3 ms·
I agree "harmless" is absolutely the wrong word. I also think that data that might be harmful to a user because it could record them breaking a law should be t
by aeturnum 6y ago
I agree "harmless" is absolutely the wrong word.
I also think that data that might be harmful to a user because it could record them breaking a law should be thought of differently than data that could be harmful when used maliciously by a third party. Even allowing for the often oppressive and unfair application of the law, data that is harmful to the user when sent to the authorities should be considered differently than other data because there is obviously a balancing question around relative harms to different parties. If you witness a crime, reporting it might be good, but it isn't always.
- zepto 6y agoSeems like you are arguing that it’s ok for Google to use the data they collect to actively report people for suspected crimes.
- aeturnum 6y agoI wasn't saying what we should do[1], just saying that if the reason data collection hurts a person is that the data is evidence of a crime then the situation involves more than just that person and we should think about it that way. It stops being enough to say that we should avoid all harm to the user. Instead, we need to ask if the harm to the user in recording the data might prevent or address greater harms. [1] Personally I feel like providers should be legally barred from doing anything other than responding to warrants for information related to a real person and they should, in that case, be prevented from including any information linked through statistical imputation.