4 ms·

How about a ban on establishing a database of individually identifiable user profiles? Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only. A technically

How about a ban on establishing a database of individually identifiable user profiles? Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only. A technically possible way to achieve this is using a system like Keybase which could transfer profile data ownership to the individual.

draugadrotten 7y ago
> How about a ban ... A ban costs politicans money to enforce. A tax gives politicans more money when enforced. Draw your own conclusions.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Politicians don’t spend any of their own money more than any other taxpayer. However, the more money politicians can influence to be spent, the more influence they have. For example, the ban on marijuana has yielded tremendous returns for politicians and their associates in the police equipment and prison businesses.
pjc50 7y ago
You've banned gmail.
- anilakar 7y ago
  If Gmail was an unsustainable business because obeying the law is too expensive, it'd deserve to die. Edit: My point is that existing businesses must not be exempt from new legislation, nor compensated under investor protection. Conversely, whether something should be allowed or not must not be based on the number of succesful businesses in that sector.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    And my point was that yours is far more restrictive than GDPR - if you interpret "profile" literally, you've also banned all online banking, possibly banking in its entirety! The GDPR allows you to collect profile information for the purposes of performing a service etc.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      I consider the GDPR to be too permissive, personally. It's much, much better than the nothing that existed before, though!
HeckFeck 7y ago
> Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only Alas, this is easily 'de-anonymised' and so any privacy gains would be quickly lost: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160526/06352934550/anonymized-data-really-isnt-anonymous-vehicle-data-can-easily-be-used-to-identify-you.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160526/06352934550/anony... The big data economy and privacy are mutually exclusive.

draugadrotten 7y ago

> How about a ban ... A ban costs politicans money to enforce. A tax gives politicans more money when enforced. Draw your own conclusions.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Politicians don’t spend any of their own money more than any other taxpayer. However, the more money politicians can influence to be spent, the more influence they have. For example, the ban on marijuana has yielded tremendous returns for politicians and their associates in the police equipment and prison businesses.

pjc50 7y ago

You've banned gmail.

anilakar 7y ago
If Gmail was an unsustainable business because obeying the law is too expensive, it'd deserve to die. Edit: My point is that existing businesses must not be exempt from new legislation, nor compensated under investor protection. Conversely, whether something should be allowed or not must not be based on the number of succesful businesses in that sector.
- pjc50 7y ago
  And my point was that yours is far more restrictive than GDPR - if you interpret "profile" literally, you've also banned all online banking, possibly banking in its entirety! The GDPR allows you to collect profile information for the purposes of performing a service etc.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I consider the GDPR to be too permissive, personally. It's much, much better than the nothing that existed before, though!

HeckFeck 7y ago

> Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only Alas, this is easily 'de-anonymised' and so any privacy gains would be quickly lost: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160526/06352934550/anonymized-data-really-isnt-anonymous-vehicle-data-can-easily-be-used-to-identify-you.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160526/06352934550/anony... The big data economy and privacy are mutually exclusive.