3 ms·

Agreed. I also get flummoxed whenever I try to talk about this stuff. Further, I've only recently appreciated that our modern folk understanding of right to pr

Agreed. I also get flummoxed whenever I try to talk about this stuff. Further, I've only recently appreciated that our modern folk understanding of right to privacy has eclipsed its twin, the right to personal autonomy. The development of the doctrine regarding the tort of "invasion of privacy" was largely spurred by the Warren and Brandeis article, "The Right to Privacy". In it, they explain why they wrote the article in its introduction: "Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society". ... They then clarify their goals: "It is our purpose to consider whether the existing law affords a principle which can properly be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual; and, if it does, what the nature and extent of such protection is". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Brandeis_and_Warren_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta... Brandeis & Warren were motivated by the evils of "yellow journalism", the social media of its day. "The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment." https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights/ https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-right... I love the EU's notion of consent wrt privacy (h/t @sschueller). Will definitely learn more about their system. My hunch is consent is akin to respecting another's autonomy.

godelski 3y ago
> I love the EU's notion of consent wrt privacy Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality? Article 8.2 > Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned __or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.__ Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. I mean we can take this in good faith, but at the same time Article 20 says everyone is equal in the law but there are several royal families and constitutions that make said families above the law. I love the idea in principle (and far better than nothing) but I personally am not fully trusting. It is, after all, our duties as citizens within a democratic nation(s) to challenge the authority and laws, to keep them in check.
- specialist 3y ago
  Sorry for delayed response. > ...aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality? Sorry, for EU & privacy, I've only read up on GDPR, briefly. Back when I was trying to wrap my head around USA privacy stuff, I'm embarrassed I didn't have the gumption to compare and contrast with other systems. > our duties as citizens within a democratic nation(s) to challenge the authority and laws, to keep them in check. Preach! -- My notions about "trust", which confuses me endlessly, evolved while I was working on election integrity (voter privacy) and patient medical records. (Separate efforts.) "Trust" in government is something like a qwan. Whenever I try to talk about trust, I usually end up contradicting myself. I once heard the US Constitution was created in an orgy of mistrust. We're familiar with checks & balances, which is fundamental and necessary and good. But we also need the mutual mistrust of all the belligerents, at every level, all the time. I was a poll worker for a while. We'd tabulate and post our precinct's results the moment the polls closed. For observers, that public posting was not a proof of truth, that these are the numbers. Rather, it was an attestation by the participating representatives of the major political parties that we all agreed to abide by the posted results. As you can imagine, most of the time it's just a semantic difference. But it is a difference in perspective. And becomes far more than semantic once the margin of error becomes relevant (challenged ballots, provisionals, verifying the voter rolls, etc, etc). And that's kind of where I am now wrt "trust". Applied to government, any given org, or my neighbors. Secondly, my personal operating definition of trust has changed from "confidence" to "matches my expectations (predictions)". I have almost zero confidence that my government, or any other person or org, will "do the right thing", whatever that might be. Now I try to predict outcomes, based on past behavior and my folk understanding of the human condition, plus intuition, mixed with cynicism. I can even "trust" liars, and terrible drivers, and walking my dog off-leash, and otherwise merely flawed entities, if I can predict their actions and the outcomes. (Cite "Everybody Lies" by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.) And if I want to change outcomes, to increase my "confidence" in a system, I have to participate, to maybe change the trajectory a few arc-seconds. Ideally, by focusing on durable structural and process reforms. Instead of demanding specific outcomes, which are easy to accommodate and are unlikely to change future outcomes. Okay. Thanks for your reply and nudge and reading this far. I can't yet answer your question. And I felt compelled to (over) share my notions of trust, based on my past failures and shortcomings as an activist.

godelski 3y ago

> I love the EU's notion of consent wrt privacy Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality? Article 8.2 > Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned __or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.__ Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. I mean we can take this in good faith, but at the same time Article 20 says everyone is equal in the law but there are several royal families and constitutions that make said families above the law. I love the idea in principle (and far better than nothing) but I personally am not fully trusting. It is, after all, our duties as citizens within a democratic nation(s) to challenge the authority and laws, to keep them in check.

specialist 3y ago
Sorry for delayed response. > ...aren't the EU laws contingent upon legality? Sorry, for EU & privacy, I've only read up on GDPR, briefly. Back when I was trying to wrap my head around USA privacy stuff, I'm embarrassed I didn't have the gumption to compare and contrast with other systems. > our duties as citizens within a democratic nation(s) to challenge the authority and laws, to keep them in check. Preach! -- My notions about "trust", which confuses me endlessly, evolved while I was working on election integrity (voter privacy) and patient medical records. (Separate efforts.) "Trust" in government is something like a qwan. Whenever I try to talk about trust, I usually end up contradicting myself. I once heard the US Constitution was created in an orgy of mistrust. We're familiar with checks & balances, which is fundamental and necessary and good. But we also need the mutual mistrust of all the belligerents, at every level, all the time. I was a poll worker for a while. We'd tabulate and post our precinct's results the moment the polls closed. For observers, that public posting was not a proof of truth, that these are the numbers. Rather, it was an attestation by the participating representatives of the major political parties that we all agreed to abide by the posted results. As you can imagine, most of the time it's just a semantic difference. But it is a difference in perspective. And becomes far more than semantic once the margin of error becomes relevant (challenged ballots, provisionals, verifying the voter rolls, etc, etc). And that's kind of where I am now wrt "trust". Applied to government, any given org, or my neighbors. Secondly, my personal operating definition of trust has changed from "confidence" to "matches my expectations (predictions)". I have almost zero confidence that my government, or any other person or org, will "do the right thing", whatever that might be. Now I try to predict outcomes, based on past behavior and my folk understanding of the human condition, plus intuition, mixed with cynicism. I can even "trust" liars, and terrible drivers, and walking my dog off-leash, and otherwise merely flawed entities, if I can predict their actions and the outcomes. (Cite "Everybody Lies" by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.) And if I want to change outcomes, to increase my "confidence" in a system, I have to participate, to maybe change the trajectory a few arc-seconds. Ideally, by focusing on durable structural and process reforms. Instead of demanding specific outcomes, which are easy to accommodate and are unlikely to change future outcomes. Okay. Thanks for your reply and nudge and reading this far. I can't yet answer your question. And I felt compelled to (over) share my notions of trust, based on my past failures and shortcomings as an activist.