3 ms·

I am fine with private company using my data for showing me better ads. They can't affect my life significantly. I am not fine with government using the data t

I am fine with private company using my data for showing me better ads. They can't affect my life significantly. I am not fine with government using the data to police me. Already in most countries, governments are putting people in jail because of things like hate speech where are the laws are really vague.

vladms 3y ago
To me this sounds like an opinion that would be common in the US, mostly because of where the trust and fears seem to be (private companies versus government). I think everybody (private companies, government, individuals) will try to influence and will affect your personal life. What I am worried about is who has the most efficient way to influence a lot the average person - because that entity can control on long term a lot more. My impression is that in the European Union - due partially to a complex system - is harder for any particular actor to do much on its own (even the example with Denmark secret service asking NSA for data about citizens - I guess it is harder for them to do that rather than just get directly the data). So what I am afraid is focused and efficient entities having the data, hence I am more afraid of private companies (which are focused and sometimes efficient) rather than governments.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Can we please argue on the thing being discussed rather than where it is common? Are you saying influencing life through ads and putting me in jail have similar effect on me? If you combine all laws of my country I am pretty sure I would have broken few unintentionally. If government wants to just put me in jail they could retroactively find any of my past instance if they have the data. This is not some theoretical thing, but something the thing that happens with political dissidents all the time.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    The "thing being discussed" is the efficacy of privacy laws. They work well, and the fact that you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet is tacit evidence. In the real world, both corporations and governments are your enemy. You're mistakenly looking at it as a relativist comparison; the people influencing your life through advertising work with the people who put you in jail. They aggregate and sell data to Palantir which is used by dozens of well-meaning intelligence agencies to scrutinize their citizens. They threaten Apple and Google unless they turn over personally-identifying data and account details. Some of them even demand that corporate data is stored on state-owned servers. So, what you actually want is to use the power of the "putting me in jail" people against your oppressors. If the law says that companies can't collect data unconditionally, then neither the corporation or the state can justly implicate you.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      But everything is relativist. There is and can't be any absolute privacy. We need to find the biggest gain we can have in privacy with minimal impact to economy. And making laws for online ads is the worst in terms of ROI. It impacts economy and millions of people could work because of ads and it offers very low benefit. > you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet I know someone who has been put to trial. > They aggregate and sell data to Palantir See here we are going to speculative domain. If there are companies who I trust not to do that, it would be big tech not because they are good, but because they know the value of data and are the ones which can extract highest value. And in any case it would require breaking TOS as companies list out their partners. And if we are entering illegal, anyways laws won't help with this.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > And if we are entering illegal, anyways laws won't help with this. Laws are the only thing that will help with this, notwithstanding a monopoly on violence.
squigz 3y ago
"Most" countries? Can you provide some examples?
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
  - squigz 3y ago
    There are 6 countries listed in that article, out of the nearly 200 countries in the world. Hardly "most." And there doesn't appear to be examples of those 6 countries imprisoning people for those laws.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      See this[1]. Most sampled countries have laws against hate speech. Certainly most of the ones western world care about. Also see [2] for examples of arrest. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/qh7ua1/hate_speech_laws_by_country/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/qh7ua1/hate_speech... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-internet-speech-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-intern...
      - squigz 3y ago
        So basically, you have no real proof to back up your claim that "most" countries are "putting people in jail"
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        Reply to swigz: Apart from the link in previous comment, [1] has more examples [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/football/hate-crime-arrests-euro-2020-final-spt-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/football/hate-crime-arres...

vladms 3y ago

To me this sounds like an opinion that would be common in the US, mostly because of where the trust and fears seem to be (private companies versus government). I think everybody (private companies, government, individuals) will try to influence and will affect your personal life. What I am worried about is who has the most efficient way to influence a lot the average person - because that entity can control on long term a lot more. My impression is that in the European Union - due partially to a complex system - is harder for any particular actor to do much on its own (even the example with Denmark secret service asking NSA for data about citizens - I guess it is harder for them to do that rather than just get directly the data). So what I am afraid is focused and efficient entities having the data, hence I am more afraid of private companies (which are focused and sometimes efficient) rather than governments.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Can we please argue on the thing being discussed rather than where it is common? Are you saying influencing life through ads and putting me in jail have similar effect on me? If you combine all laws of my country I am pretty sure I would have broken few unintentionally. If government wants to just put me in jail they could retroactively find any of my past instance if they have the data. This is not some theoretical thing, but something the thing that happens with political dissidents all the time.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  The "thing being discussed" is the efficacy of privacy laws. They work well, and the fact that you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet is tacit evidence. In the real world, both corporations and governments are your enemy. You're mistakenly looking at it as a relativist comparison; the people influencing your life through advertising work with the people who put you in jail. They aggregate and sell data to Palantir which is used by dozens of well-meaning intelligence agencies to scrutinize their citizens. They threaten Apple and Google unless they turn over personally-identifying data and account details. Some of them even demand that corporate data is stored on state-owned servers. So, what you actually want is to use the power of the "putting me in jail" people against your oppressors. If the law says that companies can't collect data unconditionally, then neither the corporation or the state can justly implicate you.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    But everything is relativist. There is and can't be any absolute privacy. We need to find the biggest gain we can have in privacy with minimal impact to economy. And making laws for online ads is the worst in terms of ROI. It impacts economy and millions of people could work because of ads and it offers very low benefit. > you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet I know someone who has been put to trial. > They aggregate and sell data to Palantir See here we are going to speculative domain. If there are companies who I trust not to do that, it would be big tech not because they are good, but because they know the value of data and are the ones which can extract highest value. And in any case it would require breaking TOS as companies list out their partners. And if we are entering illegal, anyways laws won't help with this.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > And if we are entering illegal, anyways laws won't help with this. Laws are the only thing that will help with this, notwithstanding a monopoly on violence.

squigz 3y ago

"Most" countries? Can you provide some examples?

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
- squigz 3y ago
  There are 6 countries listed in that article, out of the nearly 200 countries in the world. Hardly "most." And there doesn't appear to be examples of those 6 countries imprisoning people for those laws.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    See this[1]. Most sampled countries have laws against hate speech. Certainly most of the ones western world care about. Also see [2] for examples of arrest. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/qh7ua1/hate_speech_laws_by_country/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/qh7ua1/hate_speech... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-internet-speech-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/technology/germany-intern...
    - squigz 3y ago
      So basically, you have no real proof to back up your claim that "most" countries are "putting people in jail"
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      Reply to swigz: Apart from the link in previous comment, [1] has more examples [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/football/hate-crime-arrests-euro-2020-final-spt-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/football/hate-crime-arres...