4 ms·

> I don't think it's possible to craft regulation such that companies collecting data for "internal use" can't abuse it. Actually, the regulatory language is e

> I don't think it's possible to craft regulation such that companies collecting data for "internal use" can't abuse it. Actually, the regulatory language is easy. "You may not buy or sell user data." The friction comes from the fact that a large part of our economy is highly dependent on the ability to buy and sell user data.

WhyNotHugo 2y ago
> Actually, the regulatory language is easy. "You may not buy or sell user data." I believe the easy workaround is to designate the other party a "data processor" or something of that sort. "We're not selling data, we merely allow partners to access it to generate reports for us."
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
This AND liability on the data being part of an inevitable breach. Both working in tandem would limit data collected to a minimum required to operate and remove incentive to collect. But as you note.. surveillance economy will not be happy about it and likely fight back. Amusingly, the people who understand the risks and take precautions are also least likely to put a spotlight on them, which privacy-conscious tend to avoid.
dylan604 2y ago
> The friction comes from the fact that a large part of our economy is highly dependent on the ability to buy and sell user data. This is only a recent part of the economy that the world would not collapse if we went back to a time of it not being part of the economy. Just because something is does not mean that it should. There are plenty of historical example of where something was that was not right that took time so that eventually what is is now no more.
advael 2y ago
I don't think any such regulation can have teeth or actually protect anyone. The mechanism by which data is abused is a moving target that will shift with any regulation you throw at it. It will go to black markets, be reshaped through loopholes, or done in plausibly deniable ways by entities that can bog any legal challenge down in technicalities indefinitely, while still probably making more doing it than they'll be fined for, and every loophole will require new regulation to close it. The only way to regulate data collection with teeth is to make the collection itself illegal, and actually enforce those laws
- ideashower 2y ago
  You are, in too many words, essentially describing data minimization principles. But I don't believe that the existence of black markets means we shouldn't regulate legal markets. Even if it's true that bad actors would try to find new ways to exploit data as regulations change, this doesn't negate the value of regulation entirely. Lots of industries face similar challenges (e.g. financial regulation, environmental protection) yet still benefit from regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the existence of loopholes is an argument for crafting more robust and adaptable regulations, and knowledgeable bodies to govern them--not for abandoning regulation altogether.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I feel like we're precariously close to proposing a War on Data. I suspect it will be as successful as every previous War on....
    - photonthug 2y ago
      Drug/terror networks are composed of anonymous semi-independent actors without clear command/control hierarchies. That's nothing at all like businesses with registered addresses, clearly defined executives who also have addresses, thousands of employees who officially declare this as part of a legit taxable income stream. Every one of those non-anonymous people have to comply with subpoenas, etc. Why would you even make this comparison?
  - advael 2y ago
    Yea, I am. I think minimizing the data that can legally be retained about people is the best policy both on principle and practicality here. Yes, there will always be black markets as long as there are incentives. But it's much harder to prosecute mishandling than retaining it in the first place
    - ideashower 2y ago
      I generally agree. Case in point: all that is transpiring with Telegram, compared to Signal.

WhyNotHugo 2y ago

> Actually, the regulatory language is easy. "You may not buy or sell user data." I believe the easy workaround is to designate the other party a "data processor" or something of that sort. "We're not selling data, we merely allow partners to access it to generate reports for us."

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

This AND liability on the data being part of an inevitable breach. Both working in tandem would limit data collected to a minimum required to operate and remove incentive to collect. But as you note.. surveillance economy will not be happy about it and likely fight back. Amusingly, the people who understand the risks and take precautions are also least likely to put a spotlight on them, which privacy-conscious tend to avoid.

dylan604 2y ago

> The friction comes from the fact that a large part of our economy is highly dependent on the ability to buy and sell user data. This is only a recent part of the economy that the world would not collapse if we went back to a time of it not being part of the economy. Just because something is does not mean that it should. There are plenty of historical example of where something was that was not right that took time so that eventually what is is now no more.

advael 2y ago

I don't think any such regulation can have teeth or actually protect anyone. The mechanism by which data is abused is a moving target that will shift with any regulation you throw at it. It will go to black markets, be reshaped through loopholes, or done in plausibly deniable ways by entities that can bog any legal challenge down in technicalities indefinitely, while still probably making more doing it than they'll be fined for, and every loophole will require new regulation to close it. The only way to regulate data collection with teeth is to make the collection itself illegal, and actually enforce those laws

ideashower 2y ago
You are, in too many words, essentially describing data minimization principles. But I don't believe that the existence of black markets means we shouldn't regulate legal markets. Even if it's true that bad actors would try to find new ways to exploit data as regulations change, this doesn't negate the value of regulation entirely. Lots of industries face similar challenges (e.g. financial regulation, environmental protection) yet still benefit from regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, the existence of loopholes is an argument for crafting more robust and adaptable regulations, and knowledgeable bodies to govern them--not for abandoning regulation altogether.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I feel like we're precariously close to proposing a War on Data. I suspect it will be as successful as every previous War on....
  - photonthug 2y ago
    Drug/terror networks are composed of anonymous semi-independent actors without clear command/control hierarchies. That's nothing at all like businesses with registered addresses, clearly defined executives who also have addresses, thousands of employees who officially declare this as part of a legit taxable income stream. Every one of those non-anonymous people have to comply with subpoenas, etc. Why would you even make this comparison?
- advael 2y ago
  Yea, I am. I think minimizing the data that can legally be retained about people is the best policy both on principle and practicality here. Yes, there will always be black markets as long as there are incentives. But it's much harder to prosecute mishandling than retaining it in the first place
  - ideashower 2y ago
    I generally agree. Case in point: all that is transpiring with Telegram, compared to Signal.