4 ms·

Semantics here - if they aren't abiding, you are right, it is illegal. But I'm asking more along the lines of 'why' is that illegal. Is that data privacy an i

by count 15y ago

Semantics here - if they aren't abiding, you are right, it is illegal. But I'm asking more along the lines of 'why' is that illegal. Is that data privacy an inalienable, non-contract-surrendable right? That seems ridiculously draconian.

appleflaxen 15y ago
It seems strange to call a liberal definition of rights "draconian". There must be a better adjective.
- Jach 15y ago
  I think taking the discussion to rights is just a bad idea in the first place. Stick with what's in the law, and argue morality without appealing to rights.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    The rights are in European law. They're called 'fundamental rights' and are quite explicit. EU citizens have a lot of individual constitutional rights that Americans do not. They're fundamental because they can't be signed or bargained away, and the reason for that is to reduce the inventive of firms or governments to employ trickery to that end.
    - AppSec 15y ago
      I really wonder how much of that is because the EU is made up of many countries and these countries want to protect their own. It's kind of similar to how the breach disclosure rules are significantly different from state to state. The other thing that I wonder is how much of the US not having the strict laws is due to Corporate Personhood. I honestly don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        On corporate personhood - not a big favtor as far as I know. It exists in a lot of European countries much as it does here. A lot of the EU rights are rooted in the social contract ideas of Rousseau and the like, tempered by experience of war, the iron curtain and so on.
dredmorbius 15y ago
Go read some WWII history. Particularly those parts in which certain large information business organizations were subject to hostile takeovers, rendering prior understandings of data acquisition and use obsolete. I'm thinking in particular of, say, the German Bundesrepublic and Vichy France. Though you might argue that the former was sanctioned by democratic processes, I suspect even you would be hard pressed to say the same of the latter. If nothing else, it'll keep you off HN for a few hours, which would be a net benefit for the rest of us. With a low p-value, you might actually accumulate a few drams of wisdom.

by count 15y ago

appleflaxen 15y ago

It seems strange to call a liberal definition of rights "draconian". There must be a better adjective.

Jach 15y ago
I think taking the discussion to rights is just a bad idea in the first place. Stick with what's in the law, and argue morality without appealing to rights.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  The rights are in European law. They're called 'fundamental rights' and are quite explicit. EU citizens have a lot of individual constitutional rights that Americans do not. They're fundamental because they can't be signed or bargained away, and the reason for that is to reduce the inventive of firms or governments to employ trickery to that end.
  - AppSec 15y ago
    I really wonder how much of that is because the EU is made up of many countries and these countries want to protect their own. It's kind of similar to how the breach disclosure rules are significantly different from state to state. The other thing that I wonder is how much of the US not having the strict laws is due to Corporate Personhood. I honestly don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      On corporate personhood - not a big favtor as far as I know. It exists in a lot of European countries much as it does here. A lot of the EU rights are rooted in the social contract ideas of Rousseau and the like, tempered by experience of war, the iron curtain and so on.

dredmorbius 15y ago

Go read some WWII history. Particularly those parts in which certain large information business organizations were subject to hostile takeovers, rendering prior understandings of data acquisition and use obsolete. I'm thinking in particular of, say, the German Bundesrepublic and Vichy France. Though you might argue that the former was sanctioned by democratic processes, I suspect even you would be hard pressed to say the same of the latter. If nothing else, it'll keep you off HN for a few hours, which would be a net benefit for the rest of us. With a low p-value, you might actually accumulate a few drams of wisdom.