4 ms·

> 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 pa

• 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.