4 ms·
"I recognize I’m saying something unconventional if not provocative." On the contrary, you're preaching the conventional wisdom of today. And I also don't thin
by prophesi 7y ago
"I recognize I’m saying something unconventional if not provocative."
On the contrary, you're preaching the conventional wisdom of today. And I also don't think you read the short article; it's simply about making more common-sense laws to at least achieve a modicum of privacy and put a leash on the data broker industry.
The technology can't be stopped, but we're still early enough in the game to limit data identification, correlation and discrimination.
Edit: I'd also like to recommend Schneier's books. For instance, his "Click Here To Kill Everybody" is a great look at how security with IoT is failing, why companies _want_ it to fail, and what sort of actionable legislation would fix these issues. He's not a pie-in-the-sky zealot for privacy.
- wildermuthn 7y agoI did read the article, but sometimes the reader-mode cuts the article off. Will check it out again, but I disagree that the convention thinking is to allow unfettered violations of privacy. At least in the tech world, it seems privacy is treated an absolute good.
- prophesi 7y agoYeah, there's quite the echo chamber on Hacker News, and most other tech-oriented forums. Everywhere else is full of "Nothing to hide" arguments and Alexas.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoWhy the f... the technology can't be stopped? Lead could be stopped, Mercury could be stopped, PCBs could be stopped, Asbestoes could be stopped. Why even start something which is obviously toxic?
- prophesi 7y agoErm, none of those things were _stopped_. Heck, even Asbestos lacks a full ban in the USA. These hazardous materials were just heavily regulated, which is what we're arguing should be done with surveillance tech as well. So even with obviously hazardous chemicals, it still takes literal decades for the research and law to catch up. I'm imagining it will take twice as long for surveillance, which doesn't directly kill people/wildlife. Unless, perhaps, China's usage of the tech to oppress Uighur muslims gets decent coverage.
- pas 7y agoAlso in case of these materials and their use largely they just have been switched to some alternative. In case of surveillance (and tracking online) each use-case have to separately disrupted so we can move away from this large scale dragnet surveillance/tracking. Though regulation undoubtedly helps to allow the development of these alternatives.