7 ms·

> Data about me is my data I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. > If I share a photo, it’s still my photo, I still own the copyright to it, and as an American

> Data about me is my data I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. > If I share a photo, it’s still my photo, I still own the copyright to it, and as an American I’ve used the DMCA to revoke access to photos when tech companies wouldn’t remove my photo when asked politely. I didn't say you don't own the photo, I said you don't have control over it. Those are two very different things. > The rest of my data is no different. Exactly, you have no control over it. > I own my data and the data about me, not them. No, you don't _own_ your data. > GDPR gives users the controls and governance over their data that should have always existed No, on all accounts. There is no reason at all that you need to delete accounts or force anyone to delete any information about you. That's all just silly. > but that tech companies gaslighted users into believing doesn’t exist That's also silly. If you don't control something, you don't control it. Full stop. I don't understand why you don't understand that.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). Save your apologies, regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection. Looking forward to more of if it the same fashion.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). No, control is only one thing: the ability to constrain the actions of another. You can _never_ prevent your ex from sharing nudes of you; you can only recover damages. > Save your apologies I'm not appologizing for anyone. > regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection No, regulations are coming to give users a false sense of empowerment at the cost of everyone else.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    I agree with you in principle but your argument has veered into unsound territory. Do you not believe it's possible for the threat of damages to end up preventing an ex from sharing nudes of you that they otherwise might have? Sure, there's a level of determination that will surpass that barrier, but at least there's a barrier.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      Fear of damages isn't control. You can't force an ex to delete those nudes for instance, or prevent them from letting their friends view them.
      - 794CD01 9y ago
        Threatening someone with consequences if they perform some action may not prevent them from doing what they are determined to do, but it will dissuade many. The entire basis of modern society and law is built on the idea of threatening people if they break the law, rather than completely preventing them from doing anything illegal. This is not control in, say, the unix permissions sense, but it's control in common parlance. What are you actually trying to say here?
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        Sure you can. You can lock up anyone who isn't willing to obey the law and continues to cause harm to your ex by sharing the photos, for example. In fact, since revenge porn is now a criminal offence in many civilised countries, that is very likely what will happen. If anything, the anomaly here is that inappropriately using or sharing personal data about someone is in most cases still only a regulatory or at most civil matter and not a criminal offence. Obviously such an act can potentially cause far more harm to that individual than many physical acts of violence that do carry jail time.
        magduf 9y ago
        >Sure you can. You can lock up anyone who isn't willing to obey the law and continues to cause harm to your ex by sharing the photos, for example. Actually, this isn't true, for the purposes of this analogy. You can only lock up people who are in your country and under the control of your legal system. If your ex flees to Russia and sends out these photos from there, good luck prosecuting them and putting them in jail. This is the internet we're talking about. An EU law doesn't apply outside the EU, in places like Russia, the US, China, and many other locales. What's the EU going to do when sites in those other countries refuse to take down pictures based on this EU law?
komali2 9y ago
Neither of you are really using supporting evidence in this discussion, you're both just two sides of a value argument increasing in volume. On the one hand, the other guy is legally correct - gdpr's purpose is to legally give individuals control over data about them (pictures they upload, addresses they input, whatever). That control is responsible on a site to site basis - if a person's naked picture is leaked online, every single IP address that hosts it must take it down if requested, or violate gdpr. You're making a functional argument - if a person's nudies are leaked online, they don't functionally have control over that data. Morals and laws be damned, that picture is staying on the internet. You can both disagree about the morality of this but simply restating both of your points with more "full stops" is pointless. If you're both really having trouble understanding each other's positions, step back and try to defend the opponent's decision.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  > You're making a functional argument - if a person's nudies are leaked online, they don't functionally have control over that data. Morals and laws be damned, that picture is staying on the internet. Which is my point. You no longer retain any control over it. A law saying you have control over it is silly, because it's worse than worthless: it makes me think I have control over something I don't have control over. Laws cannot magically manufacture things which cannot ever be created. Moreover, the gdpr doesn't prevent any of the problems that have caused data breaches in the past. The way that Target and Equifax (both of which could easily claim the data they had was essential to their business: Target with credit cards and Equifax being used by banks to coordinate information) are both equally likely under the gdpr and both equally unpublishable. As for Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, how would this have been prevented? Facebook can just ask you to opt in to their usage of your info to use their service. Facebook can share information with other entities that claim to be gdpr compliant. Other entity then shares information with other people outside of Facebook's control. I just don't see how the gdpr changes a fundamental fact: you no longer control something someone else has. Laws cannot change that. Laws can give you recourse, but they cannot change it. I actually believe that it's dangerous to believe that I have control over things I don't: it's a false sense of security.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. Aside from the "nuh uh; uh huh" nature of this exchange, I really don't understand what your position. > I didn't say you don't own the photo, I said you don't have control over it. Those are two very different things. I'm not sure what youre definition of "control" is, but based upon the arguments you've made about "control" above, I assume you mean it in some absolute sense. Ownership definitely implies control. He can use DMCA to compel a third party to stop publishing his photo, for example. How is that not "control"? Your definition of control seems to be somehow about capability or power, rather than normative ethics or legal right. Which is a rather absurd way of talking about this issue. In that sense of control, I don't even control my own body. Someone who is stronger than me can hurt me; can rape me; can even kill me. I have no control. Of course, for normative reasons, we make laws against other people controlling me in certain ways even though they have the power to do so. Data privacy is no different. The discussion is not about what degree of control a party is physically capable of exerting. The discussion is about what degree of control the government should grant to each party. The fact that someone somewhere is capable of hoarding my data, does not imply that this outcome is just or optimal. Your position is a textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). Save your apologies, regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection. Looking forward to more of if it the same fashion.

