3 ms·

Information cannot cause harm. Harm is done by people.

austinjp 4y ago
That seems oversimplified. If an individual or organisation collects or creates "information", they could/should consider not only what a thief might do with the information, but what they're collecting it in the first place and why. If they know potential dangers, they share at least some responsibility for future damage. If they haven't considered the dangers, this is negligent (mitigated by the act of sincere consideration, not by what dangers were discovered). Intention exists separately from information (in this context) but they are not independent, they're connected. A silly example: Let's say someone at Facebook realises they could predict with high confidence the chance of a user voting in favour of extremist political candidates. This is new information, and Facebook has decided to create it. Once created, it could do harm. At this point, saying "information doesn't kill people, people kill people" is a useless abstraction. Sure, it might be "true" in a limited interpretation, but that interpretation doesn't help anyone. (From an excess of caution, I've constrained the definition of "information" above as something like "information created or collected by humans and our systems". This is to exclude exotic-but-true consideration of literally anything in the universe as "information" e.g. tumours, magnetars, etc etc.)
- s3r3nity 4y ago
  > If they know potential dangers, they share at least some responsibility for future damage. This line of thinking was used during the dark ages to argue against the spread of science vs. religion.
funcDropShadow 4y ago
This is correct and completely irrelevant in the real world. It is similar to numbers cannot cause harm. Information and numbers are nothing more than interlectual constructs, patterns, or platonic ideas. But collecting information can enable as much harm as collecting some numbers. For example the Nazis started with collecting information about the racial status of as many people as possible, see [1]. The collected information was later used to decide who to deport and kill. Although, this is another example of humans causing harm, it also shows why collecting information is not harmless. Although the information itself cannot cause anything. It simply has no agency, so it can neither harm nor heal people. But it can enable both. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate
diffeomorphism 4y ago
That is just wrong or a very unfunny pun. Lots of info is classified because it would be harmful in the wrong hands.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  I think the "in the wrong hands" part of your statement actually backs up what he was saying. The information by itself is useless unless someone ACTS upon it.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    No, that is at best a dad joke level pun. Like "Falling from great heights never hurt anyone. Landing on the ground did"

That seems oversimplified. If an individual or organisation collects or creates "information", they could/should consider not only what a thief might do with the information, but what they're collecting it in the first place and why. If they know potential dangers, they share at least some responsibility for future damage. If they haven't considered the dangers, this is negligent (mitigated by the act of sincere consideration, not by what dangers were discovered). Intention exists separately from information (in this context) but they are not independent, they're connected. A silly example: Let's say someone at Facebook realises they could predict with high confidence the chance of a user voting in favour of extremist political candidates. This is new information, and Facebook has decided to create it. Once created, it could do harm. At this point, saying "information doesn't kill people, people kill people" is a useless abstraction. Sure, it might be "true" in a limited interpretation, but that interpretation doesn't help anyone. (From an excess of caution, I've constrained the definition of "information" above as something like "information created or collected by humans and our systems". This is to exclude exotic-but-true consideration of literally anything in the universe as "information" e.g. tumours, magnetars, etc etc.)

s3r3nity 4y ago
> If they know potential dangers, they share at least some responsibility for future damage. This line of thinking was used during the dark ages to argue against the spread of science vs. religion.

funcDropShadow 4y ago

This is correct and completely irrelevant in the real world. It is similar to numbers cannot cause harm. Information and numbers are nothing more than interlectual constructs, patterns, or platonic ideas. But collecting information can enable as much harm as collecting some numbers. For example the Nazis started with collecting information about the racial status of as many people as possible, see [1]. The collected information was later used to decide who to deport and kill. Although, this is another example of humans causing harm, it also shows why collecting information is not harmless. Although the information itself cannot cause anything. It simply has no agency, so it can neither harm nor heal people. But it can enable both. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate

diffeomorphism 4y ago

That is just wrong or a very unfunny pun. Lots of info is classified because it would be harmful in the wrong hands.

illuminerdy 4y ago
I think the "in the wrong hands" part of your statement actually backs up what he was saying. The information by itself is useless unless someone ACTS upon it.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  No, that is at best a dad joke level pun. Like "Falling from great heights never hurt anyone. Landing on the ground did"