6 ms·

The author keeps saying 'my data' when the data isn't theirs. The fact that they interacted with a party, that interaction, and who you are, is thier data. Thi

The author keeps saying 'my data' when the data isn't theirs. The fact that they interacted with a party, that interaction, and who you are, is thier data. This isn't a theoretical nit pick, this is the law. And it makes sense. If you and i have a conversation, i am free to tell someone else about that conversation, because i was part of it. That is my data, as it is also theirs. In casual use, if we agree not to tell anyone, that is different, but the default is both parties own it. This the simple minded use of 'my data' really wrecks what could be a rather interesting ( but not surprising ) piece.

coldpie 7y ago
I see nothing wrong with calling my contact information "my data," because I feel some ownership over how it is used and disseminated. I strongly disagree with the idea that having an interaction with a business gives them a license to tell anyone anything about our interaction, including (especially) my contact information. I agree it is "the law" right now, but I think that is wrong and should be changed.
- jrace 7y ago
  Your info is your info. The data they collected about you is their data. Now if only we could oprevent them from sharing/selling their data which contains your info. I realize that in my argument I am being rather pedantic...but in online text based exchange it is what separates us from the barbarians.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > The data they collected about you is their data. That's my point. I don't think it should be. They can have access to my data to conduct our business transaction, but I disagree with the idea that my information somehow belongs to them just because they had access to it at some point.
    - lotu 7y ago
      I think this was a really good distinction, because it suggests a course of action. It sounds like you would support a requirement in a consumer contracts that a person's contact information may not be used for marking purposes or shared with others to use for marking. This could essentially decimate the direct marketing industry, but that might be the desired outcome. Unfortunately governments don't like to pass laws the decimate any industry no matter how small. I think it is also very valuable because it more clearly defines what you mean by privacy. The privacy violation happens, not when they collect your contact information, or when it is put into a list, it is when it is used to send you advertising which you find unwelcome.
      - coldpie 7y ago
        Right. Phrasing it as "my data" shows that they don't own my information. Instead, I own it, but they have it, and it is their responsibility to take care of it. They are responsible if something happens to my data that I don't want to happen (sold to spammers; leaked by hacking). The best course of action for them is to take as little as possible and then forget the information when it is no longer useful, to minimize their risk. This is exactly what I want to happen.
        wool_gather 7y ago
        Reminds me of the comedy sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E: "They took all the money? That sounds more like a bank robbery." "No, no. If only. 'Cause we could take the hit. No, no. It was actually your identity that was stolen, primarily. It's a massive pisser for you." "But, it's actually money that's been taken..." "Yes" "From you?" "Kind of." "I don't know what you want from me other than my commiserations." "You see it was your identity. They said they were you!" "And you believed them?" "Yes, they stole your identity." "Well, I don't know. I seem to still have my identity, whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of pounds. In light of that, I'm not sure why you think it was my identity that was stolen instead of your money."
    - jrace 7y ago
  - boomlinde 7y ago
    > The data they collected about you is their data. It is your data in the sense that it is data concerning you.
    - sroussey 7y ago
      According to GDPR, your data is yours. Even if captured and stored by an enterprise. Soon California too.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > The data they collected about you is their data. 9 times out of 10 they’ve collected that data without my informed consent and using my computer hardware - which I did not consent to be used for that purpose. It’s computer fraud of some kind, but IANAL. Edit: If I flip your argument on it’s head, doesn’t torrenting something make the torrented copy of the media “mine” since “I’ve collected it”? Yet we usually call that a copyright violation and illegal.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
criddell 7y ago
> This isn't a theoretical nit pick, this is the law. There are exceptions for things like health information or DVD rentals. It's time we start to think about expanding those rules to any commercial use of data about private individuals.
cbsmith 7y ago
