5 ms·

Unfortunately, I don't think the government is going to come to the rescue anytime soon with regard to privacy. At this point I think the best option is for pe

Unfortunately, I don't think the government is going to come to the rescue anytime soon with regard to privacy. At this point I think the best option is for people passionate about privacy issues to start building products and platforms that address the problems by providing real solutions. That's what I'm doing with all my energy, and I know a lot of other talented people who are too (or, at the very least, they want to help).

Despegar 7y ago
Actually this is as much a waste of time as telling people who are concerned about climate change that they should stop using plastic straws rather than pushing for systemic changes that only governments can address with laws. Tech folk always seem to think more or new tech is the answer, and it absolutely isn't the case of privacy. If you really want to help, do that in your 20% time and focus all your energy on advocating for a GDPR clone.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Reedx 7y ago
Maybe if Andrew Yang makes it through we'll see something happen, since his overall approach has a chance of reducing gridlock. And on this issue is proposing data as a property right: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/
- danShumway 7y ago
  For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, we probably should probably be more careful with the phrasing around "your" data. What a lot of us meant was, "data that is generated by actions you take, or that applies to your life." What (increasingly), people interpret it as meaning is "your data" in the same way that you would say, "your boots." The EU often falls back to referring to this stuff as Personally Identifying Information, which is at least a more logically coherent term -- it focuses more on de-anonymization and the risk to the individual, rather than on this idea that I somehow have a morally granted monopoly over a fact. I'm trying to be more careful about how I phrase stuff like this in the future (PII, or 'facts about you' instead of 'your data'), to try and make it more obvious that the privacy community isn't monolithic and that there is no singular view even among privacy advocates about what data is or how it can be controlled.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, What is it that you oppose? Specifically, which of the enumerated rights on the linked page do you have a problem with?
    - danShumway 7y ago
      Note that this is purely my perspective. The privacy community is very diverse, and there are other people have different views. You shouldn't assume I speak for anyone else. Specifically: > The right to be forgotten; to have all data related to you deleted upon request. This conflicts with the Right to Remember, which I believe applies to communities and companies as well as individuals. More broadly: > Data generated by each individual needs to be owned by them. No, no one has a moral right to own a fact. Even more broadly: Data ownership is not sufficient to address modern privacy concerns (and may in fact be counterproductive). This is because it reframes the debate about privacy under Capitalist terms. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. Privacy as a Capitalist problem only really deals with companies, not individuals. This is not just a problem with scope -- as long as we describe privacy as "something that exists because you own your data", we're going to be ill-equipped to handle conflicts between individuals. If we're talking about privacy regulation on an individual level (ie, what can I ask my neighbor to do), nearly all of Yang's rights listed here are problematic (and a few are outright unconstitutional). It's not clear to me how I would apply any of these principles to, say, whether or not my neighbor can record me with a Nest camera. 2. Describing data in financial terms broadly opens the door for the government to grant itself exceptions, and makes it harder for citizens to argue against those exceptions because the harm is phrased in Capitalist terms -- the inability for me to monopolize an asset that I own. The government is likely to win the majority of those fights. When describing privacy rights, it is better to focus on the fundamental rights that privacy protects. Privacy protects your right to hide from aggressors, to exercise autonomy around the identity(s) you present to others, to speak and research freely, and to oppose unjust systems or laws. The push to regard data as an asset captures none of that, so I personally view it as a misguided distraction. I think it's actually counterproductive to say, "we'll just deal with companies first, and then handle individual/government issues later." Building a set of privacy restrictions that only targets companies makes it harder to address concerns around individual and government collection. I want legislation that helps me stay private everywhere, not just when I'm engaging with the market.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  I fear Andrew Yang is too ahead of the current zeitgeist
