3 ms·

I'm a fan of privacy legislation, but your comparison is a little strained in my opinion. You have to consciously decide to take me toothbrush, and it deprives

I'm a fan of privacy legislation, but your comparison is a little strained in my opinion. You have to consciously decide to take me toothbrush, and it deprives me of it. But just seeing me walk by puts "my data" into your mind, and arguably doesn't harm me. Clearly, when a phone network sells my location data to the highest bidder, I'm harmed. But they do need to know my location to provide me service. In general, I think we want services to collect no more data than necessary, discard it as soon as possible, protect what they must store, and disclose it to others as rarely as possible. But all of those things are murkier than "don't take my toothbrush."

icebraining 8y ago
Why does harm matter to the question raised?
- nathan_long 8y ago
  Maybe "sole ownership" is a better way to say it. If I have my toothbrush, you don't. My ownership necessarily means that you can't possess it without my permission. Also, if you take it, you can be made to give it back. Data isn't that clear-cut. Your knowing my name and address doesn't take that knowledge from me. It's not obvious that you know it, nor how to make you "give back" that knowledge. So it's less clear what my ownership of that data would mean. Unlike possessions, there's some fuzzy continuum from "clearly it's fine for someone to look at me when I walk past and know what I look like" to "clearly it's not fine for someone to track my every move and sell that knowledge for profit without my consent."
jakelazaroff 8y ago
GP's point isn't that they're the same; rather, they're both arbitrary "rights" created by law. Why is it your toothbrush? Matter is matter. Data is data. Obviously, we as a society have decided that property rights are more advantageous than not, and we're deciding the same thing about information rights. There's not anything inherent to either one that precludes us from regulating it.
- nathan_long 8y ago
  I understood the point. I don't agree that rights are entirely arbitrary. The United States Declaration of Independence takes the view that government exists to protect the rights we naturally have. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... But I understand that "rights" such as copyright are somewhat arbitrarily bestowed. My point was that a right to one's possessions is more obvious and definable than a right to one's data. My hands are mine. My toothbrush is mine because I made it with my hands or bought it with money I earned with my hands. Etc. It's much more nebulous to say that I own information about myself. If you see me, is your knowledge of what I look like "mine"? What about if you write down what I look like? What if you take a picture? What if you write down a detailed account of all my movements and sell it? At some point it starts to seem wrong, but it's fuzzy. You may say these are both arbitrary. I don't think all rights are arbitrary, and to the extent that things are fuzzy, I think rights to physical possessions are less so. But again, I'm in favor of privacy regulation. It's just less obvious what it should protect and how.

icebraining 8y ago

Why does harm matter to the question raised?

nathan_long 8y ago
Maybe "sole ownership" is a better way to say it. If I have my toothbrush, you don't. My ownership necessarily means that you can't possess it without my permission. Also, if you take it, you can be made to give it back. Data isn't that clear-cut. Your knowing my name and address doesn't take that knowledge from me. It's not obvious that you know it, nor how to make you "give back" that knowledge. So it's less clear what my ownership of that data would mean. Unlike possessions, there's some fuzzy continuum from "clearly it's fine for someone to look at me when I walk past and know what I look like" to "clearly it's not fine for someone to track my every move and sell that knowledge for profit without my consent."

jakelazaroff 8y ago

GP's point isn't that they're the same; rather, they're both arbitrary "rights" created by law. Why is it your toothbrush? Matter is matter. Data is data. Obviously, we as a society have decided that property rights are more advantageous than not, and we're deciding the same thing about information rights. There's not anything inherent to either one that precludes us from regulating it.

nathan_long 8y ago
I understood the point. I don't agree that rights are entirely arbitrary. The United States Declaration of Independence takes the view that government exists to protect the rights we naturally have. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... But I understand that "rights" such as copyright are somewhat arbitrarily bestowed. My point was that a right to one's possessions is more obvious and definable than a right to one's data. My hands are mine. My toothbrush is mine because I made it with my hands or bought it with money I earned with my hands. Etc. It's much more nebulous to say that I own information about myself. If you see me, is your knowledge of what I look like "mine"? What about if you write down what I look like? What if you take a picture? What if you write down a detailed account of all my movements and sell it? At some point it starts to seem wrong, but it's fuzzy. You may say these are both arbitrary. I don't think all rights are arbitrary, and to the extent that things are fuzzy, I think rights to physical possessions are less so. But again, I'm in favor of privacy regulation. It's just less obvious what it should protect and how.