4 ms·

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. > I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it bei

by chroma 7y ago

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. > I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point. What can I engage with here? I'm trying to figure out what bad consequences you're worried about, but you seem to have a terminal value that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep information you sent them. Let's try another tactic: What do you think of casinos that share surveillance photos of card sharps with other casinos? Or wifi hotspots at coffee shops that keep logs of mac addresses to limit abuse? Or news sites that limit non-paying visitors to 3 articles per month? Your statement seems to be so absolute that it forbids all of these legitimate uses.

JohnFen 7y ago
Yes, in the interests of brevity, I've omitted a lot of nuance. Let me try to add some of that back in. I do not object to data collection that is technically necessary to provide services. For instance, I don't object to web server logs. I also don't generally object to sites using data I have willingly provided for their own purposes, as long as they aren't doing things like sharing it with other entities or combining it with data about me that they have obtained with other entities (unless I have given consent, of course). So I have no problem with your wifi hotspot or paywall examples. Anything beyond that -- which would include your casino example -- requires my express consent. I do think that casinos violate this principle, because they do not inform me of their surveillance before I set foot on their properties. If they did, though, then I would not object. The essential principle that I operate under is that of informed consent. It's really that simple. Having a relationship with a specific entity carries with it a certain amount of implied consent (web server logs are an example of this) -- but even that data should remain private between me and that entity. Any sharing of it with others requires my express permission. "Sharing with others" includes indirect mechanisms such as using that data to match me with advertisers, even if the raw data itself is not transmitted to others.

by chroma 7y ago

JohnFen 7y ago

Yes, in the interests of brevity, I've omitted a lot of nuance. Let me try to add some of that back in. I do not object to data collection that is technically necessary to provide services. For instance, I don't object to web server logs. I also don't generally object to sites using data I have willingly provided for their own purposes, as long as they aren't doing things like sharing it with other entities or combining it with data about me that they have obtained with other entities (unless I have given consent, of course). So I have no problem with your wifi hotspot or paywall examples. Anything beyond that -- which would include your casino example -- requires my express consent. I do think that casinos violate this principle, because they do not inform me of their surveillance before I set foot on their properties. If they did, though, then I would not object. The essential principle that I operate under is that of informed consent. It's really that simple. Having a relationship with a specific entity carries with it a certain amount of implied consent (web server logs are an example of this) -- but even that data should remain private between me and that entity. Any sharing of it with others requires my express permission. "Sharing with others" includes indirect mechanisms such as using that data to match me with advertisers, even if the raw data itself is not transmitted to others.