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Agreed. I also sense he's too good (read: too smart) for W. DC politics. My hope is, he gets a respectable amount of attention and draw, then leverages that - for progress - outside of politics. Kinda like a young Jimmy Carter, or perhaps pick up with MLK left off in terms of financial injustice. I realize there are some things that require gov / poltics. That's not my angle here. It's just that in Yang's case, my sense is, he has more to offer and can deliver more if he's not limited by politics; especially the current mess that it is. Then in say eight years Yang goes for the jugular of W.DC. ATM, he makes too much sense, he's too far ahead. FFS the Dems are serious about Biden and nothing says 20th Century more than ol' Joe. Nice guy, etc. But he's hardly anything close to 2020 progressive.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Politics is where you have the most leverage. Bezos is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, owns a newspaper, and yet Bernie Sanders was still able to shame Amazon (for fulfillment workers) and Disney into paying $15/hour. My hope is Yang finds himself with a cabinet position (I think he'd be a great fit for heading the US Digital Service [under the Executive Office of the President] when Matt Cutts is ready to bounce, to continue the digital transformation of government for service delivery) in the next administration where he can champion his less controversial (ie not UBI) policies while building political capital for a future run, when the electorate has evolved (as it always does over time).
      - chiefalchemist 7y ago
        > "But politics is where you have the most leverage" And look where that got us. There was so much leveraging going on (read: lack there of) that just under 50% of the voters went for Trump. A guy with zero experience and more baggage than a 747. > "Bernie Sanders was able to shame Amazon" True. And that's my point about Yang. Bernie didn't do this with law / legislation. He did it via his fame. Being a politican might have helped but I don't think it was Bern's political power Bezos feared.
- eduren 7y ago
  While I'm really glad that Yang is in the race, and I would definitely vote for him if he got to the General Election, I think the chance of reducing gridlock will be small. Anything outside of the current Dem consensus would need to be sold to his own party first, and then somehow find the right stick/carrot to get the (likely republican) Senate to agree. There's also the possibility that he only enters office with enough political capital to do the above exactly once. Personally, I believe if he only gets one shot transformative legislation then I'd like to see something that moves the needle on his UBI proposals (the "dividend" marketing is spot on I think). Mostly because I expect subsequent reforms to be easier once a stronger social safety net is in place. If Yang made it, what would you want to see him put his capital behind? I could see the argument for it being privacy legislation, seeing as he is in a unique position to market that to the typical voter (nobody in this thread expects the party leaderships to prioritize it).
  - Reedx 7y ago
    Well, the biggest issue I see right now is extreme polarization and tribal warfare. If Trump or any zeitgeist democrat wins in 2020, this will continue and probably worsen. We can't really solve problems and get to substantive policies as long as this is the case. If Yang or Tulsi were at the helm, I think a lot of tribalism fuel would dissipate and significantly calm things down. Thus giving us a shot to actually focus on problems and solutions instead of just endlessly slinging arrows back and forth.
tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
I fortunately think you might be wrong, and unfortunately for this article nowhere is it mentioned that large corporations are actually the ones leading the charge to push for a national privacy law because obviously from a regulatory cost perspective for a multinational, multi-state company, it is much cheaper to have to comply with one law than 50.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Most companies (if you do business in California, which is likely considering it's the world's fifth largest economy) will need to abide by California's privacy law [California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375)] about to go into effect on January 1, 2020. No need to fret because the federal government dropped the ball. https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-historic-privacy-bill/ https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-hi... https://fortune.com/2019/09/13/what-is-ccpa-compliance-california-data-privacy-law/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/13/what-is-ccpa-compliance-calif... https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ccpa-privacy-policy.html https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ccpa-priva...
  - magduf 7y ago
    No, they won't have to abide by California's law if the federal government jumps in and preempts them, the way Trump is doing with California's emissions laws.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Trump is _attempting_ to do; automakers, intelligently, have decided to abide by California’s laws (which will outlast this federal administration and their broken EPA policy) and California is suing the federal government in response. States rights is a thing (a court just ruled states could implement their own stricter net neutrality legislation after the FCC voided theirs).

