4 ms·

Classifying all erosion of privacy as equivalent is dangerously reductionist. Being able to track someone's internet activity by buying information from commerc

Classifying all erosion of privacy as equivalent is dangerously reductionist. Being able to track someone's internet activity by buying information from commercial data brokers is not the same as a government forcing everyone to follow a regimented disclosure process, under pain of imprisonment. In the former, there is considerably more consent, some level of flexibility in how data is disclosed and some possibility of user mitigation. In the latter, none of these things are possible. It's a straight jacket for society, with the net effect being massively less fundamental liberty and more centralization of power around the state. Just look at mandated KYC processes in finance, and the enormous costs they impose — in time wasted and intimate private information involuntarily exposed — on hundreds of millions of law-abiding consumers and businesses, while massively constraining the space for innovation in finance, by mandating a regimented PII disclose process that precludes the development of better processes for providing safety and accountability. This is not the same as people's voluntarily disclosed financial data being available to buy from commercial data brokers, that incurs none of these costs on society.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
Ok so now we're proposing that financial regulations that hamper funneling resources to terrorist organizations and make money laundering and tax evasion a massive pain in the ass are "time wasted"? Weird take but ok. And miss me with that "consent" fig leaf. You damn well know ToS (what would the plural be there?) that notionally establish consent are intentionally designed to be impenetrable walls of legal verbiage designed specifically to provoke end users to click through without reading a damn thing. Furthermore, to truly opt out of all forms of digital tracking, which I think we agree most people would do if given the option, would require completely disengaging from the economy as brokerable electronic records are produced every time you use a cellphone, view anything on the internet, or perform a financial transaction with anything besides cash.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  There is zero evidence that financial mass-surveillance, in the form of KYC/AML mandates, hampers the flow of funds to terrorist and criminal groups. There has been no demonstrable reduction of criminal and terrorist activity since the G7 embarked on widespread financial surveillance in 1989. As for the ToS, they provide some level of accountability, which can, for example, take the form of a mass exodus of users when a company changes its ToS to make them more invasive. And people can ultimately choose what data they share with web services, whereas mandates like the ones being promoted by the Commerce Department eliminate that choice altogether. There is undoubtedly a lot of space for improvement in the privacy realm but clearly we're not going to go in that direction if we institute overt mass surveillance programs that criminalize privacy.

forgetfreeman 3y ago

Ok so now we're proposing that financial regulations that hamper funneling resources to terrorist organizations and make money laundering and tax evasion a massive pain in the ass are "time wasted"? Weird take but ok. And miss me with that "consent" fig leaf. You damn well know ToS (what would the plural be there?) that notionally establish consent are intentionally designed to be impenetrable walls of legal verbiage designed specifically to provoke end users to click through without reading a damn thing. Furthermore, to truly opt out of all forms of digital tracking, which I think we agree most people would do if given the option, would require completely disengaging from the economy as brokerable electronic records are produced every time you use a cellphone, view anything on the internet, or perform a financial transaction with anything besides cash.

ETH_start 3y ago
There is zero evidence that financial mass-surveillance, in the form of KYC/AML mandates, hampers the flow of funds to terrorist and criminal groups. There has been no demonstrable reduction of criminal and terrorist activity since the G7 embarked on widespread financial surveillance in 1989. As for the ToS, they provide some level of accountability, which can, for example, take the form of a mass exodus of users when a company changes its ToS to make them more invasive. And people can ultimately choose what data they share with web services, whereas mandates like the ones being promoted by the Commerce Department eliminate that choice altogether. There is undoubtedly a lot of space for improvement in the privacy realm but clearly we're not going to go in that direction if we institute overt mass surveillance programs that criminalize privacy.