5 ms·

> 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 in

> 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 8y 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.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  I 100% agree with this post up until the bit about recording conversations. We don't have computer-augmented brains yet, and until we do, remembering something is absolutely not the same as a true digital recording.
  - cbsmith 8y ago
    ...and once we have a way to do it, there's no reason that we'd enjoy the same freedoms with it that we have with extant brain function.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      why? example: blind person has cameras installed for eyes. Are they no longer allowed anywhere there is a no camera sign or is it seen as the restructing their rights? Can a person with long term memory issues augment to record so they can review later? Will you need to DRM things to an insane level to prevent them from sharing? Why should my augmented brain be under someone else's DRM ?
      - cbsmith 8y ago
        If the replacement eyes shot high powered lasers out of them, you might find there would be some regulatory hurdles there.
- cbsmith 8y 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? So, by that interpretation, we don't have much of a right to privacy. > > 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'm not saying you're with them. > 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. But what has changed is that one can know with far more precision all of this stuff, at far lower cost, and without your conscious help. That's a very different context that maybe requires some rethinking of our laws. > 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. You are working from a common, but mistaken, model of how memory works. There is a world of difference between what is recorded in your mind and a full recording of the conversation. > Let me add I'm a little scared of such a world but I personally see it as inevitable. It may be inevitable, but I don't think either of us have enough context to determine that. There was a point in time where things like copyright protections seemed impossible, and now they're so etched into our legal structures that we have a hard time imagining a world without them. > 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. Well, we tell people where they can and can't pee, whether they can eat something, where they can't sleep, what they can't take, what they can't kill, etc. The difference between anarchy and society is pretty vast and seems more inevitable than anarchy.
daotoad 8y ago
Exactly. Here's an example of the type of law you are talking about. I live in a all party consent state, so if you want to record a conversation with me, legally, you need to have my consent. Some states are one party consent states. You can record any conversation you want. Across state lines, federal law requires only consent of one of the parties. But that doesn't resolve anything. Courts in different states handle cross-border complaints differently, some enforce their local all party standard, others demure to the other jurisdiction's one party laws.
leggomylibro 8y ago
>Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? You already have no expectation of privacy in a public space, though. Today I overheard an HR person talk about a big tech firm's recent VP tenures and prospects on a bus. I looked up a couple of linkedins before my earbuds charged enough to put an audiobook on. Not that I'll ever contact them, I just couldn't believe someone would be so genuinely unprofessional and I was bored. What a world we live in, where corporations can gossip just like people.

tokyodude 8y 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.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
I 100% agree with this post up until the bit about recording conversations. We don't have computer-augmented brains yet, and until we do, remembering something is absolutely not the same as a true digital recording.
- cbsmith 8y ago
  ...and once we have a way to do it, there's no reason that we'd enjoy the same freedoms with it that we have with extant brain function.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    why? example: blind person has cameras installed for eyes. Are they no longer allowed anywhere there is a no camera sign or is it seen as the restructing their rights? Can a person with long term memory issues augment to record so they can review later? Will you need to DRM things to an insane level to prevent them from sharing? Why should my augmented brain be under someone else's DRM ?
    - cbsmith 8y ago
      If the replacement eyes shot high powered lasers out of them, you might find there would be some regulatory hurdles there.
cbsmith 8y 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? So, by that interpretation, we don't have much of a right to privacy. > > 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'm not saying you're with them. > 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. But what has changed is that one can know with far more precision all of this stuff, at far lower cost, and without your conscious help. That's a very different context that maybe requires some rethinking of our laws. > 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. You are working from a common, but mistaken, model of how memory works. There is a world of difference between what is recorded in your mind and a full recording of the conversation. > Let me add I'm a little scared of such a world but I personally see it as inevitable. It may be inevitable, but I don't think either of us have enough context to determine that. There was a point in time where things like copyright protections seemed impossible, and now they're so etched into our legal structures that we have a hard time imagining a world without them. > 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. Well, we tell people where they can and can't pee, whether they can eat something, where they can't sleep, what they can't take, what they can't kill, etc. The difference between anarchy and society is pretty vast and seems more inevitable than anarchy.

daotoad 8y ago

Exactly. Here's an example of the type of law you are talking about. I live in a all party consent state, so if you want to record a conversation with me, legally, you need to have my consent. Some states are one party consent states. You can record any conversation you want. Across state lines, federal law requires only consent of one of the parties. But that doesn't resolve anything. Courts in different states handle cross-border complaints differently, some enforce their local all party standard, others demure to the other jurisdiction's one party laws.

leggomylibro 8y ago

>Are you entitled to share a full recording of that conversation with anyone you'd like? You already have no expectation of privacy in a public space, though. Today I overheard an HR person talk about a big tech firm's recent VP tenures and prospects on a bus. I looked up a couple of linkedins before my earbuds charged enough to put an audiobook on. Not that I'll ever contact them, I just couldn't believe someone would be so genuinely unprofessional and I was bored. What a world we live in, where corporations can gossip just like people.