3 ms·

I think there is a case to be made that a posture of restricting the use of this sort of data can be worse than encouraging a free for all. At least with a free

by jchrisa 12y ago

I think there is a case to be made that a posture of restricting the use of this sort of data can be worse than encouraging a free for all. At least with a free-for-all kids can build interesting things no one would think of. The status quo essentially enforces that it can only be used by the powerful.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I agree. In a free-for-all, people would be aware of what was being collected and they would take action. In what we have now, the fact that the information exists, it's extent, and what happens to it remains secret. I say get it out there. In fact, it's wrong that a person can sit in a far-away city and spend ten bucks getting all the information they ever wanted to know about my neighbor because he shared it freely online, yet that same type of public knowledge is not available to the rest of the neighborhood for free. Freely-shared information has always been assumed to be local in nature -- you share it with somebody you are in proximity to. This is a good thing: keeps you from over-sharing.
sliverstorm 12y ago
It's almost like we're trying to ignore the Streisand effect when it comes to our personal communications. It's not a perfect parallel, but you'd think internet-savvy people should understand how hard it is to keep the cat in the damn bag!
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > It's almost like we're trying to ignore the Streisand effect when it comes to our personal communications. There's a difference between trying to suppress published information and trying to prevent the collection of that data in the first place. The Streisand effect applies to the first of those.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Right, I guess I'm basically inferring a corollary to the Streisand effect. The Streisand effect is that once information is out, it cannot be suppressed; I'm going for something more like, the information will eventually get out, it cannot be forever suppressed.

by jchrisa 12y ago

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

I agree. In a free-for-all, people would be aware of what was being collected and they would take action. In what we have now, the fact that the information exists, it's extent, and what happens to it remains secret. I say get it out there. In fact, it's wrong that a person can sit in a far-away city and spend ten bucks getting all the information they ever wanted to know about my neighbor because he shared it freely online, yet that same type of public knowledge is not available to the rest of the neighborhood for free. Freely-shared information has always been assumed to be local in nature -- you share it with somebody you are in proximity to. This is a good thing: keeps you from over-sharing.

sliverstorm 12y ago

It's almost like we're trying to ignore the Streisand effect when it comes to our personal communications. It's not a perfect parallel, but you'd think internet-savvy people should understand how hard it is to keep the cat in the damn bag!

JoshTriplett 12y ago
> It's almost like we're trying to ignore the Streisand effect when it comes to our personal communications. There's a difference between trying to suppress published information and trying to prevent the collection of that data in the first place. The Streisand effect applies to the first of those.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Right, I guess I'm basically inferring a corollary to the Streisand effect. The Streisand effect is that once information is out, it cannot be suppressed; I'm going for something more like, the information will eventually get out, it cannot be forever suppressed.