6 ms·

I love coming to these threads to watch the crowd who makes their living from invading the public's privacy attempt to rationalize their worldview, find loophol

I love coming to these threads to watch the crowd who makes their living from invading the public's privacy attempt to rationalize their worldview, find loopholes, etc. If your job is mass surviellance, it has always been unethical and the law is catching up to you. The purpose of these kinds of laws isn't to bring your business in line - it's to put you out of business. We're coming for you.

ixtli 7y ago
The purpose of a law designed in the interest of individual privacy, yes, but at least in America companies get a huge amount of say on what gets passed because they vote with their profits. The reality is that most of the laws are bad because they're considerate of private profit accumulation when, in reality, that profit directly harms the privacy of individuals. We continue to pretend as a society that these two desires can be reconciled.
blueadept111 7y ago
Ahhh "ethics". The elusive, undefined moral compass that's whatever you want it to be -- very practical for finger pointing and self-righteous outrage.
- supercanuck 7y ago
  Actually these ethics, in a democracy are determined by the majority of people via their elected representatives.
  - chipperyman573 7y ago
    By that logic collecting data in America is ethical, because it's not illegal in America
  - oliverx0 7y ago
    Not necessarily. Not going into political arguments, but just because the majority agrees with something, does not make it ethical. Edit: I do agree with the sentiment of your post though. That is, to counter the idea that “ethics” depends on whatever view of the world an individual has.
    - sida 7y ago
      Exactly, majority of the people in many of the states in the US believes gay marriage to be unethical. I mean, not long ago, these same majority of people wouldn’t have voted for African americans to go to the same schools as white children. And that’s all within this current generation
      - supercanuck 7y ago
        Seems like same thing is happening with facial recognition.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      Furthermore, in democracies, people are regularly convinced to support all kinds of things they don't agree with or even understand.
  - tyre 7y ago
    That's not really how Ethics works. Hanging homosexuals is ethically wrong even if it fit popular support. Slavery is ethically wrong regardless of what people vote for. How we judge past decisions is more complex then only the ethics, including knowledge, context, norms, etc. but the ethics can be pretty clear (can be because they can also not be clear, but they can certainly be clear.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Ethics is a field with a long, rich history of study and many-threaded tapestries of thought. It's certainly not "whatever you want it to be", although there are schools that do what you suggest - picking the end point they wish to arrive at and and trying to reverse engineer the ethics that would lead to it.
throwaway713 7y ago
I have no problem if a company performs facial recognition on me as long as I give them permission and it is used for specific purposes. Why should the government interfere with my ability to decide how images of my face are used?
- femiagbabiaka 7y ago
  because companies are lying to you about how your data is being used
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Then make lying about it illegal, not the technology itself.
  - throwaway713 7y ago
    So have the government explain the risks of sharing personal data with corporations and then punish companies after the fact rather than preemptively. I don’t understand why I shouldn’t be able to make an adult decision about taking risks with my own personal data.
    - cryptoz 7y ago
      Just like with a lot of things we have rules against, it's not just your personal data. Encoded in photos of you is data about your family, too. And in public, your surroundings, people nearby you, your location history, etc is all in the realm of these photo systems. There is more data in your photo than just you - this is a societal safety issue. Allowing a free-for-all in all new tech that has clearly defined privacy issues at scale can cause a lot of runaway problems. A society who tries their best to reduce harm caused by bad actors using wild new technology that has huge privacy implications is a reasonable society to me. Automated detection of your face matters to the rest of society, too. It's not just your privacy that is affected, it is other people's too.
      - imgabe 7y ago
Koremat6666 7y ago
These sort of decisions should not be made by large centralized agencies like EU. I would rather see these decisions being left to the individual countries and even better to local bodies. May be London wants to take a different approach than Finland. That should be fine. Let each countries figure out what works for them.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Yeah as an American I don't get the EU. Sovereignty is worth more than convenience in trade.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    And being a small country in gigantic bloc in a world of superpower real-politik is worth more than soverignty
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      I mean, many nations disagree with you. South Korea and Japan haven't joined forces against China. Norway and Switzerland remain out of the EU. And plenty of other counter-examples exist. The country of Singapore is not much bigger than a city. At least you have control over your own destiny as a sovereign nation and you have more agility with your economy.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        The states under the Articles of Confederation felt that way, until they pursued federalization under the Constitution. Germany, Italy, even Britain used to be made of smaller parts that sought union. Countries occasionally choose to federate into a more powerful government. How is the EU any different, other than the process is more long-drawn?
  - Koremat6666 7y ago
    I am not an American. Also, EU is anything but convenience in trade. -It had been a peaceful night in Europe where all the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average. Martin woke up on his EU regulated bed and looked through his EU regulated window. This night, Martin had slept like a baby thanks to the 109 EU regulations concerning pillows, the 5 EU regulations concerning pillow cases, and the 50 EU laws regulating duvets and sheets. Martin went to brush his teeth with his toothbrush regulated by 31 EU laws. After that, our EU-regulated man went to his EU regulated kitchen to grab a Class 1 EU regulated apple. For the benefit of society, the EU had defined what a “class 1” fruit actually is: to class a "Red Variety" apple as "class 1" then 50% of its surface must be red. To class a "Mixed red coloring variety" of apple as a "class 1" apple 33% of its surface must be red, and so it goes for the 3 quality classes and 287 individually named apple varieties. Martin ate fruits and vegetables because the government told him it is the right thing to do. He switched the TV on and listened to the “eat five fruits and vegetables” government ad with attention. Martin’s apple was not very tasty, but at least it was controlled by a European central authority. “Isn’t that great,” thought Martin, “the EU takes care of our food. We now can eat only nice and safe products!” Martin is paying 40% more for his food because of the EU’s highly protectionist agricultural policies, but it is the price one has to pay for civilization. ---
dirtyid 7y ago
We existed fine up until now without pervasive facial recognition, but I find it difficult to conceive a future where this technology won't participate in some part of civic life. China is plowing ahead with smart city and rapidly developing surveillance state standards. US is not far behind. Europe is just ceding 5 years for illiberal forces to set standards, normalize behaviour and cultivate acceptance when it should be providing an alternate model - which can't be nothing because these businesses with go on with or without her.
dhxusjshcynd 7y ago
>We're coming for you. Watch out internet, we've got a badass here.

