3 ms·

It is not unreasonable, I agree. However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role, and actual interest

by xyzzyz 4y ago

It is not unreasonable, I agree. However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role, and actual interest of the people in balancing their privacy and usability concerns are tertiary at best. The politicians pass those laws to look good on one side, and to attack the companies on the other. User concerns are mostly ignored.

thfuran 4y ago
>However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role Yeah, that seems to pretty well describe most all legislature these days.
K0SM0S 4y ago
> User concerns are mostly ignored. Indeed and I don't see how that changes _structurally_ when people "in the know" are always going to be a tiny minority — they say that about 3% of the population has the profile to work in tech, and I tend to agree anecdotally. I feel it's comparable to the inception of medicine for instance, and the solution was auto-regulation of the field by itself through the application of a loud (public and transparent) set of deontological rules of practice ("Primum non nocere", etc). Awareness of society about these issues re. privacy and information sanctity in a democracy will not come naturally, structurally as time goes by. Just like they don't really know how doctors make life-or-death decisions on the spot. Nevertheless, the right principles should eventually exist, be known, and abode to, by those who work in the field. It should be loud and clear that we all have ethics (rules, implementing guiding principles), and which exactly. A deontology of information technology and its practice in relation to human beings is one big "TODO" of this century, and it should concern anyone even remotely skilled to understand the problem.

3 ms·

It is not unreasonable, I agree. However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role, and actual interest

by xyzzyz 4y ago

thfuran 4y ago
>However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role Yeah, that seems to pretty well describe most all legislature these days.
K0SM0S 4y ago
> User concerns are mostly ignored. Indeed and I don't see how that changes _structurally_ when people "in the know" are always going to be a tiny minority — they say that about 3% of the population has the profile to work in tech, and I tend to agree anecdotally. I feel it's comparable to the inception of medicine for instance, and the solution was auto-regulation of the field by itself through the application of a loud (public and transparent) set of deontological rules of practice ("Primum non nocere", etc). Awareness of society about these issues re. privacy and information sanctity in a democracy will not come naturally, structurally as time goes by. Just like they don't really know how doctors make life-or-death decisions on the spot. Nevertheless, the right principles should eventually exist, be known, and abode to, by those who work in the field. It should be loud and clear that we all have ethics (rules, implementing guiding principles), and which exactly. A deontology of information technology and its practice in relation to human beings is one big "TODO" of this century, and it should concern anyone even remotely skilled to understand the problem.