3 ms·

A lot of what you might call 'avoiding recklessness' is demonstrably bad for some people so it's not clear that the current tradeoffs are optimal. And it's not

A lot of what you might call 'avoiding recklessness' is demonstrably bad for some people so it's not clear that the current tradeoffs are optimal. And it's not at all obvious that, overall, regulation does much more than protect incumbents in a given field or industry at the expense of everyone else. Based on my own experience, I've 'known' about regulations that governed the industries with which I've worked. I'm not sure what evidence specifically you or the author have that leads you to believe software developers should be embarrassed.

dkersten 9y ago
> A lot of what you might call 'avoiding recklessness' is demonstrably bad for some people And? Making sure that the bridge will hold under the weight that its required to is demonstrably bad for my profits (if I were the construction company). That doesn't mean that we should loosen the regulations or whatever. We don't owe anyone the right to profits, regulations are meant to protect us and keep the playing field fair. Of course that will always negatively affect someone.
- jacobr1 9y ago
  It isn't obvious that is a case. Some companies make bad short-term decisions. But many take a longer-term view. Who would hire the construction company again that made the bad bridge? Or consider food and drug regulation. Countries with more lax requirements for proof of drug efficacy and large-scale trails don't have worse health outcomes. In fact, the countries with stricter policy regimes are often slower to have receive life-saving drugs. Does the suppression of a drug with adverse effects that only shows up in a wider population or after more prolonged exposure have a stronger benefit than that the suppression of drugs without such downsides? Often countries optimize in the wrong direction here. Many licensing laws fall in this category too. Do barbers and hair stylists need a license? Probably not to ensure safety and we have plenty of comparable jurisdictions with and without such rules to prove it. People don't just start doing bad things in the absence of rules.
  - chopin 9y ago
    Construction companies circumvent this by going bankrupt all the time and setting up the next shell company. Big projects will often be done by a pool of companies. Which would you hold accountable then. As well, some things are so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      > Construction companies circumvent this by going bankrupt all the time and setting up the next shell company. This would be a much more difficult thing for them to do if it was easy to track the history of bad behavior of the relevant people. This seems like something that should be relatively easy to do nowadays, module some probably not-too-significant obstacles like the 'right to be forgotten'. > Big projects will often be done by a pool of companies. Which would you hold accountable then. In the absence of detailed information, one would reasonably hold them all partially accountable. > As well, some things are so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact. There's no perfect way to do this. Murder seems like it's "so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact" but I don't think either of us would want to live in a society that was perfectly capable of preventing any murders.
mfoy_ 9y ago
If we want to accept that privacy is important and valuable then we need to accept that it is not okay for our industry to continue to do what it has been doing. I challenge you to give me an example of some "demonstrably bad" effect caused by "avoiding recklessness" that isn't the direct result of shirking responsibility. To go along with your devil's advocate argument: I could argue that "taking extra measures to ensure the security of sensitive data" would have been "demonstrably bad" for Equifax. But don't you agree that it was extremely irresponsible of them to not do that?

dkersten 9y ago

> A lot of what you might call 'avoiding recklessness' is demonstrably bad for some people And? Making sure that the bridge will hold under the weight that its required to is demonstrably bad for my profits (if I were the construction company). That doesn't mean that we should loosen the regulations or whatever. We don't owe anyone the right to profits, regulations are meant to protect us and keep the playing field fair. Of course that will always negatively affect someone.

jacobr1 9y ago
It isn't obvious that is a case. Some companies make bad short-term decisions. But many take a longer-term view. Who would hire the construction company again that made the bad bridge? Or consider food and drug regulation. Countries with more lax requirements for proof of drug efficacy and large-scale trails don't have worse health outcomes. In fact, the countries with stricter policy regimes are often slower to have receive life-saving drugs. Does the suppression of a drug with adverse effects that only shows up in a wider population or after more prolonged exposure have a stronger benefit than that the suppression of drugs without such downsides? Often countries optimize in the wrong direction here. Many licensing laws fall in this category too. Do barbers and hair stylists need a license? Probably not to ensure safety and we have plenty of comparable jurisdictions with and without such rules to prove it. People don't just start doing bad things in the absence of rules.
- chopin 9y ago
  Construction companies circumvent this by going bankrupt all the time and setting up the next shell company. Big projects will often be done by a pool of companies. Which would you hold accountable then. As well, some things are so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    > Construction companies circumvent this by going bankrupt all the time and setting up the next shell company. This would be a much more difficult thing for them to do if it was easy to track the history of bad behavior of the relevant people. This seems like something that should be relatively easy to do nowadays, module some probably not-too-significant obstacles like the 'right to be forgotten'. > Big projects will often be done by a pool of companies. Which would you hold accountable then. In the absence of detailed information, one would reasonably hold them all partially accountable. > As well, some things are so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact. There's no perfect way to do this. Murder seems like it's "so bad that you don't want to punish after the fact" but I don't think either of us would want to live in a society that was perfectly capable of preventing any murders.

mfoy_ 9y ago

If we want to accept that privacy is important and valuable then we need to accept that it is not okay for our industry to continue to do what it has been doing. I challenge you to give me an example of some "demonstrably bad" effect caused by "avoiding recklessness" that isn't the direct result of shirking responsibility. To go along with your devil's advocate argument: I could argue that "taking extra measures to ensure the security of sensitive data" would have been "demonstrably bad" for Equifax. But don't you agree that it was extremely irresponsible of them to not do that?