4 ms·

I don't share your paternalistic view of having to police people's actions. Giving informed consent to use some data (and eventually ability to withdraw that co

by Hitton 6y ago

I don't share your paternalistic view of having to police people's actions. Giving informed consent to use some data (and eventually ability to withdraw that consent when the business between the parties ends) should be enough. And your comparison between sharing users' personal data, something that influences only them and voting rights (which are not transferable btw) that influence everyone is absolutely ludicrous.

virgilp 6y ago
Privacy absolutely affects everyone. If you gave consent to Facebook to track you & you are my friend, you'll give my phone number to Facebook, and photos of me, etc. I cannot opt out of that! And in fact FB is well known for building shadow profiles [+] Look, I understand if you feel "privacy rights" and "voting rights" are not in the same class of rights, I even mentioned explicitly that even though the same principle applies, you may not agree they're comparable. But you can't deny that the only reason voting rights are not transferable is because we said so - we have laws that dictate "voting rights are not transferable". It's easy to imagine a world where voting rights would, in fact, be transferable. It's just as easy to imagine a world where advertisers don't have the right to build a profile about you. What is happening now is that we started with a world where (online) privacy rights were non-existent, and laws like GDPR are aiming to change that. You may not agree with the change, but others do, and it's a legitimate sentiment to have. It's not necessarily outrageous to want to "impose on everybody" my view of privacy rights. No more than it was to "impose on everybody" the view that e.g. women should be allowed to vote. [+]https://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-about-you-even-if-youre-not-on-facebook-94804 https://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-a...
- Hitton 6y ago
  I don't know why you are bringing Facebook into this. Its business model is completely different, afaik it doesn't offer paid subscription to opt out of all tracking. This is known as straw man fallacy - misrepresenting someone's position and then rebut that. What you are suggesting is not like "women should be allowed to vote" it's akin to "women must vote".
  - virgilp 6y ago
    What does the business model have to do with everything? I was merely replying to this: > sharing users' personal data, something that influences only them It does not influence only them, and I gave you an example. Also, I don't care what's FB's business model, I advocate that nobody should have an automatic right to build user profiles. I explicitly advocate that you should not have the right to demand payment in "data" because privacy should not be considered currency. Is that a strawman? I thought that was your entire argument "people should be free to decide to pay with their data!". NO THEY SHOULD NOT. Data is not currency, just like votes are not currency. You ask for currency, if you need payment - you don't ask for profile data. > it's akin to "women must vote". Well, it's an analogy, if you don't find it useful, let's drop it. The gist of it is, I feel very strongly that we should legislate that privacy is not currency, you seem to feel otherwise. It is fine to disagree, but it doesn't make my position irrational or absurd in any way. Yes, I feel that allowing people to pay with privacy _is_ exactly "taking their rights away", in the same way that allowing them to pay with their voting rights would be.
    - Hitton 6y ago
      I didn't expect having to qualify everything I say to the context of a discussion and topic on hand. I don't agree on your definition of personal data. Phone numbers and email addresses of my contacts are personal information that don't belong to me, I have merely unwritten consent to use them (but not to give them to every spammer). But none of that seemed to be relevant to the Grindr fine. And one thing I should have probably mentioned before - I don't know Grindr and how the subscription works there, but my opinion on paying(subscription) vs giving data away would also depend if there were additional features granted in the subscription (now thinking about it probably yes) or not. This would in my opinion qualify as forcing user into paying even for thing he might not necessarily want to just to protect own privacy.
aenario 6y ago
I'd like to sell you some cough medication, it's all natural, made from a concentrate of two south-american plant called "coca" and "tabaco", everyone who tries keep asking for more, even when we increased the price ! Too bad the big bad governement regulation prevent me from selling it. It's absolutely ridiculous, all my customers wants it and I pay my taxes.
- Hitton 6y ago
  I'm not a hard core libertarian to argue about whether banning drugs is good, but even in your scenario customers having information about what is the "medication" made of and any addictive properties those things might have would go a long way. And lets not pretend that whether a drug is legal (alcohol, tobacco, even marijuana somewhere) or not is result of rational process and not just result of lobbying and historical custom.

