5 ms·

Why? People choose to upload their data if they want to. If by 'stealing' you mean your voluntary upload and not reading the TOS it's hard to have sympathy. Mos

by graphe 3y ago

Why? People choose to upload their data if they want to. If by 'stealing' you mean your voluntary upload and not reading the TOS it's hard to have sympathy. Most people CHOOSE to upload their data to private databases to get more info since the us government is rather conservative with their databases and it's not HIPAA either.

happytiger 3y ago
Because companies incentivize behavior and pushing all responsibility onto the end use for predatory business practices is very outdated thinking. You can choose not to have credit but without credit you can’t really fully participate in the financial system, but a home or a car, rent an apartment, etc. But it’s a choice to participate. You buy a computer it’s not really a choice to accept the OS terms and conditions. Not if you want to use the computer. Many things masquerading as choices are not a choice really, though people pretend they are. We don’t need sympathy, we need ironclad data protection for users who do care even if others do not. The illusion that consumers can make a choice on many of these products and data agreements is a useful fiction that benefits companies and is often subverted to unfairly benefit just one of the parties: the current system is frequently a predatory exchange by companies designed to incentivize behavior that benefits them under the illusion of choice. Having seen data brokerages in great depth I can tell you the amount of information and type of information collected it hardly being done benevolently, and it always seems to go right to the edge of legality and morality in terms of what can be collected. Most importantly unless you are working deeply with the datasets it’s hard to understand just how profoundly powerful recombined data can be. So while users are offering approval to collection of data on a data platform basis the recombination of data is almost never explicit and has far reaching implications most people cannot really fathom. Recombination of released data is never presented to users in this way, as each company contributes their part and looks benign in isolated agreements, but they are not. Particularly not in the age of AI. In addition data is durable long after that company and their aligned business model is defunct. Yet there is no opt in for continued use even if the data goes to a use that would be objected to by the original grantor. This is deeply problematic. To call that a “choice” to release information is farcical under the current system. Beyond dark pattern in gaining the data, endurance beyond intention, unintended use and irrevocability are deeply, deeply problematic issues. Respectfully, they “agreed” is a weak argument given the complexity of the modern paradigm.
- graphe 3y ago
  To go into philosophy a bit, you make a deal with society when you live in it (Rousseau). If you post online, on the clearweb, you should expect some logging where you volunteer your information. If you upload your DNA, it's not accident. The privacy laws are as such that encourage days gathering behavior, although there are places where photos and cameras are not allowed to take pictures of others. These actions are on the edge of legality because it's where there is growth. It's the nature of an intersection of capitalism and science. If it was illegal they would only do it when its wasn't enforceable (Uber). All these fears haven't come to pass and DNA had been in databases for many decades, this fear of the unknown would freeze everyone into inaction if unintentional consequences were a great fear no German would have another child again.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> If by 'stealing' you mean your voluntary upload and not reading the TOS it's hard to have sympathy. They have my sympathy, because ToS agreements are BS that even companies don't expect users to read.

by graphe 3y ago

happytiger 3y ago

Because companies incentivize behavior and pushing all responsibility onto the end use for predatory business practices is very outdated thinking. You can choose not to have credit but without credit you can’t really fully participate in the financial system, but a home or a car, rent an apartment, etc. But it’s a choice to participate. You buy a computer it’s not really a choice to accept the OS terms and conditions. Not if you want to use the computer. Many things masquerading as choices are not a choice really, though people pretend they are. We don’t need sympathy, we need ironclad data protection for users who do care even if others do not. The illusion that consumers can make a choice on many of these products and data agreements is a useful fiction that benefits companies and is often subverted to unfairly benefit just one of the parties: the current system is frequently a predatory exchange by companies designed to incentivize behavior that benefits them under the illusion of choice. Having seen data brokerages in great depth I can tell you the amount of information and type of information collected it hardly being done benevolently, and it always seems to go right to the edge of legality and morality in terms of what can be collected. Most importantly unless you are working deeply with the datasets it’s hard to understand just how profoundly powerful recombined data can be. So while users are offering approval to collection of data on a data platform basis the recombination of data is almost never explicit and has far reaching implications most people cannot really fathom. Recombination of released data is never presented to users in this way, as each company contributes their part and looks benign in isolated agreements, but they are not. Particularly not in the age of AI. In addition data is durable long after that company and their aligned business model is defunct. Yet there is no opt in for continued use even if the data goes to a use that would be objected to by the original grantor. This is deeply problematic. To call that a “choice” to release information is farcical under the current system. Beyond dark pattern in gaining the data, endurance beyond intention, unintended use and irrevocability are deeply, deeply problematic issues. Respectfully, they “agreed” is a weak argument given the complexity of the modern paradigm.

graphe 3y ago
To go into philosophy a bit, you make a deal with society when you live in it (Rousseau). If you post online, on the clearweb, you should expect some logging where you volunteer your information. If you upload your DNA, it's not accident. The privacy laws are as such that encourage days gathering behavior, although there are places where photos and cameras are not allowed to take pictures of others. These actions are on the edge of legality because it's where there is growth. It's the nature of an intersection of capitalism and science. If it was illegal they would only do it when its wasn't enforceable (Uber). All these fears haven't come to pass and DNA had been in databases for many decades, this fear of the unknown would freeze everyone into inaction if unintentional consequences were a great fear no German would have another child again.

heavyset_go 3y ago

> If by 'stealing' you mean your voluntary upload and not reading the TOS it's hard to have sympathy. They have my sympathy, because ToS agreements are BS that even companies don't expect users to read.