6 ms·

What's the solution? Stop innovating because there's a slight chance of said innovation being used for evil? I'm all for being wary of what's going on, so that

by hrayr 13y ago

What's the solution? Stop innovating because there's a slight chance of said innovation being used for evil? I'm all for being wary of what's going on, so that you don't get caught with your pants down, but what's the absolute worse that can happen? Every single tech that you can think of that has changed the world in some form, had it's own set of doomsayers, but as a whole I think we've progressed in the right direction. You can spend your days fretting about every single tech that comes out, or you can except that the world is changing and make the most out of it. Frankly, I don't mind living in the world we live in today, I'm excited to see what comes out next.

sneak 13y ago
The solution is to stop centralized data collection. The reason it doesn't happen is because corporations don't like giving up control of data that they can keep to themselves and store forever. Many of these apps could run clientside and access the cloud solely for information, but that doesn't fit in with the Google vision of organizing the world's information and making it useful for selling products and services to advertisers. Data retention and collection practices that prevent widespread spying must be codified into law for this to ever work. Companies, Google being the shining example, (but Apple and Facebook not far behind) will simply not enforce these boundaries upon themselves, because the data is just too valuable in the context of future algorithmic analysis. Also, it's not a "slight chance". All these major innovations HAVE been used for evil, from mobile phones to wide-area networking to the web. It's not just fearmongering.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Solved then: I see nowhere in this that says that this device is centralizing any data.
  - catshirt 13y ago
    sarcasm?
- hrayr 13y ago
  "Also, it's not a "slight chance". All these major innovations HAVE been used for evil, from mobile phones to wide-area networking to the web. It's not just fearmongering." This is precisely my point, these technologies have been used for evil, but would we be better off NOT having them in the first place? Everything has been used for evil, including pencils. If we loose sight of perspective and only play on the fears, then it's very much fearmongering. I agree with you on your solution of decentralized collection being better. But I would argue that data analysis involving many data sources, including yours, is what makes a lot of the services being built USEFUL. Google Now being a good example of that. I would also argue, that targeted advertisement is much more useful to me, than non targeted advertisement.
- cwp 13y ago
  So? All technologies have been used for evil, going right back to the first homo habilis who picked up a rock. They're also used for good. Of course we should encourage the good and discourage the evil, but that's a moral pursuit, not a technological one.
- cbr 13y ago
  The solution is to stop centralized data collection. Centralized data collection gives me good auto-complete in search. It means when I start sending an email to John Smith and Jane Doe it can ask me if I might have meant Jane Roe instead. It means when I lose my phone I don't lose any of my data.
  - hrjet 13y ago
    A decentralized solution for that would be to have user's data stored in user's private cloud, encrypted and cached on the client.
    - agentS 13y ago
