6 ms·

It's evil if both/either were to collect more information then is necessary and sell it to 3rd parties for analytics. The DMV in some states have started to se

It's evil if both/either were to collect more information then is necessary and sell it to 3rd parties for analytics. The DMV in some states have started to sell people's data, that's fucked.

luckylion 7y ago
Selling data is a problem, I'm with you so far. Having the government (that also controls the police, the military etc) collect & analyze large amounts of data on citizens is a recipe for disaster even if they never sell that data to a third party. I hear people say "but we can write laws that they cannot use that data for anything nefarious" and I'm amazed that there are still people alive that believe that laws have ever stopped a government. I'm fine with "let's limit the amount of data corporations can collect on citizens", but I'm really not fine with "let's allow the state to collect any data on citizens other than absolutely necessary to provide basic services, at least they don't sell it".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
falcolas 7y ago
The DMV is less selling it, than people are requesting the DMV records as part of a Government transparency program, and the DMV is applying a service charge to it. They have made this service available for decades. It’s good in that it’s the government providing transparency into the records they hold, and allowing them to be corrected. It’s bad in that it’s a big treasure trove of data for companies or individuals who want to mis-use it.
- _jal 7y ago
  The "service charges" came to $42M over 3 years in one state: https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information-makes-millions/22520650# https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information...
  - citrablue 7y ago
    Is that a lot, or a little, when compared to the cost of providing the service? Without context, this number is meaningless.
    - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
      It doesn't cost $42M to make a CSV file available.
      - citrablue 7y ago
        Is your argument that a CSV file of everyone's data should be publicly accessible? Because that's not what I understand the fee to cover; it covers extra personnel to field and review the requests, computer systems to process it, paper to print it out. It probably also covers supervisors time, office space, printers. Like most government spending, I'm sure it's excessive. However, I'm not clear what your counter-point was. Yes, producing a CSV costs less than $42M. No, producing a CSV file is not what this service entails.
        mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        No, I was being a bit facetious. My counterpoint was simply that as you just stated it's clearly excessive and that you know it is a lot even without additional context and so by extension it's not accurate to say that the number is "meaningless".
        citrablue 7y ago
        Ah, I understand what you're saying. You are right - meaningless is too strong of a statement. If I could edit my comment, I might say something more accurate, like "trying to evaluate this number without more context is not useful."

It's evil if both/either were to collect more information then is necessary and sell it to 3rd parties for analytics. The DMV in some states have started to sell people's data, that's fucked.

luckylion 7y ago

Selling data is a problem, I'm with you so far. Having the government (that also controls the police, the military etc) collect & analyze large amounts of data on citizens is a recipe for disaster even if they never sell that data to a third party. I hear people say "but we can write laws that they cannot use that data for anything nefarious" and I'm amazed that there are still people alive that believe that laws have ever stopped a government. I'm fine with "let's limit the amount of data corporations can collect on citizens", but I'm really not fine with "let's allow the state to collect any data on citizens other than absolutely necessary to provide basic services, at least they don't sell it".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

falcolas 7y ago

The DMV is less selling it, than people are requesting the DMV records as part of a Government transparency program, and the DMV is applying a service charge to it. They have made this service available for decades. It’s good in that it’s the government providing transparency into the records they hold, and allowing them to be corrected. It’s bad in that it’s a big treasure trove of data for companies or individuals who want to mis-use it.

_jal 7y ago
The "service charges" came to $42M over 3 years in one state: https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information-makes-millions/22520650# https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information...
- citrablue 7y ago
  Is that a lot, or a little, when compared to the cost of providing the service? Without context, this number is meaningless.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    It doesn't cost $42M to make a CSV file available.
    - citrablue 7y ago
      Is your argument that a CSV file of everyone's data should be publicly accessible? Because that's not what I understand the fee to cover; it covers extra personnel to field and review the requests, computer systems to process it, paper to print it out. It probably also covers supervisors time, office space, printers. Like most government spending, I'm sure it's excessive. However, I'm not clear what your counter-point was. Yes, producing a CSV costs less than $42M. No, producing a CSV file is not what this service entails.
      - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        No, I was being a bit facetious. My counterpoint was simply that as you just stated it's clearly excessive and that you know it is a lot even without additional context and so by extension it's not accurate to say that the number is "meaningless".
        citrablue 7y ago
        Ah, I understand what you're saying. You are right - meaningless is too strong of a statement. If I could edit my comment, I might say something more accurate, like "trying to evaluate this number without more context is not useful."