5 ms·

Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them, we should seriously consider the opposite approach of radical transparency.

Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them, we should seriously consider the opposite approach of radical transparency. As the ability to collect and process data becomes cheaper and easier to deploy, it seems to me that trying to preserve an assumption of universal privacy and anonymity trying to swim up a waterfall. Cameras are becoming so cheap they're practically disposable. Facial recognition software and the big data tools to manage all this data are also becoming more widely available. Are we going to legislate against all that? It's one thing to monitor high profile corporations like Google and Facebook, but if surveillance is cheap enough, how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? The worst case scenario is that while corporations and criminal organizations continue to discretely gather private data, the rich and powerful will be able to afford the cost of privacy but the rest of us won't have a grasp on who knows what about us. The alternative to working against the tools that technology affords us is to work with them. In some cases this means embracing radical transparency. We define a narrow range of places that really are private, and assume that anything that happens outside of those spaces is public. For example, what happens inside of one's bedroom is private, but what happens outside of one's front door is public. This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. In particular, society should keep a close eye on the richest and most powerful people. Not necessarily on their private lives, but certainly on their finances. I'm not arguing that we should give up all privacy. Encryption works and is difficult to defeat, so we should default to encrypting all interpersonal communication. We don't need to give up privacy, but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. I do think that if that we're going to expect twentieth century notions of privacy and anonymity with twenty-first century technology, we're going to have a very hard time of it.