      One of the reasons that spelling corrections are so good on Google is (probably) that they are machine learning models trained on query logs(1). i.e. if you search for "hacer news", and then without clicking on any results, issue another query for "hacker news" in a very short timeframe, then it will learn that "hacker" is a good suggestion for "hacer"(2). Similarly for "Mark as Spam", Priority Inbox, Recommended Videos on Youtube, Voice Recognition on Android, etc. Note 1: Yes, you could also do a pretty good job by having a model of your problem. i.e. computing a weighted levenstein distance where the weights are the probabilities of making that error. However, I'd argue that this would still be better with centralized data; you can compute much better probability vectors. And regardless, the best solutions in the field will be with the combination of both. Note 2: All of the above is speculation. While I help write some of the tools that these guys use, I have no knowledge of how they write their software. This is just how I'd do it.
      - hrjet 13y ago
        I completely agree with the examples you cite. However the parent was giving examples about auto-correction for user's contacts. That is user-specific data and there's no need for it to be shared with a third-party.
        agentS 13y ago
- moultano 13y ago
  This is a very myopic view that has already caused many deaths. Privacy concerns around medical records have prevented any central database of them from being built, and thus prevented us from saving all of the lives that could be saved by analyzing that data. Data is what lets us keep hospitals safe by establishing best practices, lets us cure diseases, lets us avoid unnecessary treatment, and just in general, separate fact from fiction. If we can't aggregate data, we can't do those things nearly as effectively as we could, and simplistic views of privacy have prevented this from happening. There are plenty of concerns about data, and plenty of ways of mitigating those concerns, but a blanket condemnation of any centralized data would hold humanity back immeasurably (and in fact, already has.)
  - discostrings 13y ago
    > This is a very myopic view that has already caused many deaths. Privacy concerns around medical records have prevented any central database of them from being built, and thus prevented us from saving all of the lives that could be saved by analyzing that data. This line of reasoning seems similar to arguing that, by not creating a society in which 95% of people live in sanitized hospital rooms and the remaining 5% of people are doctors and nurses, we have "already caused many deaths". Yes, the fact that people value things like "privacy", "being in large groups where others could be ill", and "moving from place to place" will "cause deaths". But that doesn't mean individuals should be forced to abandon these things for better health outcomes. While some benefits could certainly come from centralizing medical records, I tend to think that benefit cannot justify compelling people to keep their records in a centralized database, in the same way I don't think the health benefits of not traveling justify banning travel. You may not value privacy, but I think that in a truly inclusive society that values the individual, privacy should remain a real option for those who value it. > There are plenty of concerns about data, and plenty of ways of mitigating those concerns, but a blanket condemnation of any centralized data would hold humanity back immeasurably (and in fact, already has.) I agree that a blanket condemnation of centralized data is also not a good approach. Each individual should be able to make this choice in a meaningful way, with respect by default that any given person might care about it.
    - 13y ago
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  > The solution is to stop centralized data collection. The world would be a better place if there were no defined country names, zip codes. We should decentralize all our data to prevent evil.
abvdasker 13y ago
The solution to the privacy question isn't easy so obviously we should all do nothing.
- hrayr 13y ago
  Privacy is a social construct and so it must be dealt in a social way (regulations, etiquettes, norms, etc..) Stopping, hindering, slowing down, or complaining about technological growth for fear of privacy violations, is the same logic used by religious bodies hundreds of years ago to today, regarding advancements in science.

