8 ms·

I know this is probably an unpopular idea but it seems like we set up so much infrastructure(intelligence agencies, the entire security industry, etc.) to creat

by debt 12y ago

I know this is probably an unpopular idea but it seems like we set up so much infrastructure(intelligence agencies, the entire security industry, etc.) to create and secure private information that I feel like it creates an unnecessary economic burden and has an unnecessary psychological effect on people. We as a society need to first trust a large entity(which obviously right now is not gonna happen) with as much personally identifying information as possible in the hopes of creating an authority and allowing us to navigate the "system" much more easily(like I said renewing a Driver's License, getting a welfare check more quickly, processing a zoning request more easily, getting a medical history, etc.). After that happens, we should hopefully then feel okay about sharing that personal information publicly. Not a selective news feed like FB but the equivalent of a publicly available intelligence dossier on yourself that anyone(including yourself) has free access to. I know it seems crazy, but I really believe that's where it's headed anyway. No more background checks or credit score checks or walled gardens etc. My current location, my current heart rate, my arrest record, all my google searches(eesh) my last mammogram or testicular cancer exam, etc. is on display for all(including myself) to check and find out instantly and for free. The world would collapse. Economies might actually collapse though. Obviously, society is not ready for that sort of thing just yet, but that should have been the direction Google should have gone with Google+(or Google Identity or whatever they want to call it) eventually. You can't index the world's information if most of it is "private".

x1798DE 12y ago
I'm not sure why you think this dystopian vision you have wouldn't be horrible. It would have massive chilling effects on nearly everyone's behavior, since it would be incredibly efficient to seek out and socially punish anyone with transgressive viewpoints. Protecting your privacy is worth it, and despite what you think, there are strategies that are likely to help protect quite a bit of it, if the impetus becomes strong enough.
JadeNB 12y ago
> After that happens, we should hopefully then feel okay about sharing that personal information publicly. Setting aside how comfortable I feel with the rest of your suggestion (I don't), this seems to miss a fundamental point: part of the reason that some information needs to be private is that it is how you authenticate yourself. In a world where you can easily get your welfare check, and where everyone else knows all relevant information about you, how do you stop someone else from getting your welfare check? (For the near future, anyway, presumably a physical presence will trump any information-based authentication; but having to be physically present for these transactions seems like it would erase the very convenience that is your goal.)
- debt 12y ago
  In the movie There Will Be Blood a stranger shows up to Daniel Plainview's doorstep pretending to be his half-brother. The stranger relates some story about their childhood together and that's enough to convince Plainview of the stranger's identity(which isn't his actual identity) and relation(half-brother) to Plainview. It's false of course, and Daniel isn't happy when he finds out. But it's interesting comment on the times they lived in. There was no LinkedIn or FB or even a Driver's License for that matter to verify someone was who they said they were. Regardless, I really don't know how you actually identify someone. Likely, as you say, physically being present(retina scan, fingerprinting, both?). You raise an interesting philosophical question; that is, what is identity?
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    >Regardless, I really don't know how you actually identify someone. Likely, as you say, physically being present(retina scan, fingerprinting, both?). You raise an interesting philosophical question; that is, what is identity? It's not really a philosophical question being raised. The question of identity is always, "Is the person trying to authenticate the same person as someone with whom I have some relationship?" Online, you set up a username and password, and the presumption is that any person with that username and password is the same person who set up the account. If you want to prove your "real" identity, you're basically doing the same thing, but you're instead trying to prove that you're the same person as the one who was awarded your driver's license, or the same person whose birth is certified by your birth certificate.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Not that I'm a fan, but here in Portugal we're all issued national ID cards with a private asymmetric key (ISO 7816), with which you can authenticate both offline and online. Technically, it's still hidden information, but it's not about you, just happens to be linked to you. Replacing the card requires physical presence, of course.
egypturnash 12y ago
Yes, it's very definitely an unpopular idea. Having all of this available will be great for people who want to find people... like, say, your violent ex, or an oppressive regime.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Or an ex finding an estranged partner and killing them - I worked at a telecoms company where this actually happened some one got a mate to look up his ex's new address/phone number and killed her. Which is why at least in BT senior developers on some systems had TS clearance.
joesmo 12y ago
> We as a society need to first trust a large entity That's just not going to happen. Large entities are run by people who are inherently trustworthy. This is why there's a need for privacy. I don't want to be judged on my heart rate, physical ailments, preferred music, or any of the million other items you'd like to be public. I don't think you have any idea what harm revealing such information might cause. Say I'm gay and living in some backwards town in the south. Would I want my neighbors to find out so they can tie me up to a pickup truck and drag me to death? This is just one of infinite possibilities for harm resulting in all data being accessible. Your proposal is absolutely ludicrous.
- debt 12y ago
  Remember that the reverse would be true as well though. I could easily vet all the crazies out of a particular area. "This guy is a homophobe, this guy is racist, this guy a violent white supremacist as of July 15 2014. So I won't move into that neighborhood." A person who fears for life due to their personal identity probably would be a bit adept at vetting potentially dangerous areas.
  - deong 12y ago
    And if you're oh, say an atheist in a place like Pakistan, you do what exactly...look online to see that there's quite literally no where for you to go, have a nice glass of wine, and wait for your violent death? For that matter, whatever gave you the idea that most people get to choose what neighborhood they're going to live in? Poor people pretty often live wherever fate deposited them. The whole idea reminds of a joke Bill Maher made during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, the gist of which was George Bush saying something to Cheney like, "I don't understand what all those people are still doing in the Superdome. Why don't they get in their SUVs and drive to their summer homes?"
    - selimthegrim 12y ago
      Atheism as such isn't usually such a big deal in Pakistan, what gets people's goat is the whole insulting Mohammad thing. In practice people usually leave atheists alone. But yes, I see your point.
gnopgnip 12y ago
Would you be ok with being paying more for healthcare because you ate a candybar for lunch?
- 300bps 12y ago
  In a shared resource like health insurance, you either pay for your actions or the actions of others. If you're a health conscious person that only eats healthy food, gets 8 hours if sleep every night and participates in moderate exercise, you're paying the same premium as someone who scarfs down junk food, sleeps 3 hours per night and never exercises. Maybe if there were a surcharge for every unhealthful thing, people would choose to be healthier and healthcare costs would actually come down.
  - aikah 12y ago
    > Maybe if there were a surcharge for every unhealthful thing, people would choose to be healthier and healthcare costs would actually come down. yeah,and why not a mandatory rfid chip so they can monitor your health in realtime and adjust your premium,hey?. And you are driving ? you're then more likely to have an accident so your insurance should go up.Watching TV on the sofa instead of running? not healthy! Here you pay 10% more. