5 ms·

A greater problem is the divorce of collection of data and consent.

umvi 7y ago
That's because not everyone agrees that observational data is something that can (or should) be owned by a person. When a human looks at another person, are they "collecting data without consent"? Most would say no. So at what point do you "own" observational data about yourself? When it's observed by a machine? So then CCTV should be illegal too then, and indeed any sort of security system that records audio/video without consent.
- tremon 7y ago
  When a human looks at another person, are they "collecting data without consent"? Most would say no. But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? So then CCTV should be illegal too then It is, in many cases.
  - the_snooze 7y ago
    >But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? This. Scale matters. Scale matters. Scale matters. It's such an infuriating and intellectually bankrupt slight-of-hand when someone implies that because some small thing X is fine, then 10000X is fine all the same.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Well, then quantify the scale at which data collection should become illegal with unambiguous terms. I don't see anything wrong with making observations about people, especially if it helps my business. I'm allowed to do so without computers: "Ah, sir, I see you are sunburned, did you know we have ointment for that on aisle 4?" (no one would say: "How dare you observe that I am sunburned! That's a privacy violation! You didn't have my consent to observe that!") So tell me how far I'm allowed to go with computers.
      - jacksnipe 7y ago
        Well that’s easy — with computers, you need explicit consent to even “observe that the user is sunburned”, because there are no inherent scaling limitations with computers.
        umvi 7y ago
        So you are saying if we remove some of the scaling limitations of the human brain with biotech (i.e. by enhancing memory detail retention, figuring out a way to serialize memories to computer-compatible storage, etc.) it could become illegal to look at a person without consent (since you would effectively become a walking, breathing CCTV)?
        jacksnipe 7y ago
        Yes, I think that’s the logical conclusion of GDPR-style thinking about privacy. I would certainly protest against being able to index that data any which way. I understand the flipside that you’re implying and the argument that you’re making, I just don’t agree. When an individual has a computer-indexed memory that is admissible as evidence in court, I think it’s pretty okay to use it for all of the things that we use memories for today. But what about reselling that data? What about data sharing agreements that subsidize your implants? What about hackers? I really hope we don’t get truly infallible, computer-backed memory.
        umvi 7y ago
        Well, at least you are consistent with your position. I just don't like that we rely on what amounts to DRM in order to give the human brain exemptions to privacy and copyright laws. I feel that I "own" my memories and nobody should be allowed to tell me what I can do with them. If there's a device that lets me dump them to computers and sell them, first of all, it should be legal, and second of all, I should have that right. I feel that you do not "own" what I observe about you with my own senses and that I do not need your permission to look at you, listen to you, or generally infer things about you. I don't see how a memory dumping device is different from computer sensors, and thus I don't have a problem with computers collecting information about me in public.
    - kodablah 7y ago
      > 24 hours a day [...] 10000X [...] I find it infuriating that it's either small or all the time + many orders of magnitude more. It's unfair to say "any look is invalid" because of perceived/potential scale. Scale only matters when defined.
  - umvi 7y ago
    > But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? What if I'm not even following anyone; I'm just sitting on my front porch all day and the I notice the same person keeps walking in front of my house? Is consent required even though I haven't moved? I've made 10 observations in 10 hours, yes, but only because the person has walked in front of my house 10 times.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  I’d be fine regulating corporate use of behavioral data. “Persons” are not a major concern to me.

umvi 7y ago

That's because not everyone agrees that observational data is something that can (or should) be owned by a person. When a human looks at another person, are they "collecting data without consent"? Most would say no. So at what point do you "own" observational data about yourself? When it's observed by a machine? So then CCTV should be illegal too then, and indeed any sort of security system that records audio/video without consent.

tremon 7y ago
When a human looks at another person, are they "collecting data without consent"? Most would say no. But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? So then CCTV should be illegal too then It is, in many cases.
- the_snooze 7y ago
  >But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? This. Scale matters. Scale matters. Scale matters. It's such an infuriating and intellectually bankrupt slight-of-hand when someone implies that because some small thing X is fine, then 10000X is fine all the same.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Well, then quantify the scale at which data collection should become illegal with unambiguous terms. I don't see anything wrong with making observations about people, especially if it helps my business. I'm allowed to do so without computers: "Ah, sir, I see you are sunburned, did you know we have ointment for that on aisle 4?" (no one would say: "How dare you observe that I am sunburned! That's a privacy violation! You didn't have my consent to observe that!") So tell me how far I'm allowed to go with computers.
    - jacksnipe 7y ago
      Well that’s easy — with computers, you need explicit consent to even “observe that the user is sunburned”, because there are no inherent scaling limitations with computers.
      - umvi 7y ago
        So you are saying if we remove some of the scaling limitations of the human brain with biotech (i.e. by enhancing memory detail retention, figuring out a way to serialize memories to computer-compatible storage, etc.) it could become illegal to look at a person without consent (since you would effectively become a walking, breathing CCTV)?
        jacksnipe 7y ago
        Yes, I think that’s the logical conclusion of GDPR-style thinking about privacy. I would certainly protest against being able to index that data any which way. I understand the flipside that you’re implying and the argument that you’re making, I just don’t agree. When an individual has a computer-indexed memory that is admissible as evidence in court, I think it’s pretty okay to use it for all of the things that we use memories for today. But what about reselling that data? What about data sharing agreements that subsidize your implants? What about hackers? I really hope we don’t get truly infallible, computer-backed memory.
        umvi 7y ago
        Well, at least you are consistent with your position. I just don't like that we rely on what amounts to DRM in order to give the human brain exemptions to privacy and copyright laws. I feel that I "own" my memories and nobody should be allowed to tell me what I can do with them. If there's a device that lets me dump them to computers and sell them, first of all, it should be legal, and second of all, I should have that right. I feel that you do not "own" what I observe about you with my own senses and that I do not need your permission to look at you, listen to you, or generally infer things about you. I don't see how a memory dumping device is different from computer sensors, and thus I don't have a problem with computers collecting information about me in public.
  - kodablah 7y ago
    > 24 hours a day [...] 10000X [...] I find it infuriating that it's either small or all the time + many orders of magnitude more. It's unfair to say "any look is invalid" because of perceived/potential scale. Scale only matters when defined.
- umvi 7y ago
  > But if that human follows and looks at that other person 24 hours a day, would you still say that no consent is required? What if I'm not even following anyone; I'm just sitting on my front porch all day and the I notice the same person keeps walking in front of my house? Is consent required even though I haven't moved? I've made 10 observations in 10 hours, yes, but only because the person has walked in front of my house 10 times.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
I’d be fine regulating corporate use of behavioral data. “Persons” are not a major concern to me.