4 ms·

In reality isn't this really quite simple - it's the theft of privacy. Data is the concrete thing of course, and therefore potentially useful to then put a lega

In reality isn't this really quite simple - it's the theft of privacy. Data is the concrete thing of course, and therefore potentially useful to then put a legal framework around - but in the end it's really about the right to privacy. The loss of privacy is done by clever joining of the dots - each individual data point in itself is often not that important. It's the activity - the joining of the dots - back to a person - which is the stalking like behaviour - that's the problem. Ie the activity you need to regulate is the connecting of the dots back to a real world person. Let's call it the 'Digital Stalking Act'

hooby 3y ago
Why not call it "The right to privacy"? Come to think of, we should even add that to the declaration of human rights! Wait a minute...
- DrScientist 3y ago
  As is often the case with these things - declaring high level rights is easy - practical enforcement is the hard part.
  - jgeada 3y ago
    Hard in this forum frequently means technically hard, but I think in this context you mean "politically hard". I do not think there is a major technical problem, at the core the easiest solution is to just stop collecting arbitrary data on everyone. The issue is that the people with money and power do not want to give up control of the data they have on everyone else. It is very hard to make someone understand this if their income and power depends on not understanding it.
    - DrScientist 3y ago
      I meant legally hard to define. Some data is important to collect - I expect my bank to keep a record of my financial transactions! I just don't want them to sell them on, or use them for services I didn't sign up for. And an 'opt-out' system isn't sufficient - it needs to be an opt-in system. An opt in system that isn't by a forced game of yes/no bingo - it has to be one where the customer has to take the initiative. You don't get bombarded with extra stuff being put into your basket at the supermarket checkout and then asked a series of 20 questions about whether you want to take the extra things. You shouldn't with digital services either. Now the hard part is that legal definition between what's the data reasonably required for the service and what's taking the piss. I'm arguing one way to define that is whether the data use involves joining dots between transactions in a way that's not required for the immediate transaction or service.
  - jimmySixDOF 3y ago
    I call bollocks on that, enforcement is a matter of breaking free of regulatory capture just long enough to implement a system. I am not in the thick of this discussion but think of the Number Portability legislation that carriers were forced (through enforcement) to implement and extend that right of ownership model to our data and digital identities so you can not be deplatformed by AI on a filter whim walled off from years of family photo uploads. We should have our own individual terms of service provisions that these platforms have to negotiate and agree in triplicate to before monitizing personally identifiable information to data brokers for hire.
    - DrScientist 3y ago
      While I agree change requires determined action to overcome vested interests and inertia - I don't think that doesn't mean it isn't hard. Laws are all about balancing interactions between parties. If you lived on your own there would be no need for laws. Laws police the space between people - where your right to freely do X, impinges on someone's elses right to be free of y. Agreeing and defining that balance in a legally enforceable way is often not so easy as it first appears. But let's be clear - I'm not using it as an excuse not to try.
  - hooby 3y ago
    Enforcement of the right to privacy works (more or less) for offline privacy invasions. I believe the problem might rather be, that there's a lack of clearness and awareness when it comes to how privacy does apply to online matters. Even technically knowledgeable people are often caught completely off guard by how much you can actually glean and deduce from very limited data. Most people wouldn't believe how revealing some seemingly innocuous data can be, when you collect enough of it.
rambambram 3y ago
Indeed, the right to ownership is a right to a right. Besides, I already have that right, that's what ownership means. If a right that I have is violated, then there's only one thing left. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law", they say, so keep your data for yourself, privately offline, if you care about it.
- DrScientist 3y ago
  I get your point about not letting stuff leak in the first place - but some of that is impossible. If you buy something from a shop with anything other than cash ( some places have started no accepting cash ) - then you leave a trace as part of that transaction. Heck if you walk into a shop and pay with cash, the person at the till still sees you and may remember. Visiting web pages properly anonymously is far from trivial - it's not as simple as refusing cookies. The problem is the selling on of that data, and the joining of the dots across large bodies of data where the sum is often greater than the parts. I would argue it's the act of trying to build a picture of you, as oppose to the incidental accumulation of data. Kinda like the difference between people seeing you walking on the public street ( you are giving away your image and location data ), and you being followed everywhere by a stalker. At some point it crosses the line from the unavoidable, to the unpleasant.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    >you being followed everywhere by a stalker Isn’t it legal to quietly follow someone on the street?
    - DrScientist 3y ago
      Depends where you live and the context. For an example see: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/stalking-harassment/what-is-stalking-harassment/ https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/s...
      - l33t7332273 3y ago
pesfandiar 3y ago
How could this be detected and enforced though? Rely on self-reporting? Let's say we outlaw surveillance tools (e.g. customer data platforms). Wouldn't this give an advantage to the big tech since they can covertly roll their own?
- dotancohen 3y ago
  > How could this be detected and enforced though? Rely on self-reporting? Presumably, the existence of such laws would preclude much of the larger companies from trying. Then, for the smaller companies, how is real-world stalking detected and enforced? Whatever that is, it might be a good start.
seydor 3y ago
Peivacy has been used as a distraction to distract from the main issue which is indeed the copyright of user's data. The internet is unique in history with laws like art 230 , which allow certain companies to coopt other people's work without paying for it on a mass scale.
monksy 3y ago
I'm not sure if you can call it theft of privacy. That's a super abstract thing. Your personal data has "no value" (Outside the monetary punishments that come with HIPPA violations.. which gives PII value in the healthcare space). Weirdly enough, personal info has no financial value (it's not something that be taxed, nor could it be sued for the loss of).. yet there are entire organizations and businesses that profit off of it. (This is US centric.. under the GDPR you have rights which effectively give strong value attached to it.. unfortuantely thats only protected via enforcement actions)

hooby 3y ago

Why not call it "The right to privacy"? Come to think of, we should even add that to the declaration of human rights! Wait a minute...

DrScientist 3y ago
As is often the case with these things - declaring high level rights is easy - practical enforcement is the hard part.
- jgeada 3y ago
  Hard in this forum frequently means technically hard, but I think in this context you mean "politically hard". I do not think there is a major technical problem, at the core the easiest solution is to just stop collecting arbitrary data on everyone. The issue is that the people with money and power do not want to give up control of the data they have on everyone else. It is very hard to make someone understand this if their income and power depends on not understanding it.
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    I meant legally hard to define. Some data is important to collect - I expect my bank to keep a record of my financial transactions! I just don't want them to sell them on, or use them for services I didn't sign up for. And an 'opt-out' system isn't sufficient - it needs to be an opt-in system. An opt in system that isn't by a forced game of yes/no bingo - it has to be one where the customer has to take the initiative. You don't get bombarded with extra stuff being put into your basket at the supermarket checkout and then asked a series of 20 questions about whether you want to take the extra things. You shouldn't with digital services either. Now the hard part is that legal definition between what's the data reasonably required for the service and what's taking the piss. I'm arguing one way to define that is whether the data use involves joining dots between transactions in a way that's not required for the immediate transaction or service.
- jimmySixDOF 3y ago
  I call bollocks on that, enforcement is a matter of breaking free of regulatory capture just long enough to implement a system. I am not in the thick of this discussion but think of the Number Portability legislation that carriers were forced (through enforcement) to implement and extend that right of ownership model to our data and digital identities so you can not be deplatformed by AI on a filter whim walled off from years of family photo uploads. We should have our own individual terms of service provisions that these platforms have to negotiate and agree in triplicate to before monitizing personally identifiable information to data brokers for hire.
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    While I agree change requires determined action to overcome vested interests and inertia - I don't think that doesn't mean it isn't hard. Laws are all about balancing interactions between parties. If you lived on your own there would be no need for laws. Laws police the space between people - where your right to freely do X, impinges on someone's elses right to be free of y. Agreeing and defining that balance in a legally enforceable way is often not so easy as it first appears. But let's be clear - I'm not using it as an excuse not to try.
- hooby 3y ago
  Enforcement of the right to privacy works (more or less) for offline privacy invasions. I believe the problem might rather be, that there's a lack of clearness and awareness when it comes to how privacy does apply to online matters. Even technically knowledgeable people are often caught completely off guard by how much you can actually glean and deduce from very limited data. Most people wouldn't believe how revealing some seemingly innocuous data can be, when you collect enough of it.

rambambram 3y ago

Indeed, the right to ownership is a right to a right. Besides, I already have that right, that's what ownership means. If a right that I have is violated, then there's only one thing left. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law", they say, so keep your data for yourself, privately offline, if you care about it.

DrScientist 3y ago
I get your point about not letting stuff leak in the first place - but some of that is impossible. If you buy something from a shop with anything other than cash ( some places have started no accepting cash ) - then you leave a trace as part of that transaction. Heck if you walk into a shop and pay with cash, the person at the till still sees you and may remember. Visiting web pages properly anonymously is far from trivial - it's not as simple as refusing cookies. The problem is the selling on of that data, and the joining of the dots across large bodies of data where the sum is often greater than the parts. I would argue it's the act of trying to build a picture of you, as oppose to the incidental accumulation of data. Kinda like the difference between people seeing you walking on the public street ( you are giving away your image and location data ), and you being followed everywhere by a stalker. At some point it crosses the line from the unavoidable, to the unpleasant.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  >you being followed everywhere by a stalker Isn’t it legal to quietly follow someone on the street?
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    Depends where you live and the context. For an example see: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/stalking-harassment/what-is-stalking-harassment/ https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/s...
    - l33t7332273 3y ago

pesfandiar 3y ago

How could this be detected and enforced though? Rely on self-reporting? Let's say we outlaw surveillance tools (e.g. customer data platforms). Wouldn't this give an advantage to the big tech since they can covertly roll their own?

dotancohen 3y ago
> How could this be detected and enforced though? Rely on self-reporting? Presumably, the existence of such laws would preclude much of the larger companies from trying. Then, for the smaller companies, how is real-world stalking detected and enforced? Whatever that is, it might be a good start.

seydor 3y ago

Peivacy has been used as a distraction to distract from the main issue which is indeed the copyright of user's data. The internet is unique in history with laws like art 230 , which allow certain companies to coopt other people's work without paying for it on a mass scale.

monksy 3y ago

I'm not sure if you can call it theft of privacy. That's a super abstract thing. Your personal data has "no value" (Outside the monetary punishments that come with HIPPA violations.. which gives PII value in the healthcare space). Weirdly enough, personal info has no financial value (it's not something that be taxed, nor could it be sued for the loss of).. yet there are entire organizations and businesses that profit off of it. (This is US centric.. under the GDPR you have rights which effectively give strong value attached to it.. unfortuantely thats only protected via enforcement actions)