4 ms·

>The fix is to repeal this dumb law. The fix is to have the law recognize that data is extremely valuable personal property, that stealing it is a criminal act

>The fix is to repeal this dumb law. The fix is to have the law recognize that data is extremely valuable personal property, that stealing it is a criminal act and that the predatory "buying" of it (such as offering a $ service in exchange for $$$$$$ worth of data) should be highly regulated.

Minor49er 4y ago
Trying to legislate it in the way that you propose opens up a lot of problems. For example, using cookies to track users based on information that their browsers willingly provide. If this is considered "theft", then copying anything without removing the original would be theft, which would be a huge problem for anyone advocating for free file sharing or "piracy". Secondly, not all data can be treated as equally valuable, let alone "extremely" valuable. That depends on factors such as what the data is, who is using it, and how. A dump of user activity on a cosmetics site might be useless to a layman, moderately valuable to an academic researcher, and highly valuable to a fashion marketer. Finally, if all data is extremely valuable, then anyone entering bogus data should be persecuted for fraud. The solution is to educate the population on how these technologies work so that they understand the risks involved with surfing the web. These consent boxes are beyond useless because consent should be implicit when simply using the Internet. Ad block technology takes care of a lot of this already
- salawat 4y ago
  >using cookies to track users based on information that their browsers willingly provide. Browsers do not "willingly provide" anything. Code is written to trigger functionality. You're ascribing motivation where there is none. Developers willingly write that code. >If this is considered "theft", then copying anything without removing the original would be theft, which would be a huge problem for anyone advocating for free file sharing or "piracy". Non-sequitur. Just because the API is there, does not mandate it's use. Free file sharing or even "piracy" can still happen without cognitive dissonance. It isn't the copying that is the problem, but rather the storing, caching, processing and monetization that taken together create a surveillance apparatus that is the problem. The connection to piracy, while undoubtedly seductive, fails to pass muster, because ultimately, entertainment wants to reach audience, and reap value, even if only in brand recognition. Everyone else does not. Advertising fails to realize, the world is not full of brands looking to be recognized.
  - Minor49er 4y ago
    > Browsers do not "willingly provide" anything. Code is written to trigger functionality. You're ascribing motivation where there is none. Developers willingly write that code. Actually, it does. That is how cookies work. This is where my sentiment of increased education around browsers and cookies would help. > Non-sequitur. Just because the API is there, does not mandate it's use. Free file sharing or even "piracy" can still happen without cognitive dissonance. You should have labeled this paragraph as a tangent rather than a non-sequitur. Copying the data keeps the original in place, but makes a new one for someone else. Thus, that is now their data and they can use it how they please

Minor49er 4y ago

Trying to legislate it in the way that you propose opens up a lot of problems. For example, using cookies to track users based on information that their browsers willingly provide. If this is considered "theft", then copying anything without removing the original would be theft, which would be a huge problem for anyone advocating for free file sharing or "piracy". Secondly, not all data can be treated as equally valuable, let alone "extremely" valuable. That depends on factors such as what the data is, who is using it, and how. A dump of user activity on a cosmetics site might be useless to a layman, moderately valuable to an academic researcher, and highly valuable to a fashion marketer. Finally, if all data is extremely valuable, then anyone entering bogus data should be persecuted for fraud. The solution is to educate the population on how these technologies work so that they understand the risks involved with surfing the web. These consent boxes are beyond useless because consent should be implicit when simply using the Internet. Ad block technology takes care of a lot of this already

salawat 4y ago
>using cookies to track users based on information that their browsers willingly provide. Browsers do not "willingly provide" anything. Code is written to trigger functionality. You're ascribing motivation where there is none. Developers willingly write that code. >If this is considered "theft", then copying anything without removing the original would be theft, which would be a huge problem for anyone advocating for free file sharing or "piracy". Non-sequitur. Just because the API is there, does not mandate it's use. Free file sharing or even "piracy" can still happen without cognitive dissonance. It isn't the copying that is the problem, but rather the storing, caching, processing and monetization that taken together create a surveillance apparatus that is the problem. The connection to piracy, while undoubtedly seductive, fails to pass muster, because ultimately, entertainment wants to reach audience, and reap value, even if only in brand recognition. Everyone else does not. Advertising fails to realize, the world is not full of brands looking to be recognized.
- Minor49er 4y ago
  > Browsers do not "willingly provide" anything. Code is written to trigger functionality. You're ascribing motivation where there is none. Developers willingly write that code. Actually, it does. That is how cookies work. This is where my sentiment of increased education around browsers and cookies would help. > Non-sequitur. Just because the API is there, does not mandate it's use. Free file sharing or even "piracy" can still happen without cognitive dissonance. You should have labeled this paragraph as a tangent rather than a non-sequitur. Copying the data keeps the original in place, but makes a new one for someone else. Thus, that is now their data and they can use it how they please