scrollaway 9y ago
I think part of what I adore most about GDPR is how it gives me, as a user, control over how corporations are storing my data in their database. I don't necessarily have any expectation of privacy. A lot of it is public data (my email for example). But maybe I just don't want my email to be in a particular database and be used every which way, because I never consented to that particular corporation using my personal data as part of their business strategy. I'm not just talking about "I signed up to Facebook". I'm talking about "I explicitly didn't sign up to facebook, and yet their Like button is tracking me across the web". It's also things like the right to rectify that I appreciate a lot. Less so on startups, who nowadays have a clue how to do simple user profile forms, and more so for, once again, big corporations who have decided that real names never change, even if the CSR who signed you up over the phone completely misspelled it. I don't think GDPR is as much about privacy as it is about control.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
Radical transparency is far worse than the current situation. You don't have an exa-scale storage array, and google does. Which one of you is at an advantage if everyone has to share data with everyone else? Radical transparency is nothing short of digital feudalism, it puts all power in the hands of those that own the storage and processing. Let me now address your needlessly dystopian post one point at a time: 1. how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? You license and audit large storage arrays. Peta-scale and above will do as a start. You can detect those remotely from their power draw alone, so they shouldn't be hard to find if you're not phoning in the job. They'll show up on power grid stats more or less the same way large weed grow ops do, and we already hunt those down in most western countries. 2. The worst case scenario is that while corporations and criminal organizations continue to discretely gather private data, the rich and powerful will be able to afford the cost of privacy but the rest of us won't have a grasp on who knows what about us. Indeed, so why would we deliberately make that a reality? Taking action on data requires storage and processing capacity sufficient to process that data, which no one other than the rich and powerful has. Additionally, transparency laws are only going to reach the edge of your borders, so anything confidential that can be offshored will be offshored to bypass your laws, but only by those that can afford it. 3. For example, what happens inside of one's bedroom is private, but what happens outside of one's front door is public. This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. In particular, society should keep a close eye on the richest and most powerful people. But in reality, no one except the rich and powerful has space to store footage of everyones front doors, so boots-on-the-ground journalism against the richest and most powerful people will remain exactly what it is: detect/predict first, and then selectively record. Meanwhile, you've just created a law that allows facebook drones to prowl our neighbourhoods, recording as they see fit. Are you even on our team? 4. Not necessarily on their private lives, but certainly on their finances. That's not going to work any better than it does today. Companies and individuals alike already funnel their wealth through shell companies in tax havens around the world to hide their activity. Those tax havens will not adopt your "transparency for everyone" laws, because their national income is based on hiding peoples financial activity, and your laws have just made that service even more valuable. They also won't sell you the privacy protections they're selling to the elite, because you're probably not rich enough. So all you've done is ensured that ordinary citizens can never access the financial privacy that the rich can buy off the shelf. 5. We don't need to give up privacy, but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. Sure, but we should prioritize it with a plan of eventually restoring privacy for all aspects of our lives, not with a plan of doing a shit half-job and then going for an eternal smoko.
pjc50 9y ago
"Radical transparency" deployed in places which have not yet been fully liberalised will get people killed. Even in Western countries there are plenty of people who are not "out" because it will wreck their family life.
rdtsc 9y ago
I see the point but government and the legal framework is exactly what could help swimming against the waterfall. It's hard to say what will happen and how easily it is going to be to loophole this, it might even have just negative results in the end such that large companies would find way to bypass it but smaller ones will be hit disproportionally but I think it is better than not even trying at all. > We define a narrow range of places that really are private, and assume that anything that happens outside of those spaces is public. I think it is hard for the average person to even understand what public and private means in various contexts. If government can see everything is it private (even if it is called a "private" chat). If company that is providing the channel can see the conversation, is the conversation really private. It is a bit like the the FDA and food safety. It would be nice if we didn't need the FDA and everyone could carry their chemical and biological assay kits with them, inspect and test the products and drugs they consume. But most people don't know how, or can't afford to do it. So however imperfect it is nice to have at least some entity, even if it is corrupt and has a revolving door with the industries it is trying to regulate, to set some standards. GDPR is a bit the same, it is not perfect but I still see it as a positive step forward.
kartan 9y ago
> Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them To know what data do you have and to able to manage it is not difficult nor expensive. It is a short-term cost for long-term benefits. The fact that most companies don´t have this in place shows how bad data architecture and governance is around. > but if surveillance is cheap enough, how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? Laws don´t suffice, but there are mechanisms to enforce laws. Whistleblowers protection, in-premise inspections, public claims, etc. That is hard to assure food safety, doesn´t means that you give up. Time to time you find really bad transgressions, but it was worst before this laws. > This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. The problem is the asymmetry of usefulness. For me, to know that you went two days ago to the supermarket and that you have a post about privacy is useless. For a marketing company may provide high value. There is the risk that the powerful will become more powerful having data that they can use to increase their riches. While the poor will continue as poor as they can´t use the data for anything useful. > but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. This is true, thou. To have public salaries, for example, may help employees to have as much information as companies already have. To give access to everyone to some data, can help to improve society. The difference is that I will prefer it the other way around. We protect our data and decide what to show, instead to make everything public and fix what breaks. So, I´m not so far away from your view. But I see it from another perspective.

scrollaway 9y ago

I think part of what I adore most about GDPR is how it gives me, as a user, control over how corporations are storing my data in their database. I don't necessarily have any expectation of privacy. A lot of it is public data (my email for example). But maybe I just don't want my email to be in a particular database and be used every which way, because I never consented to that particular corporation using my personal data as part of their business strategy. I'm not just talking about "I signed up to Facebook". I'm talking about "I explicitly didn't sign up to facebook, and yet their Like button is tracking me across the web". It's also things like the right to rectify that I appreciate a lot. Less so on startups, who nowadays have a clue how to do simple user profile forms, and more so for, once again, big corporations who have decided that real names never change, even if the CSR who signed you up over the phone completely misspelled it. I don't think GDPR is as much about privacy as it is about control.

