8 ms·

Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no trac

by aiilns 5y ago

Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no tracking is done in the open or asks for permission. Money is not the definite metric by which everything can or should measured. The most concerning part from the article IMO is this: > the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment rejects the Claimants’ argument that the loss of control of personal data has an intrinsic value capable of compensation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 5y ago
It also mentions mental distress. Did you read that bit of the comment you replied to? They did not demonstrate it.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  The article is light on details. Did they fail to demonstrate it, or did they demonstrate it and no one took them seriously? Because the latter is my experience trying to articulate mental health issues to authorities and the justice system.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    This seems like a separate issue - this thread is about the accusation (and insta-rebuttal) that this was all about money-related damages. If you think the justice system's statement that no evidence was provided is false, then it would be good to know why. Probably in another thread so as to not undermine your point.
xibalba 5y ago
> antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary proof. Speaking for myself, I feel absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity through the presence of cookies, pixels, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Some of the greatest technology in human history is available to me for free thanks to them. That’s rather liberating.
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  I understand your point, but do you have the right to say that other people’s privacy can be impinged? If you want to, here is a homework assignment: read the excellent book “Privacy is Power” and see if your opinion doesn’t change.
- buran77 5y ago
  > Speaking for myself That's the problem, many other voices were disregarded. Being tracked on the internet is not too different from being peeped on in the shower. Some like it, some don't care, and some definitely wouldn't want to consider the possibility. In that spectrum of views someone will feel "absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity". Your argument can easily be applied to pervasive surveillance, backdoors, tracking malware, etc. (along with the traditional "only criminals should fear it"). I even heard it from people using this "I wouldn't mind if it happened to me" as a defense for sexual harassment. I'm glad it works for you, what about the people for whom it's not working? At the very least this should have been a real choice. If people aren't bothered then explain the choice and let them make it. Anything else is abuse.
relativ575 5y ago
> Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no tracking is done in the open or asks for permission. I disagree. Tracking happens very much all the time, everywhere. People know habits of those they're interested in at work, be that their boss or clients, for the benefit of their career. That's tracking. Corner shops track their customers' routine. We call their attention "charm", "nice touch", that make them superior to the big boxes. The subjects in both case certainly aren't aware and it's hard to claim it's antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. You may argue that Google do it at scale, and that make them vile, so at which scale does tracking become a problem? Is my little website free to do so? If not, what is different than a little shop with a book that details frequent customers' name, address, birthday, etc.? Tracking isn't the issue. Using the data against the will or to do harm to people is the issue that needs to be addressed.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  A stalker is a better comparison for Google.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > stalker is a better comparison for Google More like the Stasi. Stalkers don’t indiscriminately stalk everyone, all the time, everywhere.
hash872 5y ago
>Silently gathering data about a person's activities (As a privacy fanatic who uses GPDR all the time to get control of his data) sadly, I think that this is the fundamental nature of the technological era that we're living in. This is just how software works, many things that were previously private in an analog era are now explicit somewhere in the code. Do you really think that if various Apple or whomever policies are struck down, the tech that's built in the 2020s & 30s & 40s & the rest of the 21st century somehow won't gather data on people? As someone who's really unhappy about that state of affairs, it just seems inevitable. Edit to include: I suspect that 'privacy' is going to be viewed as just a brief moment in time for humans. Previously we all lived in small groups or villages with little privacy (I grew up in a small town, I know!), so the 'privacy' era may have just been for urban dwellers for a few centuries
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  It was limited to the village. If an outsider fell out of favor of villagers, they could kill him and pretend he was eaten by wolves.
- enumjorge 5y ago
  I don’t buy that technology is anti privacy by nature, at least to the extent that it is today. By and large people’s personal data is collected in order to support ad-based business models. Back in the 90s it was more common for people to pay for software and tech did not collect as much data. Our current state hasn’t always been the case. It’s just been normalized because lawmakers moved at glacial pace to protect people’s privacy.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > This is just how software works It's not. It's just how spyware works, but software doesn't need to be that way. It may right now be, but this doesn't make it right. Or inevitable, like a force of nature. My free, open source software doesn't silently gather data about me (and if it did, I would patch it). We have a right to run our software on our own machines, on our own terms.
- hhaha88 5y ago
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Money is not the definite metric by which everything can or should measured. It is, however, the basis of any damages claim. I don't see how it ever got to the Supreme Court, if they can't demonstrate any damages that are measurable in terms of money.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by aiilns 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

robertlagrant 5y ago

It also mentions mental distress. Did you read that bit of the comment you replied to? They did not demonstrate it.

