4 ms·

Honestly, no. Because the flip side of that stance is that all information that has anything to do with me belongs solely to me. That just seems...naive? Unreal

• nostrademons 9y ago
  There's an excluded-middle fallacy here somewhere. I don't really have a problem if I end up in the background of someone's family photo and then they stick it in an album or on a hard disk somewhere. I'd have a pretty big problem if someone snapped a photo of me in a public place and then sold it to a white supremacist magazine as "the face of minorities taking over this country". We'd have an even bigger problem if there was somebody out there who had hacked every security camera in the world and was collecting images to train facial recognition for a fleet of killer drones who would eliminate all his adversaries. These situations are not the same. Most people have no problem with the first. Most people would be pretty terrified of the last.
  • aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    There might be an excluded-middle fallacy here somewhere but you haven't provided any clues as to its location. But I think I get the gist of the thing you're pointing at, but surely you can understand why are other people would be wary of deciding what exactly is problematic in this regard via legislation, police, courts, etc., particularly as they exist today.
• kelnos 9y ago
  > IMO it's only a problem if I did not give away that information. Thing is, we give away a lot of data about ourselves. Sure, and why is it so ridiculous to expect that I might change my mind about certain types of information, when given to a corporation, and want them to delete that information? Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them? If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it. We're not talking about censoring obviously public information, here, or even allowing people to hide when they've done something newsworthy. We're talking about controlling the flow of, and access to, private, personally-identifying information.
  • Silhouette 9y ago
    Sure, and why is it so ridiculous to expect that I might change my mind about certain types of information, when given to a corporation, and want them to delete that information? It's not ridiculous, but it does impose a cost on them, and by extension everyone else dealing with them, because you changed your mind. Whether you should automatically be entitled to impose that cost on everyone else and under what circumstances is not an easy question. Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them? Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep. Maybe they use that data to protect themselves against fraud or other abuses, and only use it in reasonable ways for those purposes, and allowing fraudsters to require them to delete all traces of their previous interactions would leave them unreasonably vulnerable. If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it. That's a false dichotomy. Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected. An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either. It's more useful to ensure that people who have some data about us for legitimate purposes do not to then repurpose that data or share it with others for less legitimate purposes or without sufficient transparency and additional consent as appropriate.
    • kelnos 9y ago
      > It's not ridiculous, but it does impose a cost on them, and by extension everyone else dealing with them, because you changed your mind. Whether you should automatically be entitled to impose that cost on everyone else and under what circumstances is not an easy question. Sure, and that's why we have initiatives like the GDPR that try to answer that question. It's not going to be perfect, but throwing up our hands and giving up isn't an answer either. > Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep. Needing that information to be personally-identifiable is pretty rare, and cases where that information needs to be retained for a long time are even rarer. But in cases where it's necessary, sure, of course, go for it. The point is that the data needs to be collected and kept for a legit business purpose. > That's a false dichotomy. No, it's not. > Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected. That's been shown not to work all that well. Companies lose control of data all the time, whether due to a data breach, or due to unscrupulous practices internally that takes existing data to use in new ways, even if not specifically authorized. > An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either. Sure, and nowhere did I suggest that's what I wanted. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm totally fine giving out "secret" data if there's a benefit to my doing so. But if there is no benefit to me, then companies should not be entitled to my data.