4 ms·
Maybe the answer is to turn the dial to 11 on information sharing and require data transparency from managers/leaders/public servants who operate data accumulat
by athenot 9y ago
Maybe the answer is to turn the dial to 11 on information sharing and require data transparency from managers/leaders/public servants who operate data accumulation outfits.
Track users' location data? Then your location must be public record & realtime. Etc.
At the end of the day, this is about information asymmetry. If the general public loses privacy, then so should those who benefit from that information, in order to level the playing field.
- stinkytaco 9y ago> At the end of the day, this is about information asymmetry. If the general public loses privacy, then so should those who benefit from that information, in order to level the playing field. This could be said for literally any transaction, ever. The bank knows how much money you have, but you don't know how much money the teller has. You don't know which books your librarian has out or what the bartender drinks. They are also citizens with their own right to privacy. I'm all for transparency and oversight, but information asymmetry will always exist. Some industries have regulatory structures around that asymmetry to prevent abuse, HIPAA for example, and others have not.
- SeanMacConMara 9y agomaybe replace "managers/leaders/public servants" with "shareholders/party donors" to really ruffle feathers also , why settle for a level playing field ? why not high privacy for citizens and high transparency for gov/large orgs ?