Despegar 7y ago

Actually this is as much a waste of time as telling people who are concerned about climate change that they should stop using plastic straws rather than pushing for systemic changes that only governments can address with laws. Tech folk always seem to think more or new tech is the answer, and it absolutely isn't the case of privacy. If you really want to help, do that in your 20% time and focus all your energy on advocating for a GDPR clone.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Reedx 7y ago

Maybe if Andrew Yang makes it through we'll see something happen, since his overall approach has a chance of reducing gridlock. And on this issue is proposing data as a property right: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/

danShumway 7y ago
For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, we probably should probably be more careful with the phrasing around "your" data. What a lot of us meant was, "data that is generated by actions you take, or that applies to your life." What (increasingly), people interpret it as meaning is "your data" in the same way that you would say, "your boots." The EU often falls back to referring to this stuff as Personally Identifying Information, which is at least a more logically coherent term -- it focuses more on de-anonymization and the risk to the individual, rather than on this idea that I somehow have a morally granted monopoly over a fact. I'm trying to be more careful about how I phrase stuff like this in the future (PII, or 'facts about you' instead of 'your data'), to try and make it more obvious that the privacy community isn't monolithic and that there is no singular view even among privacy advocates about what data is or how it can be controlled.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > For members of the privacy community that oppose efforts like this, What is it that you oppose? Specifically, which of the enumerated rights on the linked page do you have a problem with?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Note that this is purely my perspective. The privacy community is very diverse, and there are other people have different views. You shouldn't assume I speak for anyone else. Specifically: > The right to be forgotten; to have all data related to you deleted upon request. This conflicts with the Right to Remember, which I believe applies to communities and companies as well as individuals. More broadly: > Data generated by each individual needs to be owned by them. No, no one has a moral right to own a fact. Even more broadly: Data ownership is not sufficient to address modern privacy concerns (and may in fact be counterproductive). This is because it reframes the debate about privacy under Capitalist terms. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. Privacy as a Capitalist problem only really deals with companies, not individuals. This is not just a problem with scope -- as long as we describe privacy as "something that exists because you own your data", we're going to be ill-equipped to handle conflicts between individuals. If we're talking about privacy regulation on an individual level (ie, what can I ask my neighbor to do), nearly all of Yang's rights listed here are problematic (and a few are outright unconstitutional). It's not clear to me how I would apply any of these principles to, say, whether or not my neighbor can record me with a Nest camera. 2. Describing data in financial terms broadly opens the door for the government to grant itself exceptions, and makes it harder for citizens to argue against those exceptions because the harm is phrased in Capitalist terms -- the inability for me to monopolize an asset that I own. The government is likely to win the majority of those fights. When describing privacy rights, it is better to focus on the fundamental rights that privacy protects. Privacy protects your right to hide from aggressors, to exercise autonomy around the identity(s) you present to others, to speak and research freely, and to oppose unjust systems or laws. The push to regard data as an asset captures none of that, so I personally view it as a misguided distraction. I think it's actually counterproductive to say, "we'll just deal with companies first, and then handle individual/government issues later." Building a set of privacy restrictions that only targets companies makes it harder to address concerns around individual and government collection. I want legislation that helps me stay private everywhere, not just when I'm engaging with the market.
hi5eyes 7y ago
I fear Andrew Yang is too ahead of the current zeitgeist
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Agreed. I also sense he's too good (read: too smart) for W. DC politics. My hope is, he gets a respectable amount of attention and draw, then leverages that - for progress - outside of politics. Kinda like a young Jimmy Carter, or perhaps pick up with MLK left off in terms of financial injustice. I realize there are some things that require gov / poltics. That's not my angle here. It's just that in Yang's case, my sense is, he has more to offer and can deliver more if he's not limited by politics; especially the current mess that it is. Then in say eight years Yang goes for the jugular of W.DC. ATM, he makes too much sense, he's too far ahead. FFS the Dems are serious about Biden and nothing says 20th Century more than ol' Joe. Nice guy, etc. But he's hardly anything close to 2020 progressive.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Politics is where you have the most leverage. Bezos is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, owns a newspaper, and yet Bernie Sanders was still able to shame Amazon (for fulfillment workers) and Disney into paying $15/hour. My hope is Yang finds himself with a cabinet position (I think he'd be a great fit for heading the US Digital Service [under the Executive Office of the President] when Matt Cutts is ready to bounce, to continue the digital transformation of government for service delivery) in the next administration where he can champion his less controversial (ie not UBI) policies while building political capital for a future run, when the electorate has evolved (as it always does over time).
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      > "But politics is where you have the most leverage" And look where that got us. There was so much leveraging going on (read: lack there of) that just under 50% of the voters went for Trump. A guy with zero experience and more baggage than a 747. > "Bernie Sanders was able to shame Amazon" True. And that's my point about Yang. Bernie didn't do this with law / legislation. He did it via his fame. Being a politican might have helped but I don't think it was Bern's political power Bezos feared.
eduren 7y ago
While I'm really glad that Yang is in the race, and I would definitely vote for him if he got to the General Election, I think the chance of reducing gridlock will be small. Anything outside of the current Dem consensus would need to be sold to his own party first, and then somehow find the right stick/carrot to get the (likely republican) Senate to agree. There's also the possibility that he only enters office with enough political capital to do the above exactly once. Personally, I believe if he only gets one shot transformative legislation then I'd like to see something that moves the needle on his UBI proposals (the "dividend" marketing is spot on I think). Mostly because I expect subsequent reforms to be easier once a stronger social safety net is in place. If Yang made it, what would you want to see him put his capital behind? I could see the argument for it being privacy legislation, seeing as he is in a unique position to market that to the typical voter (nobody in this thread expects the party leaderships to prioritize it).
- Reedx 7y ago
  Well, the biggest issue I see right now is extreme polarization and tribal warfare. If Trump or any zeitgeist democrat wins in 2020, this will continue and probably worsen. We can't really solve problems and get to substantive policies as long as this is the case. If Yang or Tulsi were at the helm, I think a lot of tribalism fuel would dissipate and significantly calm things down. Thus giving us a shot to actually focus on problems and solutions instead of just endlessly slinging arrows back and forth.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago

I fortunately think you might be wrong, and unfortunately for this article nowhere is it mentioned that large corporations are actually the ones leading the charge to push for a national privacy law because obviously from a regulatory cost perspective for a multinational, multi-state company, it is much cheaper to have to comply with one law than 50.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Most companies (if you do business in California, which is likely considering it's the world's fifth largest economy) will need to abide by California's privacy law [California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375)] about to go into effect on January 1, 2020. No need to fret because the federal government dropped the ball. https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-historic-privacy-bill/ https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-hi... https://fortune.com/2019/09/13/what-is-ccpa-compliance-california-data-privacy-law/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/13/what-is-ccpa-compliance-calif... https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ccpa-privacy-policy.html https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ccpa-priva...
- magduf 7y ago
  No, they won't have to abide by California's law if the federal government jumps in and preempts them, the way Trump is doing with California's emissions laws.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Trump is _attempting_ to do; automakers, intelligently, have decided to abide by California’s laws (which will outlast this federal administration and their broken EPA policy) and California is suing the federal government in response. States rights is a thing (a court just ruled states could implement their own stricter net neutrality legislation after the FCC voided theirs).