ModernMech 5y ago
The article is light on details. Did they fail to demonstrate it, or did they demonstrate it and no one took them seriously? Because the latter is my experience trying to articulate mental health issues to authorities and the justice system.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  This seems like a separate issue - this thread is about the accusation (and insta-rebuttal) that this was all about money-related damages. If you think the justice system's statement that no evidence was provided is false, then it would be good to know why. Probably in another thread so as to not undermine your point.

xibalba 5y ago

> antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary proof. Speaking for myself, I feel absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity through the presence of cookies, pixels, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. Some of the greatest technology in human history is available to me for free thanks to them. That’s rather liberating.

mark_l_watson 5y ago
I understand your point, but do you have the right to say that other people’s privacy can be impinged? If you want to, here is a homework assignment: read the excellent book “Privacy is Power” and see if your opinion doesn’t change.
buran77 5y ago
> Speaking for myself That's the problem, many other voices were disregarded. Being tracked on the internet is not too different from being peeped on in the shower. Some like it, some don't care, and some definitely wouldn't want to consider the possibility. In that spectrum of views someone will feel "absolutely no loss of freedom or dignity". Your argument can easily be applied to pervasive surveillance, backdoors, tracking malware, etc. (along with the traditional "only criminals should fear it"). I even heard it from people using this "I wouldn't mind if it happened to me" as a defense for sexual harassment. I'm glad it works for you, what about the people for whom it's not working? At the very least this should have been a real choice. If people aren't bothered then explain the choice and let them make it. Anything else is abuse.

relativ575 5y ago

> Silently gathering data about a person's activities without their knowledge is antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. It's no accident that no tracking is done in the open or asks for permission. I disagree. Tracking happens very much all the time, everywhere. People know habits of those they're interested in at work, be that their boss or clients, for the benefit of their career. That's tracking. Corner shops track their customers' routine. We call their attention "charm", "nice touch", that make them superior to the big boxes. The subjects in both case certainly aren't aware and it's hard to claim it's antithetical to human dignity and people's freedom. You may argue that Google do it at scale, and that make them vile, so at which scale does tracking become a problem? Is my little website free to do so? If not, what is different than a little shop with a book that details frequent customers' name, address, birthday, etc.? Tracking isn't the issue. Using the data against the will or to do harm to people is the issue that needs to be addressed.

GoblinSlayer 5y ago
A stalker is a better comparison for Google.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > stalker is a better comparison for Google More like the Stasi. Stalkers don’t indiscriminately stalk everyone, all the time, everywhere.

hash872 5y ago

>Silently gathering data about a person's activities (As a privacy fanatic who uses GPDR all the time to get control of his data) sadly, I think that this is the fundamental nature of the technological era that we're living in. This is just how software works, many things that were previously private in an analog era are now explicit somewhere in the code. Do you really think that if various Apple or whomever policies are struck down, the tech that's built in the 2020s & 30s & 40s & the rest of the 21st century somehow won't gather data on people? As someone who's really unhappy about that state of affairs, it just seems inevitable. Edit to include: I suspect that 'privacy' is going to be viewed as just a brief moment in time for humans. Previously we all lived in small groups or villages with little privacy (I grew up in a small town, I know!), so the 'privacy' era may have just been for urban dwellers for a few centuries

GoblinSlayer 5y ago
It was limited to the village. If an outsider fell out of favor of villagers, they could kill him and pretend he was eaten by wolves.
enumjorge 5y ago
I don’t buy that technology is anti privacy by nature, at least to the extent that it is today. By and large people’s personal data is collected in order to support ad-based business models. Back in the 90s it was more common for people to pay for software and tech did not collect as much data. Our current state hasn’t always been the case. It’s just been normalized because lawmakers moved at glacial pace to protect people’s privacy.
nextaccountic 5y ago
> This is just how software works It's not. It's just how spyware works, but software doesn't need to be that way. It may right now be, but this doesn't make it right. Or inevitable, like a force of nature. My free, open source software doesn't silently gather data about me (and if it did, I would patch it). We have a right to run our software on our own machines, on our own terms.
hhaha88 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago

> Money is not the definite metric by which everything can or should measured. It is, however, the basis of any damages claim. I don't see how it ever got to the Supreme Court, if they can't demonstrate any damages that are measurable in terms of money.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]