3 ms·

"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 tha

"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.

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.