4 ms·

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.