jimktrains2 9y ago
> I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). No, control is only one thing: the ability to constrain the actions of another. You can _never_ prevent your ex from sharing nudes of you; you can only recover damages. > Save your apologies I'm not appologizing for anyone. > regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection No, regulations are coming to give users a false sense of empowerment at the cost of everyone else.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  I agree with you in principle but your argument has veered into unsound territory. Do you not believe it's possible for the threat of damages to end up preventing an ex from sharing nudes of you that they otherwise might have? Sure, there's a level of determination that will surpass that barrier, but at least there's a barrier.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    Fear of damages isn't control. You can't force an ex to delete those nudes for instance, or prevent them from letting their friends view them.
    - 794CD01 9y ago
      Threatening someone with consequences if they perform some action may not prevent them from doing what they are determined to do, but it will dissuade many. The entire basis of modern society and law is built on the idea of threatening people if they break the law, rather than completely preventing them from doing anything illegal. This is not control in, say, the unix permissions sense, but it's control in common parlance. What are you actually trying to say here?
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Sure you can. You can lock up anyone who isn't willing to obey the law and continues to cause harm to your ex by sharing the photos, for example. In fact, since revenge porn is now a criminal offence in many civilised countries, that is very likely what will happen. If anything, the anomaly here is that inappropriately using or sharing personal data about someone is in most cases still only a regulatory or at most civil matter and not a criminal offence. Obviously such an act can potentially cause far more harm to that individual than many physical acts of violence that do carry jail time.
      - magduf 9y ago
        >Sure you can. You can lock up anyone who isn't willing to obey the law and continues to cause harm to your ex by sharing the photos, for example. Actually, this isn't true, for the purposes of this analogy. You can only lock up people who are in your country and under the control of your legal system. If your ex flees to Russia and sends out these photos from there, good luck prosecuting them and putting them in jail. This is the internet we're talking about. An EU law doesn't apply outside the EU, in places like Russia, the US, China, and many other locales. What's the EU going to do when sites in those other countries refuse to take down pictures based on this EU law?

komali2 9y ago

Neither of you are really using supporting evidence in this discussion, you're both just two sides of a value argument increasing in volume. On the one hand, the other guy is legally correct - gdpr's purpose is to legally give individuals control over data about them (pictures they upload, addresses they input, whatever). That control is responsible on a site to site basis - if a person's naked picture is leaked online, every single IP address that hosts it must take it down if requested, or violate gdpr. You're making a functional argument - if a person's nudies are leaked online, they don't functionally have control over that data. Morals and laws be damned, that picture is staying on the internet. You can both disagree about the morality of this but simply restating both of your points with more "full stops" is pointless. If you're both really having trouble understanding each other's positions, step back and try to defend the opponent's decision.

jimktrains2 9y ago
> You're making a functional argument - if a person's nudies are leaked online, they don't functionally have control over that data. Morals and laws be damned, that picture is staying on the internet. Which is my point. You no longer retain any control over it. A law saying you have control over it is silly, because it's worse than worthless: it makes me think I have control over something I don't have control over. Laws cannot magically manufacture things which cannot ever be created. Moreover, the gdpr doesn't prevent any of the problems that have caused data breaches in the past. The way that Target and Equifax (both of which could easily claim the data they had was essential to their business: Target with credit cards and Equifax being used by banks to coordinate information) are both equally likely under the gdpr and both equally unpublishable. As for Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, how would this have been prevented? Facebook can just ask you to opt in to their usage of your info to use their service. Facebook can share information with other entities that claim to be gdpr compliant. Other entity then shares information with other people outside of Facebook's control. I just don't see how the gdpr changes a fundamental fact: you no longer control something someone else has. Laws cannot change that. Laws can give you recourse, but they cannot change it. I actually believe that it's dangerous to believe that I have control over things I don't: it's a false sense of security.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. Aside from the "nuh uh; uh huh" nature of this exchange, I really don't understand what your position. > I didn't say you don't own the photo, I said you don't have control over it. Those are two very different things. I'm not sure what youre definition of "control" is, but based upon the arguments you've made about "control" above, I assume you mean it in some absolute sense. Ownership definitely implies control. He can use DMCA to compel a third party to stop publishing his photo, for example. How is that not "control"? Your definition of control seems to be somehow about capability or power, rather than normative ethics or legal right. Which is a rather absurd way of talking about this issue. In that sense of control, I don't even control my own body. Someone who is stronger than me can hurt me; can rape me; can even kill me. I have no control. Of course, for normative reasons, we make laws against other people controlling me in certain ways even though they have the power to do so. Data privacy is no different. The discussion is not about what degree of control a party is physically capable of exerting. The discussion is about what degree of control the government should grant to each party. The fact that someone somewhere is capable of hoarding my data, does not imply that this outcome is just or optimal. Your position is a textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy.