5 ms·

Hold on; the US government should not prevent me from willingly giving my data away in exchange for goods or services. Maybe make it clearer that’s what is hap

by Zetice 3y ago

Hold on; the US government should not prevent me from willingly giving my data away in exchange for goods or services. Maybe make it clearer that’s what is happening, but if you truly believe my data is mine, then you don’t get to tell me what I’m allowed to do with it, including giving that data to China in exchange for some dancing videos, if that’s what I want to do (god help me).

bilbo0s 3y ago
The government wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do what you please with your data. It is far more effective to make a law that would tell companies that they couldn't use the data you gave them for any commercial purposes. With draconian fines for any violation. (Which fines to be meted out per violation rather than per user.)
- Zetice 3y ago
  But that’s paternalistic; you are disallowing me from doing what I want with my data. I should be allowed to sell it to corporations in return for services, knowing full well they intend to sell my data to others. That’s what makes my data worth the services I receive in return!
  - moate 3y ago
    The government is paternalistic by nature, so just say "I don't want government" instead of some weird statement that most people would likely feel is fundamentally opposite of how privacy should work (Most private by default, opt OUT). Do you believe that most consumers fit your description? That most people fully comprehend what selling their data represents? If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the date presenting by the polling? Is the polling bad, and if so why not attack their methodology? Is there an alternative conclusion you're able to come to?
    - Xcelerate 3y ago
      > most people would likely feel is fundamentally opposite of how privacy should work I don’t know. I agree with Zetice. I would prefer least private by default and opt-in to more privacy. Most private by default is how we ended up with those annoying “accept all cookies” nag screens everywhere, and it will only get worse with most private as default. The internet isn’t the physical world, and I don’t think a reasonable expectation of physical privacy equates to the same thing as digital privacy.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - gretch 3y ago
      > The government is paternalistic by nature I think this is your perspective on what the government should be, and it is not "by nature". I myself have the view that the government serves the people. For example, one of the responsibilities of the government is to make sure road/transportation works good. When they repair the road, to me that's kind of like when the plumber comes to fix my sink. And I don't think of the plumber as a parent.
      - moate 3y ago
        I don’t think the state has excised itself from moral dictation to the individual based on the desires of the representatives anywhere on a national level, so the current government is not a plumber, it’s a collection of people who tell you what you can and can’t do. I also do not think of a plumber, or a construction worker (why not just stick with your example) as a parent. But I do think of a cop or judge or congressman as similar to a step-father.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > The government wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do what you please with your data Technically true, but I think it is just semantics. Factually, it doesn't feel like it really matters, and the grandparent comment seems to be aware of it. To elaborate: sure, technically the government won't tell me what I can do with my data, it will just offload that job to the companies by telling them what kind of data transactions I cannot engage in with them. The end result is, meaningfully, the same. Without those restrictions, I was able to willingly and knowingly trade my data in exchange for some service XYZ (in lieu of paying for it with money). With those restrictions in place, I cannot do that anymore. Whether I personally am not allowed to, or whether it is the companies that aren't allowed to engage in such exchange with me, is just a distinction without a meaningless difference. Personally, I disagree with these restrictions on the principle of not allowing me (as an individual) to willingly engage in such exchanges with businesses. However, I agree with you that such restrictions make infinitely more sense (and are way more enforceable) when implemented through placing them on companies rather than individuals.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jjav 3y ago
> then you don’t get to tell me what I’m allowed to do with it You also can't sell your kidney even though it's totally yours. For very similar reasons.
- philwelch 3y ago
  This is actually a bad policy that leads to a shortage in donated organs.
- Zetice 3y ago
  Despite the many protestations otherwise on this site and others, the line between "remove kidney" and "inflict harm" is a hell of a lot clearer and brighter than "give up some privacy" and "inflict harm".
  - jjav 3y ago
    There is a large difference in degree but not in kind.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      They’re both transactions yes, but one has actual medical consequences, whereas the other has precisely zero concrete harms. This is the fundamental problem with privacy alarmists; despite the dire warnings, millions upon millions of people walk around consequence free after having experienced what the alarmists claim to be utterly fatal and wildly harmful. There just aren’t the bodies piling up like these alarmists claim there ought to be.
      - boredtofears 3y ago
        totally, I mean any sensible person has nothing to hide at the end of the day, right?
        Zetice 3y ago
        A straw man won’t help you here, nobody is talking about complete transparency.
dahart 3y ago
Willingly is the snag, right? GDPR doesn’t prevent people from trading data for services, it just makes it so that companies are not allowed to assume everyone is willing to without asking. The article seems a bit breathless to me, but I didn’t catch it saying anything about not being able to use your data. Did I miss something? it’s just pointing out that we haven’t yet made it illegal in the US for companies to use your data even when you are unwilling.
- Zetice 3y ago
  I’m responding to a number of top level comments that seem to presume the idea that the government ought to restrict what happens to my data, without consideration for what I want.

by Zetice 3y ago

bilbo0s 3y ago

The government wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do what you please with your data. It is far more effective to make a law that would tell companies that they couldn't use the data you gave them for any commercial purposes. With draconian fines for any violation. (Which fines to be meted out per violation rather than per user.)