ixtli 7y ago

The purpose of a law designed in the interest of individual privacy, yes, but at least in America companies get a huge amount of say on what gets passed because they vote with their profits. The reality is that most of the laws are bad because they're considerate of private profit accumulation when, in reality, that profit directly harms the privacy of individuals. We continue to pretend as a society that these two desires can be reconciled.

blueadept111 7y ago

Ahhh "ethics". The elusive, undefined moral compass that's whatever you want it to be -- very practical for finger pointing and self-righteous outrage.

supercanuck 7y ago
Actually these ethics, in a democracy are determined by the majority of people via their elected representatives.
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  By that logic collecting data in America is ethical, because it's not illegal in America
- oliverx0 7y ago
  Not necessarily. Not going into political arguments, but just because the majority agrees with something, does not make it ethical. Edit: I do agree with the sentiment of your post though. That is, to counter the idea that “ethics” depends on whatever view of the world an individual has.
  - sida 7y ago
    Exactly, majority of the people in many of the states in the US believes gay marriage to be unethical. I mean, not long ago, these same majority of people wouldn’t have voted for African americans to go to the same schools as white children. And that’s all within this current generation
    - supercanuck 7y ago
      Seems like same thing is happening with facial recognition.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    Furthermore, in democracies, people are regularly convinced to support all kinds of things they don't agree with or even understand.
- tyre 7y ago
  That's not really how Ethics works. Hanging homosexuals is ethically wrong even if it fit popular support. Slavery is ethically wrong regardless of what people vote for. How we judge past decisions is more complex then only the ethics, including knowledge, context, norms, etc. but the ethics can be pretty clear (can be because they can also not be clear, but they can certainly be clear.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
EliRivers 7y ago
Ethics is a field with a long, rich history of study and many-threaded tapestries of thought. It's certainly not "whatever you want it to be", although there are schools that do what you suggest - picking the end point they wish to arrive at and and trying to reverse engineer the ethics that would lead to it.

