3 ms·
I think there's something to be said IN FAVOR of the notion that person A's health risks don't trade off against person B's health risks at a 1:1 rate. The cru
by stakhanov 8y ago
I think there's something to be said IN FAVOR of the notion that person A's health risks don't trade off against person B's health risks at a 1:1 rate.
The crucial thing however, in a data protection sense, is that there are too many people who don't realize the implications of giving away data about themselves. A shopper signing up for a loyalty card scheme in a grocery store might sign a blanket waiver allowing the scheme operator to pass the data on to whoever they please to be used in whatever way they want, without thinking about the possibility that it may end up in places where it won't serve their best interests.
So there should be something similar here to health warning on cigarettes. Kind of like "Warning: Signing up for this loyalty card may make you uninsurable."
Also, I think there should be legal infrastructure in place to ensure that there are certain rights that you can't sign away as part of a contract that, in practice, you don't have the option not to sign (like Google's general terms & conditions).
- koolba 8y agoWhich is also why you should use a fake phone number, name, etc for those loyalty cards. Also a neat trick is to just (XYZ)-867-5309 as someone already signed up with the number from that song and it’s not a real number.
- jasonjayr 8y agoIt's a real number in the 401 area code. https://www.askgem.com/ https://www.askgem.com/ See the contact info in the lower left of the page.
- stakhanov 8y agoI agree that "gaming the system" is usually the most practicable way to deal with this stuff in real life, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be sorted out on a more principled basis eventually.