3 ms·

It's not difficult to imagine such data being used for both benign and malevolent purposes.

rjzzleep 7y ago
Yeah, but that's not the point. We know that this is the direction we're going. So the focus shouldn't be prohibition, but rather different ownership models to data and more sensible access to the data only to parts and the parties necessary. Germany for example while being "sort of" privacy aware is a prime example on how not to do it. They've been deadlocked in this for decades now and can't seem to find a way out. All the while expanding infringement of data access where it shouldn't be happening. They've been writing an own HIPAA for almost a decade now with no end in sight. They, did the same for the medical card spending a decade on discussions on privacy without actually addressing any of them. I give you another example. The access to medical laws in Germany while good in theory make everyone sign a verbatim access to your medical history in writing which you then have to retract in writing IF you can even remember all the places you've signed this form. It looks good on paper but if you ask me it's an absolute privacy disaster.
- trickstra 7y ago
  I think you are touching a fundamental problem with humans. One aspect is that we do make mistakes, cannot follow rigid laws to the letter and that's why we have judges. Judges are supposed to consider "all circumstances" of a particular event and have the power to decide for no punishment even if technically a law was broken. This system has been evolving for centuries, don't expect it to be solved any time soon. It's still imperfect. The other aspect is that different parties have different motivation and no matter which system you implement, it can be "hacked". Just like any computer can be hacked. A system is a construct and if you follow the construct, you can find ways around it. So it depends on the motivation of the parties - if it's strong enough, they will find a way through. If motivations align, they will cooperate. Again, behavioral psychologists have been trying to understand how cooperation happens, and it's not a solved problem, maybe even not solvable. There will always be power plays. It might seem like it should have a solution, that it's just about the ownership models, but this is more fundamental. I would personally be ok with cameras monitoring people who throw thrash on the streets if the punishments were somehow "reasonable", but it's just not possible. Not to mention it costs something to issue the punishment, so it doesn't make sense to issue very small punishments, and somebody needs to clean it anyway, and our technology is not 100% accurate and, and, and... So realistically there are just many easier treatments, that are "good enough", not perfect, that unfortunately leave some trash on the streets because the alternative is dystopia.
  - rjzzleep 7y ago
    I get what you're saying but that problem already exists. Your medical data is already stored in a bunch of crappy insecure systems with inadequate protection. So your ideal world that you're describing there already doesn't exist. Whereas working on expiring data and temporary access permissions on data you own and is stored on your own devices is a million times more secure than the cluster fuck we're trying to protect.
    - trickstra 7y ago
      I was mostly referring to this thing you wrote earlier: "how can we make sure that we get the convenience part without the pervasive big brother aspect. I'm sure there is a way" - I think that simply cannot exist due to all the practical limitations with rigid systems and costs to issue punishment. And that clusterfuck is mostly the result of the power plays between multiple parties who are trying to hack each other's proposals, trying to win something over others. And that will also exist for as long as we are human. So I'm not really describing any ideal world, it is in fact quite sad. We will probably never have all our data truly in our own hands, even though it might seem easier and more secure. There are practical limitations of being human and there are competing human interests.

Yeah, but that's not the point. We know that this is the direction we're going. So the focus shouldn't be prohibition, but rather different ownership models to data and more sensible access to the data only to parts and the parties necessary. Germany for example while being "sort of" privacy aware is a prime example on how not to do it. They've been deadlocked in this for decades now and can't seem to find a way out. All the while expanding infringement of data access where it shouldn't be happening. They've been writing an own HIPAA for almost a decade now with no end in sight. They, did the same for the medical card spending a decade on discussions on privacy without actually addressing any of them. I give you another example. The access to medical laws in Germany while good in theory make everyone sign a verbatim access to your medical history in writing which you then have to retract in writing IF you can even remember all the places you've signed this form. It looks good on paper but if you ask me it's an absolute privacy disaster.

trickstra 7y ago
I think you are touching a fundamental problem with humans. One aspect is that we do make mistakes, cannot follow rigid laws to the letter and that's why we have judges. Judges are supposed to consider "all circumstances" of a particular event and have the power to decide for no punishment even if technically a law was broken. This system has been evolving for centuries, don't expect it to be solved any time soon. It's still imperfect. The other aspect is that different parties have different motivation and no matter which system you implement, it can be "hacked". Just like any computer can be hacked. A system is a construct and if you follow the construct, you can find ways around it. So it depends on the motivation of the parties - if it's strong enough, they will find a way through. If motivations align, they will cooperate. Again, behavioral psychologists have been trying to understand how cooperation happens, and it's not a solved problem, maybe even not solvable. There will always be power plays. It might seem like it should have a solution, that it's just about the ownership models, but this is more fundamental. I would personally be ok with cameras monitoring people who throw thrash on the streets if the punishments were somehow "reasonable", but it's just not possible. Not to mention it costs something to issue the punishment, so it doesn't make sense to issue very small punishments, and somebody needs to clean it anyway, and our technology is not 100% accurate and, and, and... So realistically there are just many easier treatments, that are "good enough", not perfect, that unfortunately leave some trash on the streets because the alternative is dystopia.
- rjzzleep 7y ago
  I get what you're saying but that problem already exists. Your medical data is already stored in a bunch of crappy insecure systems with inadequate protection. So your ideal world that you're describing there already doesn't exist. Whereas working on expiring data and temporary access permissions on data you own and is stored on your own devices is a million times more secure than the cluster fuck we're trying to protect.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    I was mostly referring to this thing you wrote earlier: "how can we make sure that we get the convenience part without the pervasive big brother aspect. I'm sure there is a way" - I think that simply cannot exist due to all the practical limitations with rigid systems and costs to issue punishment. And that clusterfuck is mostly the result of the power plays between multiple parties who are trying to hack each other's proposals, trying to win something over others. And that will also exist for as long as we are human. So I'm not really describing any ideal world, it is in fact quite sad. We will probably never have all our data truly in our own hands, even though it might seem easier and more secure. There are practical limitations of being human and there are competing human interests.