9 ms·

You're saying consent isn't transitive. That's why they always ask for (or more frequently just take) "a paid up, non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license

You're saying consent isn't transitive. That's why they always ask for (or more frequently just take) "a paid up, non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license"

AlienRobot 3y ago
I think "consent" is not the right word for this, because it's never simply "consent" it's always boundaries and expectations. Consent implies there's always one yes/no answer for a process. In practice the process is always so complicated that it would require countless yes/no questions, to the point nobody sane would want to deal with it. Just look at cookie banners and imagine if we had a consent popup for every single thing that needs to be download to show a page: do you consent to download the HTML? Do you consent to download the CSS? Do you consent to download the Javascript? Do you consent to download the images? The user just wants the see the page. You have to make assumptions about how far that consent goes, so it's absolutely transitive, the problem is at what point it crosses the line.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  So, please forgive the necessary parallel here. Let's think about dating and imagine if we both had to consent to every single thing that needs to happen to get it on. Do you consent to dinner with me? Do you consent to coffee at yours? Do you consent to us getting our clothes off? Do you consent to ... you get the picture. Thing is, we actually do this, but silently. The "assumptions" you rightly speak of are the mutual trust mechanisms that allow two adults to make clear shortcuts without explicit words. We move at a certain speed. We check for feedback. We use clever signals. We base our trust model on the NSA definition that "Trust is the ability to do harm" in context where there is some symmetry. Sex is actually risky for both parties. And no means no. But in the digital world we're talking about a massive power asymmetry. When you're with a big corporation it moves from dinner to data-rape in a few milliseconds. No means "yeah but harder". Consent doesn't disappear because the process got complex. Human relations are more complex than any web page. It's about whether we obey the rules and show mutual respect. Big-tech corporations absolutely do neither. and that's the problem here, not complexity. What might level the game, is if when I visit your site with my web browser, you risk that I could do you some serious harm.
  - AlienRobot 3y ago
    Unfortunately, it's not a human on the other side, it's a system, whether it's a system built based on business rules or a system built based on computer algorithms, everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, as the use cases are infinite: you may consent to download CSS on this site, but not on that site, or on that site, but not on pages that match this regex, etc. If you tried to do that, your product would immediately flop because most users would find it too annoying and complicated to use compared to any system that makes reasonable assumptions about consent. I agree that many modern software have no respect to humans, but that's not because the developers didn't want to implement a yes/no consent dialog or several of them, it's because they think the only boundary they can't cross is what the law says they can't, and everything else is fair game.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Sorry late to reply after work today, but you really got me thinking AR > everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, Is it though? Maybe this is where AI is going to be a win - in dynmaic protocols and bespoke interactions. What if we leave my "AI web-browsing agent" to talk to your "AI web server" to quite literally negotiate a whole bunch of preferences. Usual game theory applies. If your bot tries to defect or fuck mine over, or my bot is too greedy or defective we both get a suboptimal outcome? Maybe I am happy to trade certain bits of data like location or budget but will withold or lie about others, say age and gender. In response I might not get all the info I seek. By making the value of our transactional relations explicit some interesting things might happen. Maybe if your Wbserver agent is is a bit too greedy mine will shop around to other sites etc. respects.
      - AlienRobot 3y ago
        Then the AI would be the one making assumptions about your consent. When it gets it wrong and your boundaries are violated, everyone will just shrug and say "well but the AI said it was okay." In my opinion, algorithms can not fix this. The developer needs to know clearly what boundaries they can't cross, and the only way for that to happen is if there are obvious penalties and deterrents. If Microsoft commits egregious privacy violations but it makes them more money than it costs them, why would they stop?

You're saying consent isn't transitive. That's why they always ask for (or more frequently just take) "a paid up, non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license"

AlienRobot 3y ago

I think "consent" is not the right word for this, because it's never simply "consent" it's always boundaries and expectations. Consent implies there's always one yes/no answer for a process. In practice the process is always so complicated that it would require countless yes/no questions, to the point nobody sane would want to deal with it. Just look at cookie banners and imagine if we had a consent popup for every single thing that needs to be download to show a page: do you consent to download the HTML? Do you consent to download the CSS? Do you consent to download the Javascript? Do you consent to download the images? The user just wants the see the page. You have to make assumptions about how far that consent goes, so it's absolutely transitive, the problem is at what point it crosses the line.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
So, please forgive the necessary parallel here. Let's think about dating and imagine if we both had to consent to every single thing that needs to happen to get it on. Do you consent to dinner with me? Do you consent to coffee at yours? Do you consent to us getting our clothes off? Do you consent to ... you get the picture. Thing is, we actually do this, but silently. The "assumptions" you rightly speak of are the mutual trust mechanisms that allow two adults to make clear shortcuts without explicit words. We move at a certain speed. We check for feedback. We use clever signals. We base our trust model on the NSA definition that "Trust is the ability to do harm" in context where there is some symmetry. Sex is actually risky for both parties. And no means no. But in the digital world we're talking about a massive power asymmetry. When you're with a big corporation it moves from dinner to data-rape in a few milliseconds. No means "yeah but harder". Consent doesn't disappear because the process got complex. Human relations are more complex than any web page. It's about whether we obey the rules and show mutual respect. Big-tech corporations absolutely do neither. and that's the problem here, not complexity. What might level the game, is if when I visit your site with my web browser, you risk that I could do you some serious harm.
- AlienRobot 3y ago
  Unfortunately, it's not a human on the other side, it's a system, whether it's a system built based on business rules or a system built based on computer algorithms, everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, as the use cases are infinite: you may consent to download CSS on this site, but not on that site, or on that site, but not on pages that match this regex, etc. If you tried to do that, your product would immediately flop because most users would find it too annoying and complicated to use compared to any system that makes reasonable assumptions about consent. I agree that many modern software have no respect to humans, but that's not because the developers didn't want to implement a yes/no consent dialog or several of them, it's because they think the only boundary they can't cross is what the law says they can't, and everything else is fair game.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Sorry late to reply after work today, but you really got me thinking AR > everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, Is it though? Maybe this is where AI is going to be a win - in dynmaic protocols and bespoke interactions. What if we leave my "AI web-browsing agent" to talk to your "AI web server" to quite literally negotiate a whole bunch of preferences. Usual game theory applies. If your bot tries to defect or fuck mine over, or my bot is too greedy or defective we both get a suboptimal outcome? Maybe I am happy to trade certain bits of data like location or budget but will withold or lie about others, say age and gender. In response I might not get all the info I seek. By making the value of our transactional relations explicit some interesting things might happen. Maybe if your Wbserver agent is is a bit too greedy mine will shop around to other sites etc. respects.
    - AlienRobot 3y ago
      Then the AI would be the one making assumptions about your consent. When it gets it wrong and your boundaries are violated, everyone will just shrug and say "well but the AI said it was okay." In my opinion, algorithms can not fix this. The developer needs to know clearly what boundaries they can't cross, and the only way for that to happen is if there are obvious penalties and deterrents. If Microsoft commits egregious privacy violations but it makes them more money than it costs them, why would they stop?