5 ms·

Are you suggesting that it would be better if an entity should "own" / be in control of all information about it? I'm not trying to straw-man your argument, but

by chias 9y ago

Are you suggesting that it would be better if an entity should "own" / be in control of all information about it? I'm not trying to straw-man your argument, but I can't find any other self-consistent scenario in which what you describe as morally repugnant, ridiculous and dehumanizing is "solved". Assuming that is what you meant, consider: Equifax's CEO owns all information about Equifax, looks at all this negative press recently and decides it should be scrubbed from the Internet / all publications / etc. If you meant it only to apply to people, lets play the Godwin's Law card and suggest that Hitler (or his descendants) wishes to scrub all information about the holocaust, etc. I think that scenario is far, far worse.

nostrademons 9y ago
It's possible to draw a distinction between corporations and people, Hobby-Lobby notwithstanding. You could argue, self-consistently, that people have a right to the information about them, while corporations (as a legal fiction) have no such right. In your example, Equifax's CEO would have no recourse to negative press about Equifax, but he would have recourse to negative information about himself, which he kinda does under existing libel & slander laws, though truth is an absolute defense for those. The EU operates under similar provisions, which as an ex-Googler and tech entrepreneur I find pretty annoying, but as a person find pretty encouraging. (There are issues even under this distinction that are problematic: if you commit a crime, does the public have a right to know? What if your crime puts them at risk? If you have a reputation for screwing your business partners over, should future business partners have a right to seek this out? But at the same time, there are huge negative externalities to not being able to control this information. If a company has false information on you - as happens pretty frequently - do they have a right to sell it to so many parties that correcting it becomes impossible?)
c3534l 9y ago
I can't imagine it'd be all that different from existing laws on using the "likeness" of a person in movies, TV, or advertising. All you'd have to do is extend that list to third-party financial institutions and on the non-public-facing side of advertising.
dredmorbius 9y ago
I think we should be having a discussion about the dimensions of that, yes. A set of questions I've been thinking through are: What is privacy? Can it be quantified? What is identity? What are the reasons we want to check or confirm identity? Can some of those reasons be eliminated? It seems to me that privacy is the ability to define and defend boundaries of information and disclosure. That the question of what is or isn't known, and to who's benefit that information is used (and in particular, to the benefit of the subject of the information, of society as a whole, or some specific third party or parties), matter. That there is a continuum of interests in protecting and revealing relevant information, much of which has to do with the relationship of the subject to society, and that those with great power, or a history of abusing society's trust, have a far smaller claim to relevant privacy. (Balanced, perhaps, with potential consequent risks: the wealthy in parts of the world are subject to stalkers, frauds, kidnapping, and extortion threats, for example.) Persons in positions of high power, or convicted of crimes, or who've violated public trust, should be faced with greater disclosures. That would include, on at least two counts, Equifax's former CEO. Much of the reason for seeking information is to establish trust or credit. Should I trust what you say, the capabilities you claim to have, that you own or control or have created specific properties, resources, or communications? Are you the specific subject of a given medical history? Do you owe, or can you claim, a tax debt or a pension credit? Also part of this question is what risks (or opportunities) disclosure of specific information portends. Do the specifics of a romantic relationship you had 30 years ago matter? Does the fact that you are, or aren't, a politician, a military officer, or gay, matter? Or that the romantic partner was or was not of age of consent? Or that you were or weren't? When is knowledge power or control? When is it liberating? For how long should it be controlled? Do rights expire after a fixed set of time? On death? Or are they carried forward according to, say, tribal customs or beliefs? For how long?
kelnos 9y ago
There's a difference between holding data saying "This is Bob Smith and his email address is bob@smith.com and his SSN is 123-45-6789", data that is personally identifying and could reasonably be considered private, and holding factual (even newsworthy) information about a person's public activities ("Bob Smith was convicted of securities fraud").
- chias 9y ago
  I find this idea genuinely intriguing. If such an idea were to work, it would need a clear-cut definition dividing the two types of information about a person (since we're talking in a legal context here, and you'd need to be able to defend yourself if Bob argues you shouldn't have a given piece of information that you have). What if I lent you money and you never repaid me -- could you legally prevent me from telling anyone about it, by virtue of it being private information about you? If you think that's unreasonable, isn't that more or less the basis of your credit score?

