3 ms·

The human right to privacy, like other human rights, should not be saleable.

cblconfederate 6y ago
It's not commonly one of the inalienable rights. In fact some degree of un-privacy is required in order to be a citizen anywhere. And if some private property like your metadata is not sellable, is it really yours?
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  I agree that we need to discuss how inalienable is the right to privacy, especially digital privacy. But note that you can not sell your organs, because that will (and does on the black market) quickly create highly coercive contracts between individuals, or worse organ robbery. You can, however, donate your organs. I would see a similar scheme for your digital data. That, most of it cannot be sold [1]. It can be donated by your positive assent, but the receiver (businesses and such) are highly regulated to ensure they don't exploit you or society using that data. [1] I concede that there might be certain types of data that could be sold, though I cannot think of an example.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  I disagree strongly. Look at the 3rd and 4th amendments. They are rooted in privacy. The problem is at the time such rights were being enumerated, such as done by the founding fathers in America, they never imagined a world in which a third party would read every letter you send to another party, a world where a man who chooses not to identify himself in a city he's never been to would be tracked with cameras and facial recognition, a world where camera automatons automatically catalog his whereabouts based on cameras & license plates, a world where he has on him at essentially all times in order to function in society a tracker that records his location data to be sent off to a powerful third party with ties to government intelligence agencies for analysis. I find it greatly detached from the reality of what is known about the historical personalities that framed the constitution to imagine anything other than them being absolutely horrified. Privacy has been an assumed right for a LONG time. And if you, right now, went up to someone on the street and offered them $20 to learn their GPS whereabouts for a day, to learn what their voice sounds like and record it, to learn what their face looks like and be able to search it in photos, to learn when they are menstruating, what kind of condoms they like to buy, who all their friends are, who they hook up with, and where they live, hiw many kids they have and where they go to school, I assert that you would find the vast majority of the population would be deeply offended you even had the audacity to ask such a thing, and a few might even call the police. Privacy is deeply ingrained in our basic social interactions and assumed by most. I think most people just don't have a clue how much it's being invaded because the collectors of such information are careful to hide it behind free gifts, and bury the truth in long, overly broad, complex, highly veiled and obscured EULA's. Then they are more careful still to try and never quite reach the level of using that information in a way that creeps people out by carefully hiding relevant advertisements in enough noise so you won't notice, trading and selling all that information in secret, all while carefully trying to systematically normalize ever more collection and otherwise creepy uses of that data.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Obviously we are not talking about extremes nor abdolutes. Privacy is already sold, we can't pretend it isnt happening. But regulation can set limits which will move the market out of the grey area
  - xxpor 6y ago
    >Look at the 3rd and 4th amendments. They are rooted in privacy. Eh, I don't think that's a reasonable take. They're much more rooted in property rights. I guess you could argue they're just restatements of each other. Privacy applies to your person, while property rights apply to your stuff. But notice the 3rd amendment specifically says "owner", not resident or something similar. For example, if a apartment building owner wanted to allow a soldier to live in your apartment, you couldn't stop them. Obviously any sane lease wouldn't allow that but my point is you couldn't make a constitutional argument against the government saying it's a violation of your rights. Also, SCOTUS didn't extend the 4th amendment to imply privacy until 1967. Before then it only applied to property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
    - Enginerrrd 6y ago
      I think you raise a valid objection to the interpretation, but I counter that in context, privacy and property rights were one and the same in many ways.
agloeregrets 6y ago
There’s a strong argument that is currently is, just sold for $0. (Or negative money if you consider ads)
fouric 6y ago
I strongly disagree - it is my data and I should be able to do whatever I, not you, want with it - even if it's something extremely stupid like publish my SSN to the internet. I would never use that right, but I will still fight for it. (needless to say, I completely approve of the idea of government controls on what other companies can do with my data without my consent)
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  This is kind of like saying “it’s my kidney, and I should be able to do whatever I, not you, want with it”. At some point we just have to draw the line and say we can’t in good conscience commoditize this.
  - scohesc 6y ago
    If someone wants to sell their kidney for money, why should anybody step in to stop them? Advise them of the short-term benefits and the long-term drawbacks and let them make the decision.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Because we should try to protect people from being exploited. You can use this exact same logic to argue against minimum wage, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        If someone can point to tangible harm from Google having your data, comparable to subsistence wages or exploding batteries or subsistence wages, or losing an irreplaceable kidney, that would be relevant.
    - etripe 6y ago
      The difference is in Google is getting our kidneys for free.
    - 6y ago
m463 6y ago
These sorts of things remind me of standardized tables for insurance payouts for say an eye vs an arm or leg.
thealienthing 6y ago
Agreed. I also have the feeling that “selling your privacy” as a commodity is not worth whatever measly dividends that could come of it.
oh_sigh 6y ago
So if I write a diary, I can't decide to publish it later, because I would be violating my own privacy?

