regardless of your own eyesight) due to the presence of potentially-flawed genes. It would be similar in concept, if not degree, to the Nuremburg Laws[1], which were only made possible by the meticulous record-keeping of the pre-WW2 German bureaucracy. Whether or not those records are used for malicious, distasteful, or nefarious purposes at some indeterminate future is not something we can control or predict effectively today. [0]: Reduced human error [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications_under_the_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
  - skissane 9y ago
    > For example, if you have an ancestor who was near-sighted, you are automatically disqualified from any colonization missions (regardless of your own eyesight) due to the presence of potentially-flawed genes. I don't find the future you describe very plausible. Keep in mind that you only inherit (on average) half of each parent's genes, a quarter of each grandparent's, an eighth of each great grandparent – so even if your great grandpa had some nasty health problems, odds are you didn't inherit whatever genes might have been responsible for them. Also, don't you think by then, our knowledge of human genetics will likely have advanced to the point that we don't need to assume you might have bad genes because your ancestors had health issues, we actually have a complete sequence of your individual genome, along with a much better understanding than we have today of what all those individual genes do?
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      Not the person you responded to, but I think that the point of the analogy was to illustrate that information can be used in unanticipated ways. Shifts in politics have frequently resulted in the persecution of formerly innocuous people and groups (see McCarthyism). Greater and greater data processing and storage will inevitably be turned against various targets. While we can’t prevent that entirely, we can at least have a forward view when making decisions at present.
      - bastijn 9y ago
        Exactly. Money obtained through heritage being one thing. Cancer in the family raising health insurance another (if all open information shows cancer they can assume next generations will as well). Near sighted raising car insurance. Grandpa being a bank robber making kids have a hard time in preschool (or probably be a hero nowadays). Grandpa being a kid high school shooter being disclosed. Sex offenders. Well, you get the point. Confidentiality is not something to let forgo easily. Once lost it can never be obtained again. So while you may be comfortably dead your descendants may pay the penalty in unexpected ways. A suitable time frame would probably be beyond centuries but rather like today finding Neanderthals (prehistoric men). This is all apart from the breach of contract in a social sense.
TwitchySeal 9y ago
>Would you care if your private social network data was dumped after your death? no?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

skissane 9y ago

> Your descendants probably. Go back three or four generations, and most people can't even remember any of their ancestors names. Why should I care about the privacy of people who died long before I was born, and whose names I can't even remember? > To me, when I sign up for confidential that means now and always. Not until death do us part. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. But why should I care about what happens to my personal info long after I am dead? Once I am dead, and my children are dead, and their children too, and nobody alive can even remember who I was–what difference does it make to me then? (Maybe 100 years is too short, since a century from now I might still have living grandchildren – but I think the principle is sound whatever the exact timeframe should be.)

gervase 9y ago
Although I agree with you in general, to play the devil's advocate, it's also possible that the current state of affairs is a side effect of the state of record keeping over the past couple hundred years. Given modern data storage paradigms, with perfect[0] recording of a wide range of data, it's entirely possible that people might care in the future. For example, if you have an ancestor who was near-sighted, you are automatically disqualified from any colonization missions (regardless of your own eyesight) due to the presence of potentially-flawed genes. It would be similar in concept, if not degree, to the Nuremburg Laws[1], which were only made possible by the meticulous record-keeping of the pre-WW2 German bureaucracy. Whether or not those records are used for malicious, distasteful, or nefarious purposes at some indeterminate future is not something we can control or predict effectively today. [0]: Reduced human error [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications_under_the_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
- skissane 9y ago
  > For example, if you have an ancestor who was near-sighted, you are automatically disqualified from any colonization missions (regardless of your own eyesight) due to the presence of potentially-flawed genes. I don't find the future you describe very plausible. Keep in mind that you only inherit (on average) half of each parent's genes, a quarter of each grandparent's, an eighth of each great grandparent – so even if your great grandpa had some nasty health problems, odds are you didn't inherit whatever genes might have been responsible for them. Also, don't you think by then, our knowledge of human genetics will likely have advanced to the point that we don't need to assume you might have bad genes because your ancestors had health issues, we actually have a complete sequence of your individual genome, along with a much better understanding than we have today of what all those individual genes do?
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    Not the person you responded to, but I think that the point of the analogy was to illustrate that information can be used in unanticipated ways. Shifts in politics have frequently resulted in the persecution of formerly innocuous people and groups (see McCarthyism). Greater and greater data processing and storage will inevitably be turned against various targets. While we can’t prevent that entirely, we can at least have a forward view when making decisions at present.
    - bastijn 9y ago
      Exactly. Money obtained through heritage being one thing. Cancer in the family raising health insurance another (if all open information shows cancer they can assume next generations will as well). Near sighted raising car insurance. Grandpa being a bank robber making kids have a hard time in preschool (or probably be a hero nowadays). Grandpa being a kid high school shooter being disclosed. Sex offenders. Well, you get the point. Confidentiality is not something to let forgo easily. Once lost it can never be obtained again. So while you may be comfortably dead your descendants may pay the penalty in unexpected ways. A suitable time frame would probably be beyond centuries but rather like today finding Neanderthals (prehistoric men). This is all apart from the breach of contract in a social sense.

TwitchySeal 9y ago

>Would you care if your private social network data was dumped after your death? no?