5 ms·

Hammurabi's code (~1700 BC) includes this about building: Building Code 229. If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, a

Hammurabi's code (~1700 BC) includes this about building: Building Code 229. If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, the builder shall be put to death. 233. If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and a wall cracks, that builder shall strengthen that wall at his own expense. Bugs in houses have been criminalized for a very long time. Online data may be less fundamental than safe housing, but housing our data safely becomes proportionally more important as more of modern life depends on it. [0] http://www.wright.edu/~christopher.oldstone-moore/Hamm.htm http://www.wright.edu/~christopher.oldstone-moore/Hamm.htm

dkrich 8y ago
But they aren’t. Most home sales in the US follow caveat emptor. If you buy a house from a private seller and then later discover mold in the walls or a crack in the foundation I wish you luck in getting the seller to pay for the repair.
- perfmode 8y ago
  The parent was establishing precedent.
  - dkrich 8y ago
    And I'm establishing that the precedent cited doesn't exist, not in modern times anyway. If the argument is that home sellers are punished if they don't protect the buyer and so data sellers should be punished if they don't protect the data, that doesn't really hold up because home sellers aren't typically punished.
    - pjmorris 8y ago
      Note that I (OP) am referring to builders, not sellers. With respect to the systems that hold FB's data, I'd argue they are more like builders than sellers.
- josho 8y ago
  New home sales include warranty which is the modern equivalent of the parent’s story. While buying used if you can prove that the seller knew of a mold problem and didn’t disclose it then you have a legal case.
- fhbdukfrh 8y ago
  They do not carry the as-is, where-is clause you describe unless explicitly. If you can prove prior knowledge they are still liable. Proving the prior is the hard part, but private sales most certainly enforce a good faith clause
- biztos 8y ago
  As far as builders are concerned, isn't that precisely why they are usually bonded[0] in the US? [0]: https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-difference-between-bonded-and-insured.htm https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-...
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Builder is the key. If you have a house built and the foundation is cracked or mold is growing, you’ll be able to successfully sue.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
When houses fall they fall they kill people. And houses are not free.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Need I remind you of the genocide in Myanmar organised to a large degree on social media, or the threat to political dissidents all over the world when authorities or malicious actors can get their hands on leaked, private data of individuals? Are you seriously suggesting that information in this day and age does not have the power to directly cause harm, including lethal harm, to people?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I am suggesting that Facebook is free, fleeting software, and that people shouldn't put a huge host of stock in it. Even legally. Also - that it can be used for organizing bad behaviours is an entirely different subject that has little to do with quality or security.
    - fiblye 8y ago
      If Facebook were free and its company had a completely hands-off approach with your data, much like a company that makes paper notepads never looks at what you write, I'd agree. But Facebook is a company that actively snoops and uses the data of its resources, the end-user. It's like a security guard who's paid to prevent shoplifting actively ignoring violent crimes because it's not related to stealing, or a baby food company ignoring that some metal got into their food because the food is still OK if you pick out the metal bits.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        I think you make a good point, at the same time, it's nary impossible to decide right from wrong on the internet, there are many sides to every story. If the government wants to hire people to decide what counts as what - they should do that.
zxcvvcxz 8y ago
"Skin in the Game": If a social media company leaks private photos of its users, the company's executives and senior staff shall have its photos leaked. I would love something like that. Nobody protects anyone else's interests in this modern world unless there's Skin in the Game. Would highly recommend reading Nassim Taleb's book of the same name; he is popularizing this term, and its implications to society.
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first
  - fhbdukfrh 8y ago
    Yes, this approach assumes universal parity in the result of the act, which is far from true. For example the leaked health records of a healthy individual are not as damaging as those of someone with a lifelong condition, yet both cases are very, very bad.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first You misunderstand what "eye for an eye" means. "Eye for an eye" means let the punishment fit the crime. Before "eye for an eye" was established by religious texts, the common retaliation for poking someone's eye out was death. "Eye for an eye" was a step towards a more civilized justice system.
    - vbuwivbiu 8y ago
      I use it in the context of Taleb's book, mentioned in the parent, wherein he discusses this - symmetrical risk

dkrich 8y ago

But they aren’t. Most home sales in the US follow caveat emptor. If you buy a house from a private seller and then later discover mold in the walls or a crack in the foundation I wish you luck in getting the seller to pay for the repair.

perfmode 8y ago
The parent was establishing precedent.
- dkrich 8y ago
  And I'm establishing that the precedent cited doesn't exist, not in modern times anyway. If the argument is that home sellers are punished if they don't protect the buyer and so data sellers should be punished if they don't protect the data, that doesn't really hold up because home sellers aren't typically punished.
  - pjmorris 8y ago
    Note that I (OP) am referring to builders, not sellers. With respect to the systems that hold FB's data, I'd argue they are more like builders than sellers.
josho 8y ago
New home sales include warranty which is the modern equivalent of the parent’s story. While buying used if you can prove that the seller knew of a mold problem and didn’t disclose it then you have a legal case.
fhbdukfrh 8y ago
They do not carry the as-is, where-is clause you describe unless explicitly. If you can prove prior knowledge they are still liable. Proving the prior is the hard part, but private sales most certainly enforce a good faith clause
biztos 8y ago
As far as builders are concerned, isn't that precisely why they are usually bonded[0] in the US? [0]: https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-difference-between-bonded-and-insured.htm https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-...
Spooky23 8y ago
Builder is the key. If you have a house built and the foundation is cracked or mold is growing, you’ll be able to successfully sue.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

When houses fall they fall they kill people. And houses are not free.

Barrin92 8y ago
Need I remind you of the genocide in Myanmar organised to a large degree on social media, or the threat to political dissidents all over the world when authorities or malicious actors can get their hands on leaked, private data of individuals? Are you seriously suggesting that information in this day and age does not have the power to directly cause harm, including lethal harm, to people?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I am suggesting that Facebook is free, fleeting software, and that people shouldn't put a huge host of stock in it. Even legally. Also - that it can be used for organizing bad behaviours is an entirely different subject that has little to do with quality or security.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    If Facebook were free and its company had a completely hands-off approach with your data, much like a company that makes paper notepads never looks at what you write, I'd agree. But Facebook is a company that actively snoops and uses the data of its resources, the end-user. It's like a security guard who's paid to prevent shoplifting actively ignoring violent crimes because it's not related to stealing, or a baby food company ignoring that some metal got into their food because the food is still OK if you pick out the metal bits.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      I think you make a good point, at the same time, it's nary impossible to decide right from wrong on the internet, there are many sides to every story. If the government wants to hire people to decide what counts as what - they should do that.

zxcvvcxz 8y ago

"Skin in the Game": If a social media company leaks private photos of its users, the company's executives and senior staff shall have its photos leaked. I would love something like that. Nobody protects anyone else's interests in this modern world unless there's Skin in the Game. Would highly recommend reading Nassim Taleb's book of the same name; he is popularizing this term, and its implications to society.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago
the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first
- fhbdukfrh 8y ago
  Yes, this approach assumes universal parity in the result of the act, which is far from true. For example the leaked health records of a healthy individual are not as damaging as those of someone with a lifelong condition, yet both cases are very, very bad.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first You misunderstand what "eye for an eye" means. "Eye for an eye" means let the punishment fit the crime. Before "eye for an eye" was established by religious texts, the common retaliation for poking someone's eye out was death. "Eye for an eye" was a step towards a more civilized justice system.
  - vbuwivbiu 8y ago
    I use it in the context of Taleb's book, mentioned in the parent, wherein he discusses this - symmetrical risk