> This isn't a theoretical nit pick, this is the law. Of course, the law is changing... and in fact, under a lot of laws, it really is "my data". Much like intellectual property, these laws were established for a particular context, and we've long since moved past that context, raising reasonable questions as to whether those laws are really a good idea. > And it makes sense. If you and i have a conversation, i am free to tell someone else about that conversation, because i was part of it. That is my data, as it is also theirs. Are you entitled to a DNA sample from some skin cells that floated in the air while you were having said conversation? Does that conversation entitle you to know of every other place that person goes that day? Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? The lowered price of collecting, aggregating & exchanging information changes the context under which the existing laws were made, raising questions about whether we wish to alter those laws.
- tokyodude 7y ago
  > Are you entitled to a DNA sample from some skin cells that floated in the air while you were having said conversation? Yes. Why wouldn't I be. Those DNA are in my body. They might be infecting me in some way. Why would I not be able to inspect them however I want? > Does that conversation entitle you to know of every other place that person goes that day? If I'm with them the entire time then yes. If other mutual friends were with them I'm fully entitled to ask them and they are fully entitled to answer. I went to Disneyland with my sister yesterday. I just shared with you that my sister was at Disneyland yesterday. My mom told me she and my sister went to dinner at McDonalds on the east exit of Disneyland after they got out. I just shared with you something my mother told me about my sister. I have broken no laws nor done anything considered wrong AFAIK in any country in the history of the world up to this point. > Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? Personally I believe the answer is effectively yes and should be yes though I understand it might legally be no in certain places at the moment I believe those laws will eventually be overturned. Why do I hold this position? Because my brain recorded the conversation. So, first off if I have good memory I can dictate the conversation. Second, if I can make a machine to pull that data out of my brain it doesn't feel like the law can tell me I can't. It's my brain and my memory. Further, it's arguably we will enhance brains digitally at some point. First for people with brain disability. At that time it will be trivial for them to digitally extract their memories and being their memories again the law should have no say. In other words, tech will eventually make this question moot. Conversations will be recorded and just like I can tell you that while at Disneyland yesterday my sister said she was going to Hawaii in June (I just shared a lo-fi recording of that conversation with you) eventually I'll be able to do that with hi-fidelity. Let me add I'm a little scared of such a world but I personally see it as inevitable. I believe digitally augmenting brains is inevitable and I believe telling people what they can do with their personal memories and who they can share them with is impossible/untenable so that world will come eventually. Let me add though that I'm not against laws that say such data can not be collected in mass quantities. I have no idea how to word those laws so as it's possible for me to share all the data mentioned above with whoever I choose and yet not allow FB to do the same and also still allow services to help me share that data with who I choose to share it just like HN just facilitated me sharing info about my sister with you above.
wool_gather 7y ago
I'll see your analogy and raise you a begged question. You're starting from the assumption that a collection of personally-identifiable information is free to share. That isn't necessarily true of such information. If you and I have a conversation about a trade secret of mine, then you are not free to tell someone else about the conversation. There are forms of information and transmission that we've agreed by law to restrict. Why shouldn't we include PII in that? (For another example, consider the privacy of medical data.)
- anthonypasq 7y ago
  >If you and I have a conversation about a trade secret of mine, then you are not free to tell someone else about the conversation. this seems counter intuitive to me. can you explain?
boomlinde 7y ago
> The author keeps saying 'my data' when the data isn't theirs. The fact that they interacted with a party, that interaction, and who you are, is thier data. "My data" might be ambiguous, because it can imply both ownership and association, but in this case obviously means "personal data concerning me". > This the simple minded use of 'my data' really wrecks what could be a rather interesting ( but not surprising ) piece. Try to read it again, this time without assuming the least favorable interpretation you can think of.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  > Try to read it again, this time without assuming the least favorable interpretation you can think of. Thank you for saying this.
qznc 7y ago
In Europe we think differently as can be read in article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [0]: "Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified." [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...
thatoneuser 7y ago
The difference is you can't have a conversation with a hundred million people in a day and record everything to use in the most efficient analytical way. Additionally Facebook isn't even having a conversation - it's just a space where other people have conversations and fb records everything like a creepy friend in the shadows. I think it's pretty pedantic to claim the data isn't ours.
randyrand 7y ago
Flight data its data about flights. Ocean data is data about oceans. My data is data about me.

