4 ms·

Well i can't disagree with people having opinions, only with their opinions, and even that might be a useless endeavor. I disagree with the "the internet is lik

Well i can't disagree with people having opinions, only with their opinions, and even that might be a useless endeavor. I disagree with the "the internet is like outside", the "the internet is like a tribal village" and with the "corporations are like people" metaphors. But to answer your question: I believe that the constitution must limit the data, which government agencies and private corporations can legally aggregate and process. Our european constitution says that personal data belongs to the person, and refers to the concept of consent for limitation of processing. So to answer your question: no, if people are well informed and freely share their data with a corporation, i would not restrict their freedom to do that. I do however disagree that this is what is happening right now. Corporations behave like its a gold rush and the one whi mines the data owns it. In my honest opinion the relationship between the data aggregating corporations an the data subjects is highly abusive. Many people have little to no understanding who collects their data for what and many of those who understand say they have no real choice but to let it happen. This is where the "like outside" argumentation happens: well you can't prevent your neighbor seeing you leaving the house. Sure that might be true in some way, but this neighbor installed a surveillance camera and makes photos every time i leave the house, then follows me to the store, takes notes what i buy and tries to hold a microphone into my conversation with the clerc. That is why i split between the spy and the clerc in my analogy, the agents work for a "Lead Intelligence Service" or similar adtech entity. Lets look at facebookistan with its population larger then the USA. In the anthropomorphic village metaphor, who is this "Facebook person"? For many it is an every day companion that is present in most of their interactions with other people or companies. The person they go shopping with. Facebook is not a clerc or a neighbor, but a clingy spouse that is also trying to sell you stuff and is gossiping about you behind your back. And that is too positive, as it lacks the asymmetry: FB throws your stuff away if it doesn't like it, rats you out to the government and hands you a divorce without ever having any feelings for you at all. Also almost everyone in the village is married to this one person, who can be in all living rooms at the same time. And not being married to FB has serious downsides, like being the only one who does not go to church. FB is not like the village clerc, at all. The Anthropomorphism is an illusion.

darkerside 6y ago
I think you'll have more constructive conversations on this topic if, instead of disagreeing with an analogy wholesale, you seem to understand _the ways in which it is accurate_ and then respond to those. Yes, of course, the internet is not outside. It's an analogy that illustrates a broader point, that what you consider a reasonable expectation of privacy looks to others like tin foil hat wearing. The truth is, despite all of the analogies you've presented about neighbors with security cameras and clingy spouses, most people do understand that and they simply don't care. What realistic future so you see where that comes back to bite them, beyond feeling like it's creepy?
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  I think the analogies are faulty. The anthropomorphism is used to argue that companies should be allowed to harvest data on a massive scale, because you can not reasonably expect your neighbor not to look out of the window. I find that ridiculous and reject the argument. It also paints a romanticized picture that makes people emphasize with an abstract inhumane entity as if its brand was a person within ones social circle, and that is biased by design. That can be seen when i try to explain the data harvest by some such corporations within the limits of the analogy: my counter example requires metaphors you find absurd and which you describe as "tin foil hatty", because they don't normally happen outside in villages - yet you probably have an extension in your browser that blocks trackers, know how those work and know perfectly well what i reference with the trenchcoat wearing agents of adtech. > most people do understand that and they simply don't care That's the thing: if they are well informed, of the appropriate age, and give consent, that is fine by me. But in my opinion the relationship between the mega-corporations and the people is one sided and abusive, so such careless consent isn't worth much. Imagine a village and i say to you "hey that farmer is beating his wife", would you say "well that is how they do things here, most farmers are beating their spouses, and they don't seem to care"? There is something wrong with that village. But i think the corporations as people analogy is overused. For most data farmers the users are more like cattle, not spouses or neighbors. This asymmetry can be seen with other freedoms as well: many people don't read contracts anymore, leave alone know about the freedom of contract. They simply have accepted that the corporations give them one and they sign that unread. After all, what alternatives exist to <monopolised proprietary technology everyone uses>? > What realistic future do you see where that [unregulated data farming] comes back to bite them A change of society away from "Liberal Democratic Capitalism" to "Totalitarian Surveillance Capitalism" enabled by mega-corporations abusing their position as gatekeepers for social communication, capitalist markets and even government services.

darkerside 6y ago

I think you'll have more constructive conversations on this topic if, instead of disagreeing with an analogy wholesale, you seem to understand _the ways in which it is accurate_ and then respond to those. Yes, of course, the internet is not outside. It's an analogy that illustrates a broader point, that what you consider a reasonable expectation of privacy looks to others like tin foil hat wearing. The truth is, despite all of the analogies you've presented about neighbors with security cameras and clingy spouses, most people do understand that and they simply don't care. What realistic future so you see where that comes back to bite them, beyond feeling like it's creepy?

Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
I think the analogies are faulty. The anthropomorphism is used to argue that companies should be allowed to harvest data on a massive scale, because you can not reasonably expect your neighbor not to look out of the window. I find that ridiculous and reject the argument. It also paints a romanticized picture that makes people emphasize with an abstract inhumane entity as if its brand was a person within ones social circle, and that is biased by design. That can be seen when i try to explain the data harvest by some such corporations within the limits of the analogy: my counter example requires metaphors you find absurd and which you describe as "tin foil hatty", because they don't normally happen outside in villages - yet you probably have an extension in your browser that blocks trackers, know how those work and know perfectly well what i reference with the trenchcoat wearing agents of adtech. > most people do understand that and they simply don't care That's the thing: if they are well informed, of the appropriate age, and give consent, that is fine by me. But in my opinion the relationship between the mega-corporations and the people is one sided and abusive, so such careless consent isn't worth much. Imagine a village and i say to you "hey that farmer is beating his wife", would you say "well that is how they do things here, most farmers are beating their spouses, and they don't seem to care"? There is something wrong with that village. But i think the corporations as people analogy is overused. For most data farmers the users are more like cattle, not spouses or neighbors. This asymmetry can be seen with other freedoms as well: many people don't read contracts anymore, leave alone know about the freedom of contract. They simply have accepted that the corporations give them one and they sign that unread. After all, what alternatives exist to <monopolised proprietary technology everyone uses>? > What realistic future do you see where that [unregulated data farming] comes back to bite them A change of society away from "Liberal Democratic Capitalism" to "Totalitarian Surveillance Capitalism" enabled by mega-corporations abusing their position as gatekeepers for social communication, capitalist markets and even government services.