4 ms·

> The moral of the story here isn't that companies need to stop storing data, or that we need to run ML researchers out of town. There is a lot of space betwee

> The moral of the story here isn't that companies need to stop storing data, or that we need to run ML researchers out of town. There is a lot of space between “user data and ML research on that data needs to be closely regulated” and “run the ML researchers out of town.” This uncharitable exaggeration makes critics sound like an uninformed mob and closes yourself off to legitimate ideas. This directly leads to logically flawed and morally gross suggestions like: > It's that people really need to start using the encryption technologies that were built decades ago to protect some of their most valuable assets, their mental model of the world. It is simply not reasonable to expect most Facebook/Skype/etc users to know enough about encryption to make good decisions here - for the same reason that you can’t expect people to have detailed understanding of food science to protect themselves from unscrupulous grocers, or to have a detailed understanding of medicine to protect themselves from fraudulent doctors. It really doesn’t matter if this knowledge has been around for “decades” since it’s still specialist knowledge. Protecting digital privacy from unscrupulous tech companies and unethical ML researchers is a job for the government. Suggesting otherwise is victim-blaming. “The problem is that society is dumb and needs to become smart through the power of self-righteous scolding” is not helpful.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Its amazing that such a sober take on the issue is getting downvoted without a single counterargument
- grawprog 6y ago
  Probably because the comment can be mostly summed up to: 'The majority of humans are idiots who need to be protected from themselves by the government.'
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    It’s not that humans need to be protected from themselves (individually), but that they need to be protected from other unscrupulous people, because computers are empowering the unscrupulous (and even the accidentally unscrupulous) more than they are empowering the common person. I broadly agree with ojnabieoot.
    - grawprog 6y ago
      So why not teach people so they can empower themselves instead of making them rely on yet other people, who may or not be scrupulous themselves for protection? Because the government is always scrupulous and trustworthy...and nobody that's ever said trust us we'll protect you has lied...
      - chrismorgan 6y ago
        You can try that, but that approach tends to fail, because people don’t like changing what they do, and they definitely dislike jumping through extra hoops. You can improve things with education, but only up to a point. Most people just don’t want to think about any of these things, so until it gets really bad (most commonly of the “leopards ate my face” variety, when something you’ve tacitly endorsed suddenly starts to harm you), they’ll normally just go along with whatever happens. This is the whole reason for government, to maintain rough balance so that no one gets too upset. It’s extremely imperfect, as you correctly imply, but that’s the general idea of it, and it normally works well enough (better than nothing, at least), and no one has presented any better alternative.
      - ojnabieoot 6y ago
        Again: you could make the same argument against the fire department (“don’t rely on the government, learn fire suppression yourself”) or dangerous pharmaceuticals (“the peer-reviewed articles are out there, you just need to learn how to read them”), or protection against assault and theft, or protection against dangerous wild animals, etc etc. In general your argument is “proving” way too much and doesn’t say anything useful. Nobody is disputing that the government can be corrupt, and at its best will be incapable of protecting everyone from everything. And if you are sincerely anarchist then that’s more of an ideological dispute beyond the scope of this comment. But I suspect that you actually support regulation around food and medicine, since “a fatal case of salmonella is a small price to pay to make sure we don’t rely on the government” isn’t actually a good argument. And, unlike people who are ignorant about computer technology, you probably have empathy and understanding for people who are ignorant about whether the ground beef they are purchasing is actually safe to eat. You would not be sympathetic to a libertarian food safety specialist came in and said “well I can tell that the ground beef is unsafe, why not teach everyone my skills so they can defend themselves?” The idea that the government can protect people when it comes to health, medicine, transportation, and personal property... but NOT when it comes to privacy, is just not coherent.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    I am in fact saying “the majority of humans are not capable of defending themselves against every possible criminal, and therefore that responsibility belongs to the government.” I sincerely have no idea what your problem is.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Its amazing that such a sober take on the issue is getting downvoted without a single counterargument

grawprog 6y ago
Probably because the comment can be mostly summed up to: 'The majority of humans are idiots who need to be protected from themselves by the government.'
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  It’s not that humans need to be protected from themselves (individually), but that they need to be protected from other unscrupulous people, because computers are empowering the unscrupulous (and even the accidentally unscrupulous) more than they are empowering the common person. I broadly agree with ojnabieoot.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    So why not teach people so they can empower themselves instead of making them rely on yet other people, who may or not be scrupulous themselves for protection? Because the government is always scrupulous and trustworthy...and nobody that's ever said trust us we'll protect you has lied...
    - chrismorgan 6y ago
      You can try that, but that approach tends to fail, because people don’t like changing what they do, and they definitely dislike jumping through extra hoops. You can improve things with education, but only up to a point. Most people just don’t want to think about any of these things, so until it gets really bad (most commonly of the “leopards ate my face” variety, when something you’ve tacitly endorsed suddenly starts to harm you), they’ll normally just go along with whatever happens. This is the whole reason for government, to maintain rough balance so that no one gets too upset. It’s extremely imperfect, as you correctly imply, but that’s the general idea of it, and it normally works well enough (better than nothing, at least), and no one has presented any better alternative.
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      Again: you could make the same argument against the fire department (“don’t rely on the government, learn fire suppression yourself”) or dangerous pharmaceuticals (“the peer-reviewed articles are out there, you just need to learn how to read them”), or protection against assault and theft, or protection against dangerous wild animals, etc etc. In general your argument is “proving” way too much and doesn’t say anything useful. Nobody is disputing that the government can be corrupt, and at its best will be incapable of protecting everyone from everything. And if you are sincerely anarchist then that’s more of an ideological dispute beyond the scope of this comment. But I suspect that you actually support regulation around food and medicine, since “a fatal case of salmonella is a small price to pay to make sure we don’t rely on the government” isn’t actually a good argument. And, unlike people who are ignorant about computer technology, you probably have empathy and understanding for people who are ignorant about whether the ground beef they are purchasing is actually safe to eat. You would not be sympathetic to a libertarian food safety specialist came in and said “well I can tell that the ground beef is unsafe, why not teach everyone my skills so they can defend themselves?” The idea that the government can protect people when it comes to health, medicine, transportation, and personal property... but NOT when it comes to privacy, is just not coherent.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I am in fact saying “the majority of humans are not capable of defending themselves against every possible criminal, and therefore that responsibility belongs to the government.” I sincerely have no idea what your problem is.