throwaway713 7y ago

I have no problem if a company performs facial recognition on me as long as I give them permission and it is used for specific purposes. Why should the government interfere with my ability to decide how images of my face are used?

femiagbabiaka 7y ago
because companies are lying to you about how your data is being used
- imgabe 7y ago
  Then make lying about it illegal, not the technology itself.
- throwaway713 7y ago
  So have the government explain the risks of sharing personal data with corporations and then punish companies after the fact rather than preemptively. I don’t understand why I shouldn’t be able to make an adult decision about taking risks with my own personal data.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    Just like with a lot of things we have rules against, it's not just your personal data. Encoded in photos of you is data about your family, too. And in public, your surroundings, people nearby you, your location history, etc is all in the realm of these photo systems. There is more data in your photo than just you - this is a societal safety issue. Allowing a free-for-all in all new tech that has clearly defined privacy issues at scale can cause a lot of runaway problems. A society who tries their best to reduce harm caused by bad actors using wild new technology that has huge privacy implications is a reasonable society to me. Automated detection of your face matters to the rest of society, too. It's not just your privacy that is affected, it is other people's too.
    - imgabe 7y ago

Koremat6666 7y ago

These sort of decisions should not be made by large centralized agencies like EU. I would rather see these decisions being left to the individual countries and even better to local bodies. May be London wants to take a different approach than Finland. That should be fine. Let each countries figure out what works for them.

chrisco255 7y ago
Yeah as an American I don't get the EU. Sovereignty is worth more than convenience in trade.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  And being a small country in gigantic bloc in a world of superpower real-politik is worth more than soverignty
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    I mean, many nations disagree with you. South Korea and Japan haven't joined forces against China. Norway and Switzerland remain out of the EU. And plenty of other counter-examples exist. The country of Singapore is not much bigger than a city. At least you have control over your own destiny as a sovereign nation and you have more agility with your economy.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      The states under the Articles of Confederation felt that way, until they pursued federalization under the Constitution. Germany, Italy, even Britain used to be made of smaller parts that sought union. Countries occasionally choose to federate into a more powerful government. How is the EU any different, other than the process is more long-drawn?
- Koremat6666 7y ago
  I am not an American. Also, EU is anything but convenience in trade. -It had been a peaceful night in Europe where all the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average. Martin woke up on his EU regulated bed and looked through his EU regulated window. This night, Martin had slept like a baby thanks to the 109 EU regulations concerning pillows, the 5 EU regulations concerning pillow cases, and the 50 EU laws regulating duvets and sheets. Martin went to brush his teeth with his toothbrush regulated by 31 EU laws. After that, our EU-regulated man went to his EU regulated kitchen to grab a Class 1 EU regulated apple. For the benefit of society, the EU had defined what a “class 1” fruit actually is: to class a "Red Variety" apple as "class 1" then 50% of its surface must be red. To class a "Mixed red coloring variety" of apple as a "class 1" apple 33% of its surface must be red, and so it goes for the 3 quality classes and 287 individually named apple varieties. Martin ate fruits and vegetables because the government told him it is the right thing to do. He switched the TV on and listened to the “eat five fruits and vegetables” government ad with attention. Martin’s apple was not very tasty, but at least it was controlled by a European central authority. “Isn’t that great,” thought Martin, “the EU takes care of our food. We now can eat only nice and safe products!” Martin is paying 40% more for his food because of the EU’s highly protectionist agricultural policies, but it is the price one has to pay for civilization. ---

dirtyid 7y ago

We existed fine up until now without pervasive facial recognition, but I find it difficult to conceive a future where this technology won't participate in some part of civic life. China is plowing ahead with smart city and rapidly developing surveillance state standards. US is not far behind. Europe is just ceding 5 years for illiberal forces to set standards, normalize behaviour and cultivate acceptance when it should be providing an alternate model - which can't be nothing because these businesses with go on with or without her.

dhxusjshcynd 7y ago

>We're coming for you. Watch out internet, we've got a badass here.