3 ms·

I get why you need legal arguments to prosecute organisations that abuse the system, but I’m worried that’s the wrong focus for now. Companies handling data wil

by bertil 3y ago

I get why you need legal arguments to prosecute organisations that abuse the system, but I’m worried that’s the wrong focus for now. Companies handling data will always have enough lobbyist to make their particular way of doing things technically legal (“we didn’t sent ID, we shared hashes”). What they should be judged on is whether people understand what they are doing, and if that clarity empowers people to support advertising approaches. Several generations of technologists have dreamed of a user-controlled platform to broadcast information, like “I’m in the market for a toaster” and get relevant offers. Ad markets and platforms would not make less money if they empowered users to tell you what they are interested in and to stop showing ads about crypto and gambling.

mdp2021 3y ago
> their particular way of doing things technically legal [... e.g.] shared hashes Yes, sometimes, but an important part of it is blunt: see the post in this page of the user who installed a controversial communication application (not WsA) and found that the messages were forwarded to FB... ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506851 ) > whether people understand what they are doing Yes. Partially it is a matter of awareness. But there is also a large part of the population which does not care about privacy - which also reveals a perception of the world that may be outdated ("nothing to hide to decent authorities" is the idea that many hold because usual to them).
- bertil 3y ago
  I would argue that if they think there’s no risk in sharing detailed personal information with authorities, they also need to understand. Privacy advocates are better at making that case, but it hasn’t always easy to hear.
thefz 3y ago
> Companies handling data will always have enough lobbyist to make their particular way of doing things technically legal (“we didn’t sent ID, we shared hashes”). > What they should be judged on is whether people understand what they are doing Nope, it's waaayy easier to regulate this at the root of the problem rather than going person by person asking if they understand a 15-page legalese EULA they did not read.
- bertil 3y ago
  I would definitely argue that clicking “I agree” at the bottom of a 15-page legalese document is a clear failure to understand.

by bertil 3y ago

mdp2021 3y ago

> their particular way of doing things technically legal [... e.g.] shared hashes Yes, sometimes, but an important part of it is blunt: see the post in this page of the user who installed a controversial communication application (not WsA) and found that the messages were forwarded to FB... ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506851 ) > whether people understand what they are doing Yes. Partially it is a matter of awareness. But there is also a large part of the population which does not care about privacy - which also reveals a perception of the world that may be outdated ("nothing to hide to decent authorities" is the idea that many hold because usual to them).

bertil 3y ago
I would argue that if they think there’s no risk in sharing detailed personal information with authorities, they also need to understand. Privacy advocates are better at making that case, but it hasn’t always easy to hear.

thefz 3y ago

> Companies handling data will always have enough lobbyist to make their particular way of doing things technically legal (“we didn’t sent ID, we shared hashes”). > What they should be judged on is whether people understand what they are doing Nope, it's waaayy easier to regulate this at the root of the problem rather than going person by person asking if they understand a 15-page legalese EULA they did not read.

bertil 3y ago
I would definitely argue that clicking “I agree” at the bottom of a 15-page legalese document is a clear failure to understand.