4 ms·

> Isn't that information yours, to do with as you please? I could equally ask "Isn't that information John's, to do with as he pleases?". Property is a legal

> Isn't that information yours, to do with as you please? I could equally ask "Isn't that information John's, to do with as he pleases?". Property is a legal fiction, and "intellectual property" doubly so; but it seems perfectly reasonable that society should decide that information about a human person should be controlled by them, rather than by the artificial person of a corporation. If John asks you to make his drink preference available to every competitor of yours, and you for some reason agree to provide that service to him, then of course John can get the benefit of that information sharing, but this should only happen if he specifically opts in to it. (In reality you wouldn't provide this service helping your competitors, and the information sharing could be managed by another service, which John would probably have to pay for, and service providers would compete based on the security, speed, ease of use, and accuracy of their service).

thegrimmest 5y ago
"information" itself is a fiction. The only question is to what degree can someone else control what you do or say? The "information" is "mine" in the sense that I should be able to use my brain and mouth as I see fit. Anything else is awfully invasive don't you think?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  If you work for a corporation, you already are prevented from using your brain and mouth as you see fit (or at least, what you "see fit" is being heavily influenced by your desire to stay employed by them). Consumer privacy regulations don't control your brain and mouth, they control the incentives of companies, who are not humans, and do not have mouths or brains. Those companies then control the incentives of their employees who can choose whether or not to work for them.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I'm not prevented by anyone. No one will impose a fine on me for speaking my mind at work. They may just terminate me, which is of course their prerogative. They can terminate me anyways. Small businesses with individual owners are also burdened by this legislation.
- deredede 5y ago
  > The only question is to what degree can someone else control what you do or say? Someone else can't control what you do or say, but they can establish consequence for what you do or say. Nobody can control whether you assault people or not, but they can certainly put you in jail for it. > Anything else is awfully invasive don't you think? I don't think so. Information that you got for the specific purpose of providing a service shouldn't be yours to spread as you see fit. In fact, there have been strict legal procedures in place for a long time for certain professions (e.g. medical sector) to enforce this. Just like I don't expect my doctor to spread information about my hemmorhoids, I don't expect my bartender to spread information about my drinking habits.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Establishing legal consequences is our only mechanism of legitimate control. If you can be threatened with fines, and with arrest for non-compliance with the fines, then you are being controlled. Tyranny of the majority is a thing. This is why laws are an extremely blunt instrument. If people were truly interested privacy, they would simply boycott businesses that violate it. If they don't, there clearly isn't enough interest to possibly justify the use of force.

thegrimmest 5y ago

"information" itself is a fiction. The only question is to what degree can someone else control what you do or say? The "information" is "mine" in the sense that I should be able to use my brain and mouth as I see fit. Anything else is awfully invasive don't you think?

dane-pgp 5y ago
If you work for a corporation, you already are prevented from using your brain and mouth as you see fit (or at least, what you "see fit" is being heavily influenced by your desire to stay employed by them). Consumer privacy regulations don't control your brain and mouth, they control the incentives of companies, who are not humans, and do not have mouths or brains. Those companies then control the incentives of their employees who can choose whether or not to work for them.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I'm not prevented by anyone. No one will impose a fine on me for speaking my mind at work. They may just terminate me, which is of course their prerogative. They can terminate me anyways. Small businesses with individual owners are also burdened by this legislation.
deredede 5y ago
> The only question is to what degree can someone else control what you do or say? Someone else can't control what you do or say, but they can establish consequence for what you do or say. Nobody can control whether you assault people or not, but they can certainly put you in jail for it. > Anything else is awfully invasive don't you think? I don't think so. Information that you got for the specific purpose of providing a service shouldn't be yours to spread as you see fit. In fact, there have been strict legal procedures in place for a long time for certain professions (e.g. medical sector) to enforce this. Just like I don't expect my doctor to spread information about my hemmorhoids, I don't expect my bartender to spread information about my drinking habits.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Establishing legal consequences is our only mechanism of legitimate control. If you can be threatened with fines, and with arrest for non-compliance with the fines, then you are being controlled. Tyranny of the majority is a thing. This is why laws are an extremely blunt instrument. If people were truly interested privacy, they would simply boycott businesses that violate it. If they don't, there clearly isn't enough interest to possibly justify the use of force.