Sir_Substance 9y ago

Radical transparency is far worse than the current situation. You don't have an exa-scale storage array, and google does. Which one of you is at an advantage if everyone has to share data with everyone else? Radical transparency is nothing short of digital feudalism, it puts all power in the hands of those that own the storage and processing. Let me now address your needlessly dystopian post one point at a time: 1. how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? You license and audit large storage arrays. Peta-scale and above will do as a start. You can detect those remotely from their power draw alone, so they shouldn't be hard to find if you're not phoning in the job. They'll show up on power grid stats more or less the same way large weed grow ops do, and we already hunt those down in most western countries. 2. The worst case scenario is that while corporations and criminal organizations continue to discretely gather private data, the rich and powerful will be able to afford the cost of privacy but the rest of us won't have a grasp on who knows what about us. Indeed, so why would we deliberately make that a reality? Taking action on data requires storage and processing capacity sufficient to process that data, which no one other than the rich and powerful has. Additionally, transparency laws are only going to reach the edge of your borders, so anything confidential that can be offshored will be offshored to bypass your laws, but only by those that can afford it. 3. For example, what happens inside of one's bedroom is private, but what happens outside of one's front door is public. This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. In particular, society should keep a close eye on the richest and most powerful people. But in reality, no one except the rich and powerful has space to store footage of everyones front doors, so boots-on-the-ground journalism against the richest and most powerful people will remain exactly what it is: detect/predict first, and then selectively record. Meanwhile, you've just created a law that allows facebook drones to prowl our neighbourhoods, recording as they see fit. Are you even on our team? 4. Not necessarily on their private lives, but certainly on their finances. That's not going to work any better than it does today. Companies and individuals alike already funnel their wealth through shell companies in tax havens around the world to hide their activity. Those tax havens will not adopt your "transparency for everyone" laws, because their national income is based on hiding peoples financial activity, and your laws have just made that service even more valuable. They also won't sell you the privacy protections they're selling to the elite, because you're probably not rich enough. So all you've done is ensured that ordinary citizens can never access the financial privacy that the rich can buy off the shelf. 5. We don't need to give up privacy, but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. Sure, but we should prioritize it with a plan of eventually restoring privacy for all aspects of our lives, not with a plan of doing a shit half-job and then going for an eternal smoko.

pjc50 9y ago

"Radical transparency" deployed in places which have not yet been fully liberalised will get people killed. Even in Western countries there are plenty of people who are not "out" because it will wreck their family life.

rdtsc 9y ago

I see the point but government and the legal framework is exactly what could help swimming against the waterfall. It's hard to say what will happen and how easily it is going to be to loophole this, it might even have just negative results in the end such that large companies would find way to bypass it but smaller ones will be hit disproportionally but I think it is better than not even trying at all. > We define a narrow range of places that really are private, and assume that anything that happens outside of those spaces is public. I think it is hard for the average person to even understand what public and private means in various contexts. If government can see everything is it private (even if it is called a "private" chat). If company that is providing the channel can see the conversation, is the conversation really private. It is a bit like the the FDA and food safety. It would be nice if we didn't need the FDA and everyone could carry their chemical and biological assay kits with them, inspect and test the products and drugs they consume. But most people don't know how, or can't afford to do it. So however imperfect it is nice to have at least some entity, even if it is corrupt and has a revolving door with the industries it is trying to regulate, to set some standards. GDPR is a bit the same, it is not perfect but I still see it as a positive step forward.

kartan 9y ago

> Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them To know what data do you have and to able to manage it is not difficult nor expensive. It is a short-term cost for long-term benefits. The fact that most companies don´t have this in place shows how bad data architecture and governance is around. > but if surveillance is cheap enough, how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? Laws don´t suffice, but there are mechanisms to enforce laws. Whistleblowers protection, in-premise inspections, public claims, etc. That is hard to assure food safety, doesn´t means that you give up. Time to time you find really bad transgressions, but it was worst before this laws. > This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. The problem is the asymmetry of usefulness. For me, to know that you went two days ago to the supermarket and that you have a post about privacy is useless. For a marketing company may provide high value. There is the risk that the powerful will become more powerful having data that they can use to increase their riches. While the poor will continue as poor as they can´t use the data for anything useful. > but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. This is true, thou. To have public salaries, for example, may help employees to have as much information as companies already have. To give access to everyone to some data, can help to improve society. The difference is that I will prefer it the other way around. We protect our data and decide what to show, instead to make everything public and fix what breaks. So, I´m not so far away from your view. But I see it from another perspective.