by Hitton 6y ago

virgilp 6y ago

Privacy absolutely affects everyone. If you gave consent to Facebook to track you & you are my friend, you'll give my phone number to Facebook, and photos of me, etc. I cannot opt out of that! And in fact FB is well known for building shadow profiles [+] Look, I understand if you feel "privacy rights" and "voting rights" are not in the same class of rights, I even mentioned explicitly that even though the same principle applies, you may not agree they're comparable. But you can't deny that the only reason voting rights are not transferable is because we said so - we have laws that dictate "voting rights are not transferable". It's easy to imagine a world where voting rights would, in fact, be transferable. It's just as easy to imagine a world where advertisers don't have the right to build a profile about you. What is happening now is that we started with a world where (online) privacy rights were non-existent, and laws like GDPR are aiming to change that. You may not agree with the change, but others do, and it's a legitimate sentiment to have. It's not necessarily outrageous to want to "impose on everybody" my view of privacy rights. No more than it was to "impose on everybody" the view that e.g. women should be allowed to vote. [+]https://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-about-you-even-if-youre-not-on-facebook-94804 https://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-a...

Hitton 6y ago
I don't know why you are bringing Facebook into this. Its business model is completely different, afaik it doesn't offer paid subscription to opt out of all tracking. This is known as straw man fallacy - misrepresenting someone's position and then rebut that. What you are suggesting is not like "women should be allowed to vote" it's akin to "women must vote".
- virgilp 6y ago
  What does the business model have to do with everything? I was merely replying to this: > sharing users' personal data, something that influences only them It does not influence only them, and I gave you an example. Also, I don't care what's FB's business model, I advocate that nobody should have an automatic right to build user profiles. I explicitly advocate that you should not have the right to demand payment in "data" because privacy should not be considered currency. Is that a strawman? I thought that was your entire argument "people should be free to decide to pay with their data!". NO THEY SHOULD NOT. Data is not currency, just like votes are not currency. You ask for currency, if you need payment - you don't ask for profile data. > it's akin to "women must vote". Well, it's an analogy, if you don't find it useful, let's drop it. The gist of it is, I feel very strongly that we should legislate that privacy is not currency, you seem to feel otherwise. It is fine to disagree, but it doesn't make my position irrational or absurd in any way. Yes, I feel that allowing people to pay with privacy _is_ exactly "taking their rights away", in the same way that allowing them to pay with their voting rights would be.
  - Hitton 6y ago
    I didn't expect having to qualify everything I say to the context of a discussion and topic on hand. I don't agree on your definition of personal data. Phone numbers and email addresses of my contacts are personal information that don't belong to me, I have merely unwritten consent to use them (but not to give them to every spammer). But none of that seemed to be relevant to the Grindr fine. And one thing I should have probably mentioned before - I don't know Grindr and how the subscription works there, but my opinion on paying(subscription) vs giving data away would also depend if there were additional features granted in the subscription (now thinking about it probably yes) or not. This would in my opinion qualify as forcing user into paying even for thing he might not necessarily want to just to protect own privacy.

aenario 6y ago

I'd like to sell you some cough medication, it's all natural, made from a concentrate of two south-american plant called "coca" and "tabaco", everyone who tries keep asking for more, even when we increased the price ! Too bad the big bad governement regulation prevent me from selling it. It's absolutely ridiculous, all my customers wants it and I pay my taxes.

Hitton 6y ago
I'm not a hard core libertarian to argue about whether banning drugs is good, but even in your scenario customers having information about what is the "medication" made of and any addictive properties those things might have would go a long way. And lets not pretend that whether a drug is legal (alcohol, tobacco, even marijuana somewhere) or not is result of rational process and not just result of lobbying and historical custom.