3 ms·

Why not have mandatory public webcams in everyone's homes? Two reasons; privacy is axiomatically a human right (since it's an axiom you can unilaterally disagr

Why not have mandatory public webcams in everyone's homes? Two reasons; privacy is axiomatically a human right (since it's an axiom you can unilaterally disagree, just as with any other human right), and caused harm arguments that the information is available in a way that can cause your physical harm (when you cannot escape a stalker, or a general class of invasive people if you're a celebrity or piss off qanon).

giantg2 6y ago
How does a caused harm argument apply to the scenario being discussed (the CA DMV under the DPPA law)? That's a very generalized axiom that doesn't even define what would be accepted by a society as falling under the protection of privacy. so we could accept it as true and discuss it's limitations and scope, but the axiom itself does not address whether the 'selling' of data under the DPPA is wrong. For example, is everything protected under privacy? Can I claim that my salary should be private from the government so that I don't have to pay taxes?
- esrauch 6y ago
  I was primarily responding to "what's the harm in selling data?" generally. I don't know about DPPA specifically but it's hard for me to imagine the DMV selling data to a broad subset of private companies in a way that is notably different than just making it public (eg, I know that companies have done soft pulls of my credit report even while I had a freeze, so it actually seems like the info in my credit report is nearly-public despite protections similar to DPPA).
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The difference between the current structure and making it fully public is that the current law regulates what the data can be used for and who could access it. So only companies in specific industries or PIs would be able to access it and only for authorized use cases. That cuts out a very large portion of the public and has basically eliminated (couldn't find any examples nor people on here provide any) the abuse that was taking place before, like targeting abortion providers. Any misuse of the info results in loss of access and possibly other actions, like losing your PI license. I see what you mean about the credit data access. My suspicion is that the permission to do that is hidden in the fine print of many agreements. They do similar stuff with credit cards where they will periodically check your card to see if it is valid, like for EZ-Pass. Car insurance does the same sort of thing. When you sign up, you give them permission to access your driving records, ownership info etc. That's how they can do that spooky stuff like list what cars you own without even needing to put in the VIN yourself (the industry also aggregates the data that any insurance provider has on a driver, but that much more detailed and personal). The only way to truly end the privacy concerns around the DMV data would be to eliminate the need for the data to be collected and distributed. The government wont stop collection because they use that data in all sorts of systems for stuff like collecting fees/taxes and validating identities addresses. Data distribution could be partially reduced by making insurance companies ignore that type of data in their models. Many states would not go for this because they work with the companies to verify insurance information around mamdatory insurance laws. Plus, as long as cars are financed the banks and debt collectors need some way to track who is registering their asset and where.

giantg2 6y ago

How does a caused harm argument apply to the scenario being discussed (the CA DMV under the DPPA law)? That's a very generalized axiom that doesn't even define what would be accepted by a society as falling under the protection of privacy. so we could accept it as true and discuss it's limitations and scope, but the axiom itself does not address whether the 'selling' of data under the DPPA is wrong. For example, is everything protected under privacy? Can I claim that my salary should be private from the government so that I don't have to pay taxes?

esrauch 6y ago
I was primarily responding to "what's the harm in selling data?" generally. I don't know about DPPA specifically but it's hard for me to imagine the DMV selling data to a broad subset of private companies in a way that is notably different than just making it public (eg, I know that companies have done soft pulls of my credit report even while I had a freeze, so it actually seems like the info in my credit report is nearly-public despite protections similar to DPPA).
- giantg2 6y ago
  The difference between the current structure and making it fully public is that the current law regulates what the data can be used for and who could access it. So only companies in specific industries or PIs would be able to access it and only for authorized use cases. That cuts out a very large portion of the public and has basically eliminated (couldn't find any examples nor people on here provide any) the abuse that was taking place before, like targeting abortion providers. Any misuse of the info results in loss of access and possibly other actions, like losing your PI license. I see what you mean about the credit data access. My suspicion is that the permission to do that is hidden in the fine print of many agreements. They do similar stuff with credit cards where they will periodically check your card to see if it is valid, like for EZ-Pass. Car insurance does the same sort of thing. When you sign up, you give them permission to access your driving records, ownership info etc. That's how they can do that spooky stuff like list what cars you own without even needing to put in the VIN yourself (the industry also aggregates the data that any insurance provider has on a driver, but that much more detailed and personal). The only way to truly end the privacy concerns around the DMV data would be to eliminate the need for the data to be collected and distributed. The government wont stop collection because they use that data in all sorts of systems for stuff like collecting fees/taxes and validating identities addresses. Data distribution could be partially reduced by making insurance companies ignore that type of data in their models. Many states would not go for this because they work with the companies to verify insurance information around mamdatory insurance laws. Plus, as long as cars are financed the banks and debt collectors need some way to track who is registering their asset and where.