3 ms·

> > 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 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.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
> So, by that interpretation, we don't have much of a right to privacy. Not in terms of DNA, no. We leave traces of our DNA wherever we go, and if someone takes the time to read it, they'll learn what they learn. What is the alternative? Outlaw DNA sequencing? Only allow it if you know the owner? Even if it's on my property? > I'm not saying you're with them. Then how would you know every other place the person went that day? Either they told you (not a privacy violation, they told you), or you were with them. Or you installed a hidden camera, in which case the data was clearly stolen and wholly unlike when someone knowingly shares contact information (which was how this analogy originated). We're in agreement about memory recording, so no comment on those points! :)
- cbsmith 8y ago
  > Not in terms of DNA, no. We leave traces of our DNA wherever we go, and if someone takes the time to read it, they'll learn what they learn. Which also means you don't have a way of preventing all your movements from being followed, much of your health information being public knowledge, etc. > What is the alternative? Outlaw DNA sequencing? Only allow it if you know the owner? Even if it's on my property? The alternative is to establish rules and restrictions for circumstances for when DNA sequencing can be done... In fact, we already have some rules about that. You might think legal restrictions are ridiculous or impractical, but are they any more ridiculous or impractical than say copyright protections in an era when the copying & distribution of data is so frictionless and legitimately necessary? > Then how would you know every other place the person went that day? So many different ways... Tracking their DNA trail. Having a drone follow them as they move. Hacking their phone over bluetooth (hey, it's just emitting low power radio signals, are you going to ban that? ;-). Touching them with some radioactive tracer and then following its trail. Tracking radio transmissions from their phone. Planting a GPS tracker on them. Running a retargeting ad campaign and collecting the logs. Track their mass & its movements by analyzing how it alters the flow of neutrinos. :-)
- GrinningFool 8y ago
  > Or you installed a hidden camera, in which case the data was clearly stolen I think this is more analogous to the present situation. Facebook has a public 'camera' - they record you every time you're on their site. It's up to them if they want to share what you did on their site - that data belongs to both of you. But their camera is also on every site that you visit that pulls in FB resources - I would consider this a hidden camera. When FB shares this data, they're sharing the composite recording of their one public and many, many hidden cameras.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

> So, by that interpretation, we don't have much of a right to privacy. Not in terms of DNA, no. We leave traces of our DNA wherever we go, and if someone takes the time to read it, they'll learn what they learn. What is the alternative? Outlaw DNA sequencing? Only allow it if you know the owner? Even if it's on my property? > I'm not saying you're with them. Then how would you know every other place the person went that day? Either they told you (not a privacy violation, they told you), or you were with them. Or you installed a hidden camera, in which case the data was clearly stolen and wholly unlike when someone knowingly shares contact information (which was how this analogy originated). We're in agreement about memory recording, so no comment on those points! :)

cbsmith 8y ago
> Not in terms of DNA, no. We leave traces of our DNA wherever we go, and if someone takes the time to read it, they'll learn what they learn. Which also means you don't have a way of preventing all your movements from being followed, much of your health information being public knowledge, etc. > What is the alternative? Outlaw DNA sequencing? Only allow it if you know the owner? Even if it's on my property? The alternative is to establish rules and restrictions for circumstances for when DNA sequencing can be done... In fact, we already have some rules about that. You might think legal restrictions are ridiculous or impractical, but are they any more ridiculous or impractical than say copyright protections in an era when the copying & distribution of data is so frictionless and legitimately necessary? > Then how would you know every other place the person went that day? So many different ways... Tracking their DNA trail. Having a drone follow them as they move. Hacking their phone over bluetooth (hey, it's just emitting low power radio signals, are you going to ban that? ;-). Touching them with some radioactive tracer and then following its trail. Tracking radio transmissions from their phone. Planting a GPS tracker on them. Running a retargeting ad campaign and collecting the logs. Track their mass & its movements by analyzing how it alters the flow of neutrinos. :-)
GrinningFool 8y ago
> Or you installed a hidden camera, in which case the data was clearly stolen I think this is more analogous to the present situation. Facebook has a public 'camera' - they record you every time you're on their site. It's up to them if they want to share what you did on their site - that data belongs to both of you. But their camera is also on every site that you visit that pulls in FB resources - I would consider this a hidden camera. When FB shares this data, they're sharing the composite recording of their one public and many, many hidden cameras.