3 ms·

> But is it right to let companies track users simply because the users say it's ok? Yes. Are we not free individuals capable of consent? > I think the EU wou

by wooter 8y ago

> But is it right to let companies track users simply because the users say it's ok? Yes. Are we not free individuals capable of consent? > I think the EU would be right to consider it's citizens not as adults that are able to make decisions on integrity or privacy. I find this paternalistic, authoritarian attitude to be immoral. Sad to see the ideas of the Enlightenment, of Locke and the founding fathers, so casually discarded.

rdiddly 8y ago
Selling your body for money and buying crack with it could be a choice by a free, consenting individual, but society has decided both the prostitution and the crack are choices too corrosive to society to be allowed. The individual is not held sacrosanct, especially when he/she acts against the group. What remains to be decided here is whether the collection of data by "surveillance capitalists" is corrosive enough to society to be forbidden or restricted as well.
- wooter 8y ago
  banning prostitution and the drug war have both proven to be counterproductive. > The individual is not held sacrosanct, By you perhaps, but those are the principles of the Enlightenment and modern western society and have served us far better than collectivism. > especially when he/she acts against the group. Right, sharing my data with another individual or company isn't "acting against the group" or even involving the group. > What remains to be decided here is whether the collection of data by "surveillance capitalists" is corrosive enough to society to be forbidden or restricted as well. Not if you respect individual, natural rights. Furthermore, scientific/medical research, traffic prediction, spam detection, self-driving all are arising out of voluntary submission of data by free individuals. I don't see any sense in hindering innocent, positive efforts out of a desire for retribution against "surveillance capitalists" based on the "guilty until proven innocent" model of preemptive regulation. Thankfully the principles of individual, natural rights have been codified into the US Constitution to a large degree.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    I spoke very plainly. Banning prostitution and drugs were decisions made by a society, to restrict individuals. How productive they were, you can talk about with someone who wants to change the subject to that. The point was only that those restrictions were made. It happened. Same with myriad others. "The individual" was not held, by those people who enacted those laws, or by the majority of people who voted for those people, to be above the rule of law. Nor was the individual held to be above the rule of law in Enlightenment thought. The law was thought to be made by individuals acting collectively (a departure from having a single individual, i.e. monarch, doing it), so if anything the Enlightenment introduced the "collectivism" by pushing lawmaking down into a demographic that was much more populous. What do you think voting in a constitutional convention is? Individuals collectivizing! Just like Soviet farmers!!!!! Oh no!
    - wooter 8y ago
      > "The individual" was not held, by those people who enacted those laws, or by the majority of people who voted for those people, to be above the rule of law. Correct. And had individual rights been upheld we could have avoided the costly lessons and lives destroyed by those rights-trampling laws. > Nor was the individual held to be above the rule of law in Enlightenment thought. The theory of natural rights, which was central to the Enlightenment, held that the laws and governments were formed only to secure individual rights and could not be made to supersede them. A constitutional convention is voting on how to best uphold and respect those rights, not overrule them.
- vixen99 8y ago
  'Society' has decided? That's one view. I gather prostitution is legal in Argentina, Austria, Armenia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Panama, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    I was taking American/Californian society as the default, but yes, those are societies that have decided differently. Wow! Lightbulb? If we're making tedious lists, don't forget the US state of Nevada. But my point wasn't about prostitution and I wasn't trying to change the subject to prostitution; apparently you find the topic too distracting. What about crack? Not a word about crack?
  - seszett 8y ago
    In a lot of these countries you listed, prostitution is technically legal but paying for sex is illegal. Which makes prostitution de facto illegal.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > the United Kingdom In England it's illegal to induce someone to become a prostitute solicit in a public place kerb crawl run a brothel earn money from someone else being a prostitute have sex with someone who's been forced into prostitution even if you didn't know have sex with someone who's been trafficed, even if you didn't know (and trafficing includes being transported around England, not just into England). So, yes, two people exhanging money for sex is legal, but actually carrying out that arrangement is difficult.

by wooter 8y ago

rdiddly 8y ago

Selling your body for money and buying crack with it could be a choice by a free, consenting individual, but society has decided both the prostitution and the crack are choices too corrosive to society to be allowed. The individual is not held sacrosanct, especially when he/she acts against the group. What remains to be decided here is whether the collection of data by "surveillance capitalists" is corrosive enough to society to be forbidden or restricted as well.

wooter 8y ago
banning prostitution and the drug war have both proven to be counterproductive. > The individual is not held sacrosanct, By you perhaps, but those are the principles of the Enlightenment and modern western society and have served us far better than collectivism. > especially when he/she acts against the group. Right, sharing my data with another individual or company isn't "acting against the group" or even involving the group. > What remains to be decided here is whether the collection of data by "surveillance capitalists" is corrosive enough to society to be forbidden or restricted as well. Not if you respect individual, natural rights. Furthermore, scientific/medical research, traffic prediction, spam detection, self-driving all are arising out of voluntary submission of data by free individuals. I don't see any sense in hindering innocent, positive efforts out of a desire for retribution against "surveillance capitalists" based on the "guilty until proven innocent" model of preemptive regulation. Thankfully the principles of individual, natural rights have been codified into the US Constitution to a large degree.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  I spoke very plainly. Banning prostitution and drugs were decisions made by a society, to restrict individuals. How productive they were, you can talk about with someone who wants to change the subject to that. The point was only that those restrictions were made. It happened. Same with myriad others. "The individual" was not held, by those people who enacted those laws, or by the majority of people who voted for those people, to be above the rule of law. Nor was the individual held to be above the rule of law in Enlightenment thought. The law was thought to be made by individuals acting collectively (a departure from having a single individual, i.e. monarch, doing it), so if anything the Enlightenment introduced the "collectivism" by pushing lawmaking down into a demographic that was much more populous. What do you think voting in a constitutional convention is? Individuals collectivizing! Just like Soviet farmers!!!!! Oh no!
  - wooter 8y ago
    > "The individual" was not held, by those people who enacted those laws, or by the majority of people who voted for those people, to be above the rule of law. Correct. And had individual rights been upheld we could have avoided the costly lessons and lives destroyed by those rights-trampling laws. > Nor was the individual held to be above the rule of law in Enlightenment thought. The theory of natural rights, which was central to the Enlightenment, held that the laws and governments were formed only to secure individual rights and could not be made to supersede them. A constitutional convention is voting on how to best uphold and respect those rights, not overrule them.
vixen99 8y ago
'Society' has decided? That's one view. I gather prostitution is legal in Argentina, Austria, Armenia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Panama, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  I was taking American/Californian society as the default, but yes, those are societies that have decided differently. Wow! Lightbulb? If we're making tedious lists, don't forget the US state of Nevada. But my point wasn't about prostitution and I wasn't trying to change the subject to prostitution; apparently you find the topic too distracting. What about crack? Not a word about crack?
- seszett 8y ago
  In a lot of these countries you listed, prostitution is technically legal but paying for sex is illegal. Which makes prostitution de facto illegal.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > the United Kingdom In England it's illegal to induce someone to become a prostitute solicit in a public place kerb crawl run a brothel earn money from someone else being a prostitute have sex with someone who's been forced into prostitution even if you didn't know have sex with someone who's been trafficed, even if you didn't know (and trafficing includes being transported around England, not just into England). So, yes, two people exhanging money for sex is legal, but actually carrying out that arrangement is difficult.