3 ms·

"I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data becau

by swalsh 14y ago

"I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders." If you're careful about the scope of whats protected, its maybe not such a bad thing. I'm open to a limited amount of oversight if it means I'll have a more protected experience on the web. As much as I love the freedom the web provides, It's also a bit of a dangerous place where it can be hard to tell who you can trust. As techies its pretty easy for us to know who to trust and who we cant. But your mother probably can't. Additionally, it opens up the possibility for opportunities too. Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. If we can use laws to build up walls, we can also invent laws that break down other artificial walls.

eurleif 14y ago
>Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. Regulation leads to more regulation, and you're calling that a good thing? No thanks. Walled gardens suck, but I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable. And I'll take the government anytime. Because the government represents the will of the people (and if not, it's a malfunctioning government) whereas some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. If the government doesn't represent the will of the people (e.g because large corporations buy their own laws), then I'd rather fight to change THAT, than try to find solace in a walled garden (ie one of those very corporations).
  - eurleif 14y ago
    >some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. It's also something people voluntarily choose to use. How about you delete your Facebook account if you don't like their business practices?
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Because the government represents the will of the people Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. "The people" is just a label applied to many individuals, all of whom most certainly do not have the same desires or wishes as far as what government should or shouldn't do. And even if this unicorn of "the will of the people" did exist, we're not likely to achieve a government that reflects it, at least not as long as we vote and elect representatives anything like the way we currently know. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
    - coldtea 14y ago
      >Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. I don't care about a "collective common will". Nothing can be done if everybody has to agree 100%. By the will of the people I mean what the majority voted and what they can influence by voting. The "will of the people" is the aggregate median, not the series itself. Sure, it's not perfect (and the voting, referendum etc systems can be improved a lot), but it's still better than any separate, private, interest.
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        I don't care about a "collective common will". And I don't care about a tyranny of the majority, so I guess we're even. Nothing can be done if everybody has to agree 100%. If "something being done" involves use of force to compel someone who doesn't agree, then it shouldn't ought to be done in the first place. All too often it does. :-( but it's still better than any separate, private, interest. How is it better than private individuals interacting on a purely voluntary basis?

by swalsh 14y ago

eurleif 14y ago

>Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. Regulation leads to more regulation, and you're calling that a good thing? No thanks. Walled gardens suck, but I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable.

coldtea 14y ago
>I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable. And I'll take the government anytime. Because the government represents the will of the people (and if not, it's a malfunctioning government) whereas some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. If the government doesn't represent the will of the people (e.g because large corporations buy their own laws), then I'd rather fight to change THAT, than try to find solace in a walled garden (ie one of those very corporations).
- eurleif 14y ago
  >some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. It's also something people voluntarily choose to use. How about you delete your Facebook account if you don't like their business practices?
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Because the government represents the will of the people Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. "The people" is just a label applied to many individuals, all of whom most certainly do not have the same desires or wishes as far as what government should or shouldn't do. And even if this unicorn of "the will of the people" did exist, we're not likely to achieve a government that reflects it, at least not as long as we vote and elect representatives anything like the way we currently know. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. I don't care about a "collective common will". Nothing can be done if everybody has to agree 100%. By the will of the people I mean what the majority voted and what they can influence by voting. The "will of the people" is the aggregate median, not the series itself. Sure, it's not perfect (and the voting, referendum etc systems can be improved a lot), but it's still better than any separate, private, interest.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      I don't care about a "collective common will". And I don't care about a tyranny of the majority, so I guess we're even. Nothing can be done if everybody has to agree 100%. If "something being done" involves use of force to compel someone who doesn't agree, then it shouldn't ought to be done in the first place. All too often it does. :-( but it's still better than any separate, private, interest. How is it better than private individuals interacting on a purely voluntary basis?