3 ms·

To clarify the principles behind the law it might be useful to perform a thought experiment. Imagine that there existed people with extraordinary abilities to

by curt15 7y ago

To clarify the principles behind the law it might be useful to perform a thought experiment. Imagine that there existed people with extraordinary abilities to absorb and recall knowledge -- think Kim Peek. These people could conceivably read the newspaper archives with near-perfect recall -- essentially becoming a walking search engine. Would it then be desired to restrict these people from offering research services to other people?

Dylan16807 7y ago
I'm not sure how enlightening this is. Such a person would be allowed places that cameras aren't. They would be allowed to listen when microphones can't be used. It's a combination of intractability and that 1:1 human effort has natural limits on it; it's not like buying a big computer that's as invasive as a thousand humans. But even then, it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest that if they're selling background check services then they have to abide by some restrictions.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  If we want to enforce human limits on digital tech then digital anything has to be policed. Are recordings from all the cameras in the EU policed for the right to be forgotten? No. Probably because there's no aggregator similar to Google for them.
  - nocturnial 7y ago
    I don't know about the rest of the EU but where I live... yes, cameras are also subjected under: privacy laws, the right to be forgotten, etc. If your camera caught someone doing something illegal, turn it over to the police and let them handle it. If you publish the footage, you're likely to get prosecuted and fined. You don't have to agree because it's a cultural thing. Where I live privacy actually matters.
Faark 7y ago
For a start I'd expect such an individual to take responsibility to not misrepresent the available facts. If there were accusations that turned out wrong I'd expected the corrected record to be offered prominently unless something else is requested explicitly. And I do not think googles algorithms can perform that level of content curation. Maybe accidentally by proxy, like e.g. due to an increased recency bias. But this isn't really what I want either...

by curt15 7y ago

Dylan16807 7y ago

I'm not sure how enlightening this is. Such a person would be allowed places that cameras aren't. They would be allowed to listen when microphones can't be used. It's a combination of intractability and that 1:1 human effort has natural limits on it; it's not like buying a big computer that's as invasive as a thousand humans. But even then, it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest that if they're selling background check services then they have to abide by some restrictions.

blue_devil 7y ago
If we want to enforce human limits on digital tech then digital anything has to be policed. Are recordings from all the cameras in the EU policed for the right to be forgotten? No. Probably because there's no aggregator similar to Google for them.
- nocturnial 7y ago
  I don't know about the rest of the EU but where I live... yes, cameras are also subjected under: privacy laws, the right to be forgotten, etc. If your camera caught someone doing something illegal, turn it over to the police and let them handle it. If you publish the footage, you're likely to get prosecuted and fined. You don't have to agree because it's a cultural thing. Where I live privacy actually matters.

Faark 7y ago

For a start I'd expect such an individual to take responsibility to not misrepresent the available facts. If there were accusations that turned out wrong I'd expected the corrected record to be offered prominently unless something else is requested explicitly. And I do not think googles algorithms can perform that level of content curation. Maybe accidentally by proxy, like e.g. due to an increased recency bias. But this isn't really what I want either...