It's not commonly one of the inalienable rights. In fact some degree of un-privacy is required in order to be a citizen anywhere. And if some private property like your metadata is not sellable, is it really yours?

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
I agree that we need to discuss how inalienable is the right to privacy, especially digital privacy. But note that you can not sell your organs, because that will (and does on the black market) quickly create highly coercive contracts between individuals, or worse organ robbery. You can, however, donate your organs. I would see a similar scheme for your digital data. That, most of it cannot be sold [1]. It can be donated by your positive assent, but the receiver (businesses and such) are highly regulated to ensure they don't exploit you or society using that data. [1] I concede that there might be certain types of data that could be sold, though I cannot think of an example.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
I disagree strongly. Look at the 3rd and 4th amendments. They are rooted in privacy. The problem is at the time such rights were being enumerated, such as done by the founding fathers in America, they never imagined a world in which a third party would read every letter you send to another party, a world where a man who chooses not to identify himself in a city he's never been to would be tracked with cameras and facial recognition, a world where camera automatons automatically catalog his whereabouts based on cameras & license plates, a world where he has on him at essentially all times in order to function in society a tracker that records his location data to be sent off to a powerful third party with ties to government intelligence agencies for analysis. I find it greatly detached from the reality of what is known about the historical personalities that framed the constitution to imagine anything other than them being absolutely horrified. Privacy has been an assumed right for a LONG time. And if you, right now, went up to someone on the street and offered them $20 to learn their GPS whereabouts for a day, to learn what their voice sounds like and record it, to learn what their face looks like and be able to search it in photos, to learn when they are menstruating, what kind of condoms they like to buy, who all their friends are, who they hook up with, and where they live, hiw many kids they have and where they go to school, I assert that you would find the vast majority of the population would be deeply offended you even had the audacity to ask such a thing, and a few might even call the police. Privacy is deeply ingrained in our basic social interactions and assumed by most. I think most people just don't have a clue how much it's being invaded because the collectors of such information are careful to hide it behind free gifts, and bury the truth in long, overly broad, complex, highly veiled and obscured EULA's. Then they are more careful still to try and never quite reach the level of using that information in a way that creeps people out by carefully hiding relevant advertisements in enough noise so you won't notice, trading and selling all that information in secret, all while carefully trying to systematically normalize ever more collection and otherwise creepy uses of that data.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Obviously we are not talking about extremes nor abdolutes. Privacy is already sold, we can't pretend it isnt happening. But regulation can set limits which will move the market out of the grey area
- xxpor 6y ago
  >Look at the 3rd and 4th amendments. They are rooted in privacy. Eh, I don't think that's a reasonable take. They're much more rooted in property rights. I guess you could argue they're just restatements of each other. Privacy applies to your person, while property rights apply to your stuff. But notice the 3rd amendment specifically says "owner", not resident or something similar. For example, if a apartment building owner wanted to allow a soldier to live in your apartment, you couldn't stop them. Obviously any sane lease wouldn't allow that but my point is you couldn't make a constitutional argument against the government saying it's a violation of your rights. Also, SCOTUS didn't extend the 4th amendment to imply privacy until 1967. Before then it only applied to property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    I think you raise a valid objection to the interpretation, but I counter that in context, privacy and property rights were one and the same in many ways.

agloeregrets 6y ago

There’s a strong argument that is currently is, just sold for $0. (Or negative money if you consider ads)

fouric 6y ago

I strongly disagree - it is my data and I should be able to do whatever I, not you, want with it - even if it's something extremely stupid like publish my SSN to the internet. I would never use that right, but I will still fight for it. (needless to say, I completely approve of the idea of government controls on what other companies can do with my data without my consent)

jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is kind of like saying “it’s my kidney, and I should be able to do whatever I, not you, want with it”. At some point we just have to draw the line and say we can’t in good conscience commoditize this.
- scohesc 6y ago
  If someone wants to sell their kidney for money, why should anybody step in to stop them? Advise them of the short-term benefits and the long-term drawbacks and let them make the decision.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Because we should try to protect people from being exploited. You can use this exact same logic to argue against minimum wage, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      If someone can point to tangible harm from Google having your data, comparable to subsistence wages or exploding batteries or subsistence wages, or losing an irreplaceable kidney, that would be relevant.
  - etripe 6y ago
    The difference is in Google is getting our kidneys for free.
  - 6y ago

m463 6y ago

These sorts of things remind me of standardized tables for insurance payouts for say an eye vs an arm or leg.

thealienthing 6y ago

Agreed. I also have the feeling that “selling your privacy” as a commodity is not worth whatever measly dividends that could come of it.

oh_sigh 6y ago

So if I write a diary, I can't decide to publish it later, because I would be violating my own privacy?