4 ms·
Privacy Harm Is Harm
- charcircuit 1y agoYou can't just say that anything you don't personally like equals harm.
- gutafoki 1y agoDon't they state pretty clearly the actual harm that is occurring due to undermined privacy?
- charcircuit 1y agoThey make up their own definitive of harm that includes that. The article is about how the definition of harm the law uses, doesn't match how they would like to see it defined.
- Hizonner 1y agoYou do not understand how the law works, and you are making a fool of yourself. They are in the middle of asking a court to clarify what the law means by the word "harm". That is not settled as yet. Things like that get settled by litigation. They are taking a position in such litigation.
- gdulli 1y agoThere's more words than just the headline. You don't have to agree with them, but they're there.
- charcircuit 1y agoIf you understood my comment you would understand that I don't agree with them. If you are trying to passively aggressively call me out for not reading reading article (of which I did), do so directly.
- z0r 1y agoYou could engage with the article and explain why you don't agree with the argument that is being made - or you could simply leave no comment at all. That is the hidden subtext of the comment you are replying to here.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 1y agoWhat is there to understand about it? You don't make an argument, just a shallow dismissal. There's nothing about your comment that indicates you read TFA.
- gdulli 1y agoThe article made a case. You didn't refute it or make your own, you just said "nuh uh".
- charcircuit 1y ago>you just said "nuh uh". The article doesn't make a case. They are just saying "nuh uh" to the decision the court made.
- digitalPhonix 1y agoThere's a 30ish page (not including all the legal template) brief explaining their arguement. How is that not making a case? There's even a excerpt from the brief going over one of their arguments.
- handsclean 1y agoI get the feeling you’re saying this because the harm caused by privacy loss is complicated, uncertain, time offset, etc, while “harm” feels to you like losing $100 or getting punched. You should think about the 1960s civil rights movement. Imagine you’re in the midst of it, without the hindsight of settled history, with actually many authority figures telling all these silly “activists” to get a real job and stop making such a fuss about something we all got on fine without until they started on their tantrum. What thought process would you need in order to correctly analyze whether the things being fought against were genuinely harms? What is the result of applying that thought process to privacy? This is, by the way, playing catch-up, privacy has been an internationally recognized human right for many years. I’m just trying to help you see human rights from a perspective other than “something somebody is ordering me to care about”.
- charcircuit 1y agoI'm sayint it because it doesn't cause harm. If you allowing fuzzy stuff like that to be harm does not make sense to me and is a slippery slope. The examples of "harms" the article uses are that law enforcement could enforce the law (which is not a harm), or that law enforcement could commit harm using information (which is already illegal). I wasn't alive in the 60s so I can't relate to your example. "Human rights" are not a linear thing. There is no reason to adopt one because another company has it. It should be decided by the people of the country themselves without inside influence.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- esseph 1y agoYou could switch the analogy and just harm people that remove your privacy. I'm much more fond of that route.
- quotemstr 1y agoWe've lost a great deal of nuance in our discourse by taking our previous richly varied and gradated universe of wrongnesses and projecting them all onto the "safety/harm/consent" axis. It's as if we're no longer capable of conceiving of something that is bad independent of that thing causing harm. Consequently, in order to express sophisticated moral concepts in our guttural pidgin of a moral vocabulary, we need to use combinations of words that are facial absurdities, like "privacy harm is harm".
- kazinator 1y agoI disagree with the tacit assumption here, which is that a license plate is private information. Driving a car on a public road is a public, social act, which requires licensing and abiding by numerous rules. A license plate is a token of registration in a public database, required to be displayed. Registration is required because people can cause enormous harm with a vehicle directly, and also use a vehicle for fleeing from the scene of a crime. Not to mention that vehicles can be stolen. If license plates are private information, then I'm violating privacy by writing down the license plate of a vehicle that is fleeing from a hit-and-run. Bull. Fucking. Shit. If you want a vehicle that lets you go wherever you want and do whatever you want without being identified by your vehicle, use a scooter or bicycle or any other unregistered, unlicensed form of transportation. If you can't get me to care about this "privacy" issue, your narrative is screwed, because I'm in a vehemently pro-freedom libertarian demographic.
- Spivak 1y agoWhen you write down a license plate number you're not surveilling the owner of the car. The privacy being talked about here is being lost in the crowd—you're not protected from someone looking for your license plate but you are protected against some corporation or the authorities knowing everywhere you go in real time with perfect accuracy and recall.
- delusional 1y agoI'll summarize your argument: You don't have privacy in public. I agree.
- lithocarpus 1y agoIn some abstract sense yes, but this doesn't mean that every moment of our lives when we leave our private home should be surveilled and recorded and analyzed for potential use by whoever is in power at any point in the future. Not suggesting you are saying that, but there's a spectrum of what it means for behavior to be public. Sure, my location is technically public in the sense that sometimes people see me when I go somewhere. But I would much rather not always be recorded with gps location and video and audio to be stored forever and available to those in power.
- em-bee 1y agorelated, in germany or the EU, courts have established that the mere publication of private information, and the associated loss of control (that is not knowing who was able to access that information) already constitutes harm, even if no other use or abuse actually happened. the mere potential that private information could be abused is enough.
- suriya-ganesh 1y agoI respect EFF for fighting the good fight. And its direly needed. But, having spent a couple of years in the privacy space. People choose convenience over privacy 10/10 times. No amount of cookie banners, privacy notices and user consent are going to change that. There are so many cases of data abuse by EVs, Governments, etc. once you dig a little deeper than the surface
- npteljes 1y agoOh yeah. Regimes also figured this out. Make the preferred outcome the most convenient, delay or hide the negative feedback, and there we go, please choose the system on their own volition.
- Gigachad 1y agoIt’s because companies deliberately make the privacy option constant friction. When the options are “yes” and “ask me again repeatedly” it’s not surprising people eventually give up and just say yes to everything. It needs to be part of the law that companies are simply not allowed to abuse your data like they are currently. The GDPR was a good start, but it needs to keep going much further.