Zetice 3y ago
But that’s paternalistic; you are disallowing me from doing what I want with my data. I should be allowed to sell it to corporations in return for services, knowing full well they intend to sell my data to others. That’s what makes my data worth the services I receive in return!
- moate 3y ago
  The government is paternalistic by nature, so just say "I don't want government" instead of some weird statement that most people would likely feel is fundamentally opposite of how privacy should work (Most private by default, opt OUT). Do you believe that most consumers fit your description? That most people fully comprehend what selling their data represents? If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the date presenting by the polling? Is the polling bad, and if so why not attack their methodology? Is there an alternative conclusion you're able to come to?
  - Xcelerate 3y ago
    > most people would likely feel is fundamentally opposite of how privacy should work I don’t know. I agree with Zetice. I would prefer least private by default and opt-in to more privacy. Most private by default is how we ended up with those annoying “accept all cookies” nag screens everywhere, and it will only get worse with most private as default. The internet isn’t the physical world, and I don’t think a reasonable expectation of physical privacy equates to the same thing as digital privacy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gretch 3y ago
    > The government is paternalistic by nature I think this is your perspective on what the government should be, and it is not "by nature". I myself have the view that the government serves the people. For example, one of the responsibilities of the government is to make sure road/transportation works good. When they repair the road, to me that's kind of like when the plumber comes to fix my sink. And I don't think of the plumber as a parent.
    - moate 3y ago
      I don’t think the state has excised itself from moral dictation to the individual based on the desires of the representatives anywhere on a national level, so the current government is not a plumber, it’s a collection of people who tell you what you can and can’t do. I also do not think of a plumber, or a construction worker (why not just stick with your example) as a parent. But I do think of a cop or judge or congressman as similar to a step-father.
filoleg 3y ago
> The government wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do what you please with your data Technically true, but I think it is just semantics. Factually, it doesn't feel like it really matters, and the grandparent comment seems to be aware of it. To elaborate: sure, technically the government won't tell me what I can do with my data, it will just offload that job to the companies by telling them what kind of data transactions I cannot engage in with them. The end result is, meaningfully, the same. Without those restrictions, I was able to willingly and knowingly trade my data in exchange for some service XYZ (in lieu of paying for it with money). With those restrictions in place, I cannot do that anymore. Whether I personally am not allowed to, or whether it is the companies that aren't allowed to engage in such exchange with me, is just a distinction without a meaningless difference. Personally, I disagree with these restrictions on the principle of not allowing me (as an individual) to willingly engage in such exchanges with businesses. However, I agree with you that such restrictions make infinitely more sense (and are way more enforceable) when implemented through placing them on companies rather than individuals.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jjav 3y ago

> then you don’t get to tell me what I’m allowed to do with it You also can't sell your kidney even though it's totally yours. For very similar reasons.

philwelch 3y ago
This is actually a bad policy that leads to a shortage in donated organs.
Zetice 3y ago
Despite the many protestations otherwise on this site and others, the line between "remove kidney" and "inflict harm" is a hell of a lot clearer and brighter than "give up some privacy" and "inflict harm".
- jjav 3y ago
  There is a large difference in degree but not in kind.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    They’re both transactions yes, but one has actual medical consequences, whereas the other has precisely zero concrete harms. This is the fundamental problem with privacy alarmists; despite the dire warnings, millions upon millions of people walk around consequence free after having experienced what the alarmists claim to be utterly fatal and wildly harmful. There just aren’t the bodies piling up like these alarmists claim there ought to be.
    - boredtofears 3y ago
      totally, I mean any sensible person has nothing to hide at the end of the day, right?
      - Zetice 3y ago
        A straw man won’t help you here, nobody is talking about complete transparency.

dahart 3y ago

Willingly is the snag, right? GDPR doesn’t prevent people from trading data for services, it just makes it so that companies are not allowed to assume everyone is willing to without asking. The article seems a bit breathless to me, but I didn’t catch it saying anything about not being able to use your data. Did I miss something? it’s just pointing out that we haven’t yet made it illegal in the US for companies to use your data even when you are unwilling.

Zetice 3y ago
I’m responding to a number of top level comments that seem to presume the idea that the government ought to restrict what happens to my data, without consideration for what I want.