by hrayr 13y ago

sneak 13y ago

The solution is to stop centralized data collection. The reason it doesn't happen is because corporations don't like giving up control of data that they can keep to themselves and store forever. Many of these apps could run clientside and access the cloud solely for information, but that doesn't fit in with the Google vision of organizing the world's information and making it useful for selling products and services to advertisers. Data retention and collection practices that prevent widespread spying must be codified into law for this to ever work. Companies, Google being the shining example, (but Apple and Facebook not far behind) will simply not enforce these boundaries upon themselves, because the data is just too valuable in the context of future algorithmic analysis. Also, it's not a "slight chance". All these major innovations HAVE been used for evil, from mobile phones to wide-area networking to the web. It's not just fearmongering.

magicalist 13y ago
Solved then: I see nowhere in this that says that this device is centralizing any data.
- catshirt 13y ago
  sarcasm?
hrayr 13y ago
"Also, it's not a "slight chance". All these major innovations HAVE been used for evil, from mobile phones to wide-area networking to the web. It's not just fearmongering." This is precisely my point, these technologies have been used for evil, but would we be better off NOT having them in the first place? Everything has been used for evil, including pencils. If we loose sight of perspective and only play on the fears, then it's very much fearmongering. I agree with you on your solution of decentralized collection being better. But I would argue that data analysis involving many data sources, including yours, is what makes a lot of the services being built USEFUL. Google Now being a good example of that. I would also argue, that targeted advertisement is much more useful to me, than non targeted advertisement.
cwp 13y ago
So? All technologies have been used for evil, going right back to the first homo habilis who picked up a rock. They're also used for good. Of course we should encourage the good and discourage the evil, but that's a moral pursuit, not a technological one.
cbr 13y ago
The solution is to stop centralized data collection. Centralized data collection gives me good auto-complete in search. It means when I start sending an email to John Smith and Jane Doe it can ask me if I might have meant Jane Roe instead. It means when I lose my phone I don't lose any of my data.
- hrjet 13y ago
  A decentralized solution for that would be to have user's data stored in user's private cloud, encrypted and cached on the client.
  - agentS 13y ago
    One of the reasons that spelling corrections are so good on Google is (probably) that they are machine learning models trained on query logs(1). i.e. if you search for "hacer news", and then without clicking on any results, issue another query for "hacker news" in a very short timeframe, then it will learn that "hacker" is a good suggestion for "hacer"(2). Similarly for "Mark as Spam", Priority Inbox, Recommended Videos on Youtube, Voice Recognition on Android, etc. Note 1: Yes, you could also do a pretty good job by having a model of your problem. i.e. computing a weighted levenstein distance where the weights are the probabilities of making that error. However, I'd argue that this would still be better with centralized data; you can compute much better probability vectors. And regardless, the best solutions in the field will be with the combination of both. Note 2: All of the above is speculation. While I help write some of the tools that these guys use, I have no knowledge of how they write their software. This is just how I'd do it.
    - hrjet 13y ago
      I completely agree with the examples you cite. However the parent was giving examples about auto-correction for user's contacts. That is user-specific data and there's no need for it to be shared with a third-party.
      - agentS 13y ago
moultano 13y ago
This is a very myopic view that has already caused many deaths. Privacy concerns around medical records have prevented any central database of them from being built, and thus prevented us from saving all of the lives that could be saved by analyzing that data. Data is what lets us keep hospitals safe by establishing best practices, lets us cure diseases, lets us avoid unnecessary treatment, and just in general, separate fact from fiction. If we can't aggregate data, we can't do those things nearly as effectively as we could, and simplistic views of privacy have prevented this from happening. There are plenty of concerns about data, and plenty of ways of mitigating those concerns, but a blanket condemnation of any centralized data would hold humanity back immeasurably (and in fact, already has.)
- discostrings 13y ago
  > This is a very myopic view that has already caused many deaths. Privacy concerns around medical records have prevented any central database of them from being built, and thus prevented us from saving all of the lives that could be saved by analyzing that data. This line of reasoning seems similar to arguing that, by not creating a society in which 95% of people live in sanitized hospital rooms and the remaining 5% of people are doctors and nurses, we have "already caused many deaths". Yes, the fact that people value things like "privacy", "being in large groups where others could be ill", and "moving from place to place" will "cause deaths". But that doesn't mean individuals should be forced to abandon these things for better health outcomes. While some benefits could certainly come from centralizing medical records, I tend to think that benefit cannot justify compelling people to keep their records in a centralized database, in the same way I don't think the health benefits of not traveling justify banning travel. You may not value privacy, but I think that in a truly inclusive society that values the individual, privacy should remain a real option for those who value it. > There are plenty of concerns about data, and plenty of ways of mitigating those concerns, but a blanket condemnation of any centralized data would hold humanity back immeasurably (and in fact, already has.) I agree that a blanket condemnation of centralized data is also not a good approach. Each individual should be able to make this choice in a meaningful way, with respect by default that any given person might care about it.
  - 13y ago
the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> The solution is to stop centralized data collection. The world would be a better place if there were no defined country names, zip codes. We should decentralize all our data to prevent evil.

abvdasker 13y ago

The solution to the privacy question isn't easy so obviously we should all do nothing.

hrayr 13y ago
Privacy is a social construct and so it must be dealt in a social way (regulations, etiquettes, norms, etc..) Stopping, hindering, slowing down, or complaining about technological growth for fear of privacy violations, is the same logic used by religious bodies hundreds of years ago to today, regarding advancements in science.