7 ms·
Just because something can be technically done does not mean that we cant impose restrictions that make it to costly to use except in the most constrained and e
by rt4mn 5y ago
Just because something can be technically done does not mean that we cant impose restrictions that make it to costly to use except in the most constrained and extreme circumstances.
This is an oversimplification of a complicated story, but a great example is when the NSA stopped doing mass phone / text analysis because of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the USA Freedom Act. The NSA contends that the data is still useful, but also that the difficulties of complying with the law make it not worth it.
- mcculley 5y agoI am not understanding how you get to possible restrictions. How could I, as a private citizen or owner of a property be prevented from selling photos/videos with timestamps and geostamps? How could a company be prevented from buying and aggregating that data (even in other jurisdictions)? How could an end user be prevented from buying aggregated data as the cost plummets? Do you really think the NSA is not buying all available data sets?
- rhn_mk1 5y agoThe problem of preventing the transfer of uncomfortable data has already been tackled by copyright.
- mcculley 5y agoPlease elaborate. There are many markets for buying and selling photos and other data.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoCopyright is a law that by design prevents the selling or buying or other transfer of some data, and it even sometimes works (black markets notwithstanding). If your goal is to restrict the transfer of some other kind of data, copyright is already a legal and practical framework that had tackled the same problems, and offers solutions.
- mcculley 5y agoCopyright protects intellectual property. It does not protect those captured in photos taken by others. Trademark law maybe would work here. Is that what you meant?
- acover 5y agoHow can you be prevented from murder? How was private ownership of gold illegal for decades? How was a farmer growing hay to feed their own horses illegal? The government has pretty wide reaching powers.
- mcculley 5y agoI still have not heard a realistic way these capabilities would be limited. Ordinary consumers and corporations will have this technology. It will continue to get cheaper. How would governments not have it? The same people who sold browsing data to advertisers have this technology.
- pope_meat 5y agoProbably the same way you're prevented from selling CP, and fully automatic fire arms out of your home? It won't stop it 100%, but it certainly has an effect.
- mcculley 5y agoWould you eliminate sales of Internet-connected security cameras? Or just the sale of the data they collect? I am trying to understand how you think this is a genie that can be rebottled.
- pope_meat 5y agoIt's worth trying to get at least some of the genie back in the bottle. The laws against CP and automatic fire arms aren't 100% effective either, but that doesn't mean we abandon the idea of trying to regulate the activity completely, does it?
- mcculley 5y agoI am not arguing it would not be worthwhile to try. I argued that this data being collected and aggregated is inevitable. I still have not read a convincing reply otherwise. The ALPR data market is a perfect example of where we are heading.
- mLuby 5y agoBanning individual product classes is a sure-fire way to keep regulators forever playing catch-up with industry. Most ideal: make personal data a massive business liability, such that personal data is rarely even collected, let alone stored. This is much more possible than people believe (even making exceptions for current regulations like KYC). Does the local pizza place need to know anything more than my order, where to deliver it, and that the money arrived in their account?‡ Does a hotel or airline need anything other than a confirmation code to hand over the room key or seat? And yes, this may kill off or force pivots from businesses that exist today solely to spy on us—that's the point! Only okay: personal data isn't shared or sold to third parties. Businesses can collect data on their own users, but it can't leak beyond the corp firewall or else big penalties come into play. Only okay because leaks are almost mathematically inevitable, so there will be constant lobby pressure to relax regulations, or enforcement thereof. Not good: personal data can be collected, retained, and sold by basically all companies, and the penalties for unintentionally disclosing those data are just slaps on the wrist. At least it can't get much worse though, right? Right?? Businesses will adapt to any set of regulations—it's up to us citizens to demand the laws we want. ‡But what about remembering your favorite orders, or saving customers time by not entering their info for each new order? One options is to let them bookmark the page, so their device can get back to it easily.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoNSA cares about laws?