by chias 9y ago

nostrademons 9y ago

It's possible to draw a distinction between corporations and people, Hobby-Lobby notwithstanding. You could argue, self-consistently, that people have a right to the information about them, while corporations (as a legal fiction) have no such right. In your example, Equifax's CEO would have no recourse to negative press about Equifax, but he would have recourse to negative information about himself, which he kinda does under existing libel & slander laws, though truth is an absolute defense for those. The EU operates under similar provisions, which as an ex-Googler and tech entrepreneur I find pretty annoying, but as a person find pretty encouraging. (There are issues even under this distinction that are problematic: if you commit a crime, does the public have a right to know? What if your crime puts them at risk? If you have a reputation for screwing your business partners over, should future business partners have a right to seek this out? But at the same time, there are huge negative externalities to not being able to control this information. If a company has false information on you - as happens pretty frequently - do they have a right to sell it to so many parties that correcting it becomes impossible?)

c3534l 9y ago

I can't imagine it'd be all that different from existing laws on using the "likeness" of a person in movies, TV, or advertising. All you'd have to do is extend that list to third-party financial institutions and on the non-public-facing side of advertising.

dredmorbius 9y ago

I think we should be having a discussion about the dimensions of that, yes. A set of questions I've been thinking through are: What is privacy? Can it be quantified? What is identity? What are the reasons we want to check or confirm identity? Can some of those reasons be eliminated? It seems to me that privacy is the ability to define and defend boundaries of information and disclosure. That the question of what is or isn't known, and to who's benefit that information is used (and in particular, to the benefit of the subject of the information, of society as a whole, or some specific third party or parties), matter. That there is a continuum of interests in protecting and revealing relevant information, much of which has to do with the relationship of the subject to society, and that those with great power, or a history of abusing society's trust, have a far smaller claim to relevant privacy. (Balanced, perhaps, with potential consequent risks: the wealthy in parts of the world are subject to stalkers, frauds, kidnapping, and extortion threats, for example.) Persons in positions of high power, or convicted of crimes, or who've violated public trust, should be faced with greater disclosures. That would include, on at least two counts, Equifax's former CEO. Much of the reason for seeking information is to establish trust or credit. Should I trust what you say, the capabilities you claim to have, that you own or control or have created specific properties, resources, or communications? Are you the specific subject of a given medical history? Do you owe, or can you claim, a tax debt or a pension credit? Also part of this question is what risks (or opportunities) disclosure of specific information portends. Do the specifics of a romantic relationship you had 30 years ago matter? Does the fact that you are, or aren't, a politician, a military officer, or gay, matter? Or that the romantic partner was or was not of age of consent? Or that you were or weren't? When is knowledge power or control? When is it liberating? For how long should it be controlled? Do rights expire after a fixed set of time? On death? Or are they carried forward according to, say, tribal customs or beliefs? For how long?

kelnos 9y ago

There's a difference between holding data saying "This is Bob Smith and his email address is bob@smith.com and his SSN is 123-45-6789", data that is personally identifying and could reasonably be considered private, and holding factual (even newsworthy) information about a person's public activities ("Bob Smith was convicted of securities fraud").

chias 9y ago
I find this idea genuinely intriguing. If such an idea were to work, it would need a clear-cut definition dividing the two types of information about a person (since we're talking in a legal context here, and you'd need to be able to defend yourself if Bob argues you shouldn't have a given piece of information that you have). What if I lent you money and you never repaid me -- could you legally prevent me from telling anyone about it, by virtue of it being private information about you? If you think that's unreasonable, isn't that more or less the basis of your credit score?