coldpie 7y ago

I see nothing wrong with calling my contact information "my data," because I feel some ownership over how it is used and disseminated. I strongly disagree with the idea that having an interaction with a business gives them a license to tell anyone anything about our interaction, including (especially) my contact information. I agree it is "the law" right now, but I think that is wrong and should be changed.

jrace 7y ago
Your info is your info. The data they collected about you is their data. Now if only we could oprevent them from sharing/selling their data which contains your info. I realize that in my argument I am being rather pedantic...but in online text based exchange it is what separates us from the barbarians.
- coldpie 7y ago
  > The data they collected about you is their data. That's my point. I don't think it should be. They can have access to my data to conduct our business transaction, but I disagree with the idea that my information somehow belongs to them just because they had access to it at some point.
  - lotu 7y ago
    I think this was a really good distinction, because it suggests a course of action. It sounds like you would support a requirement in a consumer contracts that a person's contact information may not be used for marking purposes or shared with others to use for marking. This could essentially decimate the direct marketing industry, but that might be the desired outcome. Unfortunately governments don't like to pass laws the decimate any industry no matter how small. I think it is also very valuable because it more clearly defines what you mean by privacy. The privacy violation happens, not when they collect your contact information, or when it is put into a list, it is when it is used to send you advertising which you find unwelcome.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      Right. Phrasing it as "my data" shows that they don't own my information. Instead, I own it, but they have it, and it is their responsibility to take care of it. They are responsible if something happens to my data that I don't want to happen (sold to spammers; leaked by hacking). The best course of action for them is to take as little as possible and then forget the information when it is no longer useful, to minimize their risk. This is exactly what I want to happen.
      - wool_gather 7y ago
        Reminds me of the comedy sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E: "They took all the money? That sounds more like a bank robbery." "No, no. If only. 'Cause we could take the hit. No, no. It was actually your identity that was stolen, primarily. It's a massive pisser for you." "But, it's actually money that's been taken..." "Yes" "From you?" "Kind of." "I don't know what you want from me other than my commiserations." "You see it was your identity. They said they were you!" "And you believed them?" "Yes, they stole your identity." "Well, I don't know. I seem to still have my identity, whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of pounds. In light of that, I'm not sure why you think it was my identity that was stolen instead of your money."
  - jrace 7y ago
- boomlinde 7y ago
  > The data they collected about you is their data. It is your data in the sense that it is data concerning you.
  - sroussey 7y ago
    According to GDPR, your data is yours. Even if captured and stored by an enterprise. Soon California too.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > The data they collected about you is their data. 9 times out of 10 they’ve collected that data without my informed consent and using my computer hardware - which I did not consent to be used for that purpose. It’s computer fraud of some kind, but IANAL. Edit: If I flip your argument on it’s head, doesn’t torrenting something make the torrented copy of the media “mine” since “I’ve collected it”? Yet we usually call that a copyright violation and illegal.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

criddell 7y ago

> This isn't a theoretical nit pick, this is the law. There are exceptions for things like health information or DVD rentals. It's time we start to think about expanding those rules to any commercial use of data about private individuals.

cbsmith 7y ago

> This isn't a theoretical nit pick, this is the law. Of course, the law is changing... and in fact, under a lot of laws, it really is "my data". Much like intellectual property, these laws were established for a particular context, and we've long since moved past that context, raising reasonable questions as to whether those laws are really a good idea. > And it makes sense. If you and i have a conversation, i am free to tell someone else about that conversation, because i was part of it. That is my data, as it is also theirs. Are you entitled to a DNA sample from some skin cells that floated in the air while you were having said conversation? Does that conversation entitle you to know of every other place that person goes that day? Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? The lowered price of collecting, aggregating & exchanging information changes the context under which the existing laws were made, raising questions about whether we wish to alter those laws.

