4 ms·

This is exactly what seems crazy to me. Why does augmenting my capabilities with technology arbitrarily subject me to additional regulation? I should either hav

This is exactly what seems crazy to me. Why does augmenting my capabilities with technology arbitrarily subject me to additional regulation? I should either have a right to do something, or not have that right. That's what "inalienable" means. In this case an inalienable right to free expression.

pjc50 5y ago
> Why does augmenting my capabilities with technology arbitrarily subject me to additional regulation? Augmented capability lets you cause more, newer and larger problems. We didn't have speed limits on the roads until humans acquired the technological capability to go faster, causing more fatalities.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  We've had laws governing public spaces and common rights of way for millennia. Governing what and to whom people can communicate, and what they are allowed to remember or record, that's the new thing I'm objecting to.
Macha 5y ago
A recognition that they're not going to be realistically able to stop the small business owner keeping customer preferences in a notebook and the cost/benefit of chasing after them is low should not preclude taking action when it gets scaled up to monitoring way more people in a way more pervasive fashion.
leephillips 5y ago
Augmented capabilities are different capabilities. Your inalienable right to free expression only exists for certain definitions of expression. It does not extend to incitement to crime, revealing classified information, deceptive commercial speech, misleading investors in a public corporation, etc. You have (in my opinion!) an inalienable right to have a pistol, but not to have a hydrogen bomb.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  How would you derive exactly where the line should be between a pistol and a hydrogen bomb? If you can build one, you should be able to have one no?
  - leephillips 5y ago
    No, you should not. We draw the lines wherever we think we want them. If you think the line is in the wrong place, you bribe a legislator to move it, or vote, or something like that.
foxfluff 5y ago
> I should either have a right to do something, or not have that right. Should you have the right to watch which direction I'm going when I pass by at an intersection? How about at the next intersection? And the one after that, and the one after that, and the one by my home, and all the ones that I happen to go by when I next leave and go somewhere? There's no single point at which passive observation turns into stalking but we still have laws against stalking and it's still perfectly ok and legal for you to watch where I'm going. If you understand why it's ok to look around you (and perhaps even take notes or draw what you see, snap a photo) but not OK to do that systematically around someone, you should also understand why we might want to restrict automated unwarranted and consentless data collection, even if taking some notes is OK. The other thing is scale. Laws against seemingly minor things are enacted when that thing becomes widespread enough to upset many people. You probably don't upset people too much by taking some notes in a shop. If every shop had a fleet of staff dedicated to the same thing, that probably would upset people and lead us to a similar discussion.
aembleton 5y ago
GDPR doesn't care if its in a database or in your notebook, you are still subject to the same laws and as such the data in this case is the property of John. You need his permission to record it.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
For the same reason why you are allowed to fish with a single fishing rod in some places, but can't just drop a giant net or trawl the whole river: Scale matters, and regulating the tools is often an easier and more effective solution than trying to regulate scale directly. In particular with data, the processing method makes a qualitative difference, between individual disconnected people each knowing one small snippet of your life, and a megacorp having an overview over whatever you're doing at every moment. By de facto limiting it to "one brain", the panopticon is prevented. Your rights end where they start impacting other people's rights, and drawing those lines is what we have governments for. Even if you were to use just your memory, if you were tracking what someone is doing in such detail as ad companies do, you'd likely a) not be able to do that to more than a few people b) receive restraining orders for stalking.

pjc50 5y ago

> Why does augmenting my capabilities with technology arbitrarily subject me to additional regulation? Augmented capability lets you cause more, newer and larger problems. We didn't have speed limits on the roads until humans acquired the technological capability to go faster, causing more fatalities.

thegrimmest 5y ago
We've had laws governing public spaces and common rights of way for millennia. Governing what and to whom people can communicate, and what they are allowed to remember or record, that's the new thing I'm objecting to.

Macha 5y ago

A recognition that they're not going to be realistically able to stop the small business owner keeping customer preferences in a notebook and the cost/benefit of chasing after them is low should not preclude taking action when it gets scaled up to monitoring way more people in a way more pervasive fashion.

leephillips 5y ago

Augmented capabilities are different capabilities. Your inalienable right to free expression only exists for certain definitions of expression. It does not extend to incitement to crime, revealing classified information, deceptive commercial speech, misleading investors in a public corporation, etc. You have (in my opinion!) an inalienable right to have a pistol, but not to have a hydrogen bomb.

thegrimmest 5y ago
How would you derive exactly where the line should be between a pistol and a hydrogen bomb? If you can build one, you should be able to have one no?
- leephillips 5y ago
  No, you should not. We draw the lines wherever we think we want them. If you think the line is in the wrong place, you bribe a legislator to move it, or vote, or something like that.

foxfluff 5y ago

> I should either have a right to do something, or not have that right. Should you have the right to watch which direction I'm going when I pass by at an intersection? How about at the next intersection? And the one after that, and the one after that, and the one by my home, and all the ones that I happen to go by when I next leave and go somewhere? There's no single point at which passive observation turns into stalking but we still have laws against stalking and it's still perfectly ok and legal for you to watch where I'm going. If you understand why it's ok to look around you (and perhaps even take notes or draw what you see, snap a photo) but not OK to do that systematically around someone, you should also understand why we might want to restrict automated unwarranted and consentless data collection, even if taking some notes is OK. The other thing is scale. Laws against seemingly minor things are enacted when that thing becomes widespread enough to upset many people. You probably don't upset people too much by taking some notes in a shop. If every shop had a fleet of staff dedicated to the same thing, that probably would upset people and lead us to a similar discussion.

aembleton 5y ago

GDPR doesn't care if its in a database or in your notebook, you are still subject to the same laws and as such the data in this case is the property of John. You need his permission to record it.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

For the same reason why you are allowed to fish with a single fishing rod in some places, but can't just drop a giant net or trawl the whole river: Scale matters, and regulating the tools is often an easier and more effective solution than trying to regulate scale directly. In particular with data, the processing method makes a qualitative difference, between individual disconnected people each knowing one small snippet of your life, and a megacorp having an overview over whatever you're doing at every moment. By de facto limiting it to "one brain", the panopticon is prevented. Your rights end where they start impacting other people's rights, and drawing those lines is what we have governments for. Even if you were to use just your memory, if you were tracking what someone is doing in such detail as ad companies do, you'd likely a) not be able to do that to more than a few people b) receive restraining orders for stalking.