3 ms·
Now it makes more sense. Going a bit further you could perform it within the already existing framework: apply criminal penalties where sufficient threshold of
by dexen 6y ago
Now it makes more sense. Going a bit further you could perform it within the already existing framework: apply criminal penalties where sufficient threshold of harm have been reached. Perhaps even judicial doctrine a bit to better handle cases of large number of small, or statistical, harms - there are parallels to how we already tackle health hazards and other stochastic, broad harms.
The key consideration is avoiding perverse incentives. A stellar example is how the GDPR disaster is unfolding: the smaller websites are still plastered with "cookie warnings" making them less usable, while the larger platforms - Youtube, Google - already pivoted the warning dialog into nagging for logging in, making anonymous browsing incrementally less practical. The difference in power lets the larger players use as a moat the regulation that's prima facie about privacy.
- Bluestein 6y ago> there are parallels to how we already tackle health hazards and other stochastic, broad harms. I like your approach to these damages as stochastic, broad, ergo "actuarially" manageable ...
- dexen 6y agoThank you. We want to develop morals and jurisprudence around the subject for more reasons. Computerization, in particular networked computerization, has introduced problems like "wormable" devices - were impact of a single device or data item is tiny - however at scale they can quickly rack up considerable damages and losses.