tokyodude 7y ago
> Are you entitled to a DNA sample from some skin cells that floated in the air while you were having said conversation? Yes. Why wouldn't I be. Those DNA are in my body. They might be infecting me in some way. Why would I not be able to inspect them however I want? > Does that conversation entitle you to know of every other place that person goes that day? If I'm with them the entire time then yes. If other mutual friends were with them I'm fully entitled to ask them and they are fully entitled to answer. I went to Disneyland with my sister yesterday. I just shared with you that my sister was at Disneyland yesterday. My mom told me she and my sister went to dinner at McDonalds on the east exit of Disneyland after they got out. I just shared with you something my mother told me about my sister. I have broken no laws nor done anything considered wrong AFAIK in any country in the history of the world up to this point. > Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? Personally I believe the answer is effectively yes and should be yes though I understand it might legally be no in certain places at the moment I believe those laws will eventually be overturned. Why do I hold this position? Because my brain recorded the conversation. So, first off if I have good memory I can dictate the conversation. Second, if I can make a machine to pull that data out of my brain it doesn't feel like the law can tell me I can't. It's my brain and my memory. Further, it's arguably we will enhance brains digitally at some point. First for people with brain disability. At that time it will be trivial for them to digitally extract their memories and being their memories again the law should have no say. In other words, tech will eventually make this question moot. Conversations will be recorded and just like I can tell you that while at Disneyland yesterday my sister said she was going to Hawaii in June (I just shared a lo-fi recording of that conversation with you) eventually I'll be able to do that with hi-fidelity. Let me add I'm a little scared of such a world but I personally see it as inevitable. I believe digitally augmenting brains is inevitable and I believe telling people what they can do with their personal memories and who they can share them with is impossible/untenable so that world will come eventually. Let me add though that I'm not against laws that say such data can not be collected in mass quantities. I have no idea how to word those laws so as it's possible for me to share all the data mentioned above with whoever I choose and yet not allow FB to do the same and also still allow services to help me share that data with who I choose to share it just like HN just facilitated me sharing info about my sister with you above.

wool_gather 7y ago

I'll see your analogy and raise you a begged question. You're starting from the assumption that a collection of personally-identifiable information is free to share. That isn't necessarily true of such information. If you and I have a conversation about a trade secret of mine, then you are not free to tell someone else about the conversation. There are forms of information and transmission that we've agreed by law to restrict. Why shouldn't we include PII in that? (For another example, consider the privacy of medical data.)

anthonypasq 7y ago
>If you and I have a conversation about a trade secret of mine, then you are not free to tell someone else about the conversation. this seems counter intuitive to me. can you explain?

boomlinde 7y ago

> The author keeps saying 'my data' when the data isn't theirs. The fact that they interacted with a party, that interaction, and who you are, is thier data. "My data" might be ambiguous, because it can imply both ownership and association, but in this case obviously means "personal data concerning me". > This the simple minded use of 'my data' really wrecks what could be a rather interesting ( but not surprising ) piece. Try to read it again, this time without assuming the least favorable interpretation you can think of.

ziddoap 7y ago
> Try to read it again, this time without assuming the least favorable interpretation you can think of. Thank you for saying this.

qznc 7y ago

In Europe we think differently as can be read in article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [0]: "Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified." [0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

thatoneuser 7y ago

The difference is you can't have a conversation with a hundred million people in a day and record everything to use in the most efficient analytical way. Additionally Facebook isn't even having a conversation - it's just a space where other people have conversations and fb records everything like a creepy friend in the shadows. I think it's pretty pedantic to claim the data isn't ours.

randyrand 7y ago

Flight data its data about flights. Ocean data is data about oceans. My data is data about me.