4 ms·

I’m sorry, I usually expect these threads to turn into “but Orwell!” vs “but what do you have to hide?”, but this is the first time I can remember (at least on

by danso 7y ago

I’m sorry, I usually expect these threads to turn into “but Orwell!” vs “but what do you have to hide?”, but this is the first time I can remember (at least on HN) in which a thread so quickly jumped to “but why should your sexual orientation not be for the public to know?” It’s great that you are in a situation where you believe you are able to publicize your sexual identity without detrimental consequences. But it is the height of arrogance to presume that everyone else must have the same life situation that you do.

bwb 7y ago
Sigh, I don't assume that and I know it is not from many experiences. My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society, and we need strong regulations to protect both sides. This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. What world do you live in where fear is unreasonable? The world is not the happy place that you very clearly think it is. I have personal friends and family who have very legitimate reasons to demand enforced privacy. People who've been abused by others; who've been abused by people who have made serious threats against livelihoods. People whose opinions are different from those around them would be at significant risk to life, limb, and sanity if those opinions were to become known by others. > I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society > This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN. * You need to recognize that data is also hugely powerful in destroying it too. I think many on HN are able to and have recognized this. > and we need strong regulations to protect both sides. I agree; but I think the regulations and enforcement should absolutely err on the side of the user if there is ever a disagreement between the two.
  - bwb 7y ago
    I agree with most of that. I think we are closer than you think on this. I do recognize the power of data, but I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      > I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good. I don't see any inability to recognize that. What I see is is a recognition that "data can be a powerful force for good" is not a valid argument for why people should be forced to reveal that data.
      - bwb 7y ago
        You are not being forced to reveal anything, that data might not be your data and thus not your decision to reveal aspects of it.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        I think the crux of this issue is what is or is not "my" data. I think that any data that is generated as a result of my actions, or by machines that I own, is my data for all intents and purposes. I understand that you disagree with that. That's entirely fair, and I'm not trying to change your thinking on this. What I'm trying to understand is on what basis you are deciding what is or is not my data.
        bwb 7y ago
        Yep, we disagree on this :). Sure, I'll take a stab at that. Data is data, it doesn't belong to someone just because they played a role in creating it. You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess. Yet that is data you are creating. If you found out the water company was checking your dropping for drug usage and selling that to the government you might care. Or if they were selling it to employment screeners who didn't want to hire people with Crohn's disease that might be another. I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about. I want to see data used for improving society and discussin how we draw those lines and who gets access.
- danso 7y ago
  > I feel like that is just a fear-based response to the world, maybe we all need to be more open about who we are both for ourselves and for other people in the world. This is a textbook presumption — you insinuate that someone’s desire to not publicly transmit their sexual/politics must be irrational, and/or everyone (or even most people) is actually in a situation where they don’t have to fear that. What is this “extreme privacy movement” that you speak of? Data-collecting tech companies are global titans, and the public’s status quo acceptance/complacency of this is a major reason for these companies’ success. And this is even the case in America, in which the 4th Amendment is a significant bar for government to clear for any kind of search and seizure, even though citizen compliance with authority is another type of “symbiotic” relationship.
  - bwb 7y ago
    Yes, it is a presumption, that doesn't mean it might not be something to think about and consider? I don't think I need to explain the extreme privacy view, it is alive and well in this community.
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      It's not extreme, it's what most people have had for millennia. New technology is deanonymizing public space, invasions of privacy previously required great effort and expense, now they can be done trivially by accessing data on your phone, or now your car. The ramifications of this haven't become clear to you because no-one important's decided to fuck your life over yet or you live as a conformist, but for many of the rest of us the potential downsides are glaringly obvious. People are getting screwed by this right now in China and N.Korea. It is a real and present danger that may have ramifications for you or people you love in the future, and may even get them killed. McCarthyism was only 50 years ago, the Stasi 30, the Nazis 70. The Dutch inadvertently caused the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Jews by having a religious question on their census before the Nazis took over. It happened before, it will happen again, and just because you don't know high school history, or simply didn't learn the lesson of it, doesn't make us extreme. It just makes you extremely naive.

by danso 7y ago

bwb 7y ago

Sigh, I don't assume that and I know it is not from many experiences. My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society, and we need strong regulations to protect both sides. This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN.

inetknght 7y ago
> My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. What world do you live in where fear is unreasonable? The world is not the happy place that you very clearly think it is. I have personal friends and family who have very legitimate reasons to demand enforced privacy. People who've been abused by others; who've been abused by people who have made serious threats against livelihoods. People whose opinions are different from those around them would be at significant risk to life, limb, and sanity if those opinions were to become known by others. > I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society > This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN. * You need to recognize that data is also hugely powerful in destroying it too. I think many on HN are able to and have recognized this. > and we need strong regulations to protect both sides. I agree; but I think the regulations and enforcement should absolutely err on the side of the user if there is ever a disagreement between the two.
- bwb 7y ago
  I agree with most of that. I think we are closer than you think on this. I do recognize the power of data, but I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good. I don't see any inability to recognize that. What I see is is a recognition that "data can be a powerful force for good" is not a valid argument for why people should be forced to reveal that data.
    - bwb 7y ago
      You are not being forced to reveal anything, that data might not be your data and thus not your decision to reveal aspects of it.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        I think the crux of this issue is what is or is not "my" data. I think that any data that is generated as a result of my actions, or by machines that I own, is my data for all intents and purposes. I understand that you disagree with that. That's entirely fair, and I'm not trying to change your thinking on this. What I'm trying to understand is on what basis you are deciding what is or is not my data.
        bwb 7y ago
        Yep, we disagree on this :). Sure, I'll take a stab at that. Data is data, it doesn't belong to someone just because they played a role in creating it. You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess. Yet that is data you are creating. If you found out the water company was checking your dropping for drug usage and selling that to the government you might care. Or if they were selling it to employment screeners who didn't want to hire people with Crohn's disease that might be another. I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about. I want to see data used for improving society and discussin how we draw those lines and who gets access.
danso 7y ago
> I feel like that is just a fear-based response to the world, maybe we all need to be more open about who we are both for ourselves and for other people in the world. This is a textbook presumption — you insinuate that someone’s desire to not publicly transmit their sexual/politics must be irrational, and/or everyone (or even most people) is actually in a situation where they don’t have to fear that. What is this “extreme privacy movement” that you speak of? Data-collecting tech companies are global titans, and the public’s status quo acceptance/complacency of this is a major reason for these companies’ success. And this is even the case in America, in which the 4th Amendment is a significant bar for government to clear for any kind of search and seizure, even though citizen compliance with authority is another type of “symbiotic” relationship.
- bwb 7y ago
  Yes, it is a presumption, that doesn't mean it might not be something to think about and consider? I don't think I need to explain the extreme privacy view, it is alive and well in this community.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    It's not extreme, it's what most people have had for millennia. New technology is deanonymizing public space, invasions of privacy previously required great effort and expense, now they can be done trivially by accessing data on your phone, or now your car. The ramifications of this haven't become clear to you because no-one important's decided to fuck your life over yet or you live as a conformist, but for many of the rest of us the potential downsides are glaringly obvious. People are getting screwed by this right now in China and N.Korea. It is a real and present danger that may have ramifications for you or people you love in the future, and may even get them killed. McCarthyism was only 50 years ago, the Stasi 30, the Nazis 70. The Dutch inadvertently caused the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Jews by having a religious question on their census before the Nazis took over. It happened before, it will happen again, and just because you don't know high school history, or simply didn't learn the lesson of it, doesn't make us extreme. It just makes you extremely naive.