4 ms·
A little different, yes, but what I'm saying is that it's not substantially different. Once data is collected, it won't be uncollected, and all it takes is one
by _moof 5y ago
A little different, yes, but what I'm saying is that it's not substantially different. Once data is collected, it won't be uncollected, and all it takes is one hack to permanently turn a private database into a public one. And the data that's being collected in these private databases is often justified on the grounds that it's not private information--i.e., if you're outside, you have no expectation of privacy. So in that sense it is "truly public" information. But what I'm saying is that the meaning of public/private has fundamentally changed because of the kind of differences of scale we're talking about here. In other words, there was a degree of implicit privacy afforded by the level of effort required to catalog and search "public" data. Whether that data comes from public or private databases is, I think, not particularly relevant.
- admax88qqq 5y agoSure, yes, I don't disagree with what your saying. It's just that corporate surveillance is like the favourite topic on HN right now. Almost every topic gets shifted to being yet another debate about corporate surveillance. There is an interesting discussion to be had about what it means for information to be public, since public information is also now _searchable_ information, which never used to be the case. What are the implications for that when it comes to laws about what constitutes "public" information, and social norms on what we share publicly. But once again instead of discussing that conversation, we're dragged back into the corporate and government surveillance, yet again.