4 ms·

> Privacy is a consider a basic right in the EU Your point definitely makes a lot of sense, but there are many of us who believe that we should be able to make

> Privacy is a consider a basic right in the EU Your point definitely makes a lot of sense, but there are many of us who believe that we should be able to make our own decision to give up certain types of privacy in exchange for something of value. Everything involves some level of risk/reward. Should I not be allowed to skydive because of the increased risk of death? Generally, I think my rights end where others’ rights begin, so I fail to see how sharing or withholding my personal information affects anyone else.

craigsmansion 6y ago
> Generally, I think my rights end where others’ rights begin So invading someone else's privacy, without their consent, for your own monetary gain, should be your decision, because it's fairer?
- throwaway713 6y ago
  > someone else's privacy, without their consent I didn’t say anything about not getting consent to share personal information. I think almost everyone would agree consent is always necessary.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> we should be able to make our own decision to give up certain types of privacy in exchange for something of value This is what these laws are all about. People volunteer personal information because they believe the website will use it with their best interests in mind. There is a well-defined goal and achieving it is the only reason the website even has access to such data. For example, people give their home address to an online store so they can ship orders. Selling this data to marketers so they can spam the consumer's mailbox with advertisements is outside the scope of that goal. Websites should collect only what's strictly necessary for them to do whatever it is that they do. They should use this data only for this purpose and ideally delete it afterwards.
suyjuris 6y ago
I do agree with you that you should be able to freely exchange your privacy as you see fit. But the difficulty, as I see it, lies in determining whether the exchange is truly free or coerced by some means. The GDPR takes a strong stance on this (that consent is only freely given if withholding it would have no drawbacks) and it does have false negatives, i.e. situations where the exchange was fair but prevented. However, there are two reasons why I think this is still reasonable (with 1. being more important): 1. The reality of the current situation is that invasions of privacy come bundled with other services, which you are pressured to use due to external factors. So I believe that the vast majority of cases are modelled well. 2. I see a privacy as similar to herd immunity, in that society benefits if lots of people have it, even if the individual does not profit from it directly. (In particular, it may prevent certain kinds of power from accumulating or centralising.) In these kinds of situations it can be necessary to restrict individual rights to achieve optimality.

craigsmansion 6y ago

> Generally, I think my rights end where others’ rights begin So invading someone else's privacy, without their consent, for your own monetary gain, should be your decision, because it's fairer?

throwaway713 6y ago
> someone else's privacy, without their consent I didn’t say anything about not getting consent to share personal information. I think almost everyone would agree consent is always necessary.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> we should be able to make our own decision to give up certain types of privacy in exchange for something of value This is what these laws are all about. People volunteer personal information because they believe the website will use it with their best interests in mind. There is a well-defined goal and achieving it is the only reason the website even has access to such data. For example, people give their home address to an online store so they can ship orders. Selling this data to marketers so they can spam the consumer's mailbox with advertisements is outside the scope of that goal. Websites should collect only what's strictly necessary for them to do whatever it is that they do. They should use this data only for this purpose and ideally delete it afterwards.

suyjuris 6y ago

I do agree with you that you should be able to freely exchange your privacy as you see fit. But the difficulty, as I see it, lies in determining whether the exchange is truly free or coerced by some means. The GDPR takes a strong stance on this (that consent is only freely given if withholding it would have no drawbacks) and it does have false negatives, i.e. situations where the exchange was fair but prevented. However, there are two reasons why I think this is still reasonable (with 1. being more important): 1. The reality of the current situation is that invasions of privacy come bundled with other services, which you are pressured to use due to external factors. So I believe that the vast majority of cases are modelled well. 2. I see a privacy as similar to herd immunity, in that society benefits if lots of people have it, even if the individual does not profit from it directly. (In particular, it may prevent certain kinds of power from accumulating or centralising.) In these kinds of situations it can be necessary to restrict individual rights to achieve optimality.