4 ms·
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway. This same argument be made to justify any erosion of
by ajxs 5y ago
> DNA sequencing is eventually going to be so cheap and ubiquitous that it will happen to everyone anyway.
This same argument be made to justify any erosion of personal privacy. With the level of technical sophistication western society has now, just about any invasion of privacy is too cheap to meter. Take IoT for instance. Just because it's possible for large corporations to infringe upon the privacy of individuals for pennies doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and accept it.
- mcculley 5y agoIt does not matter how we feel about it. Every license plate scanner, every Ring doorbell, every security camera I walk by is potentially selling data.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIt does, if people actually cared they'd be rioting in the streets, maybe burn down some corporate headquarters
- mcculley 5y agoWould burning down a building make it illegal to sell photos taken in public places?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoWell getting millions of people out to protest should, otherwise do we have a democracy? Bruning down building is more of a bug than a feature.
- cute_boi 5y agoPeople do care about privacy. But, they don't have any power. Many people have to go to work, and they don't have time to fiddle in rioting etc. And, there is high chance that these people will be called terrorist for rioting such things. In fact some will even claim they are destroying property, and they should be incarcerated. And, there can be cases like rats in the group are taking advantage of protest. We can see this with BLM where few people deceived entire world by committing shenanigans in name of doing deeds. Also, if people riot, there is no way to be sure that a positive thing will happen. We can clearly see this from Arab Spring. Many people thought there would be liberation, but what we got in return? Dictators got removed, just to be replaced by another dictator. In fact, it backfired and now autocrats have more power than past. Those days are gone where we ended horrific things like slavery and liberated the world with democracy. We have become too greedy with the capitalist society, as indicated by covid scenario. Sorry, for digressing.
- gilrain 5y agoThat’s what the French aristocracy thought about their masses too. The masses then executed the French aristocracy.
- mcculley 5y agoWould such executions lead to laws prohibiting the sale of photos taken in public? Would that be a better outcome?
- gilrain 5y agoThis question is entirely irrelevant, yet you seem fixated on it.
- mcculley 5y agoMaybe I am not spelling it out enough. We have certain freedoms (e.g., speech) combined with a (relatively) free market. This opens opportunities for capitalists to monetize data they collect. Even without monetization, some data is made public that some would prefer to keep private (e.g., a journalist can publish a photo of a politician on a boat with his mistress). I don't see how we can put the genie back in the bottle so long as we have free speech and free markets. I think the PRC could, for example, restrict distribution of DNA data if it wanted to. I would prefer not to live under such an authoritarian regime. I am asking if executing people to get more privacy is a desired outcome over adapting to a world where things we formerly thought of as private are just well known.
- gilrain 5y agoIt’s not so much the loss of privacy, as the inevitable, violent exploitation of the weak that it does, will, and is meant to enable.
- mcculley 5y agoI think we are in agreement that corporations, governments, religions, etc. will use personal data to harm people. I am less convinced that DNA is the most "sensitive" personal data.
- marcosdumay 5y agoThat's why selling it should be heavily punished.
- mcculley 5y agoI am interested in how you would punish such vendors. What would make a piece of data illegal?
- postsantum 5y agoSame that makes some drugs illegal?
- mcculley 5y agoI am looking for specifics. Would photographers no longer be able to take photos of people in public and sell them? Would it be illegal for one to sell web server log files? Would Google Analytics become illegal? Would the owner of a security camera have requirements on how they handle their data? I am interested in how free speech and free markets enable the interesting effects we are now seeing. Maybe the answer is that there should be stricter controls on everything. That does not seem very likely to me.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> Would photographers no longer be able to take photos of people in public and sell them? That's a grey area. I think it should be illegal if the goal of the photos is to track a person, and legal if the goal is to document a scene. And yes, that's a classification that we can do. We can apply the same rule to the people buying the photos, so it's illegal to go around buying photos about the movement of somebody even if no photographer did anything illegal. > Would Google Analytics become illegal? If they sell personal data? Without a doubt. Currently, AFAIK, they don't. > Would the owner of a security camera have requirements on how they handle their data? Yes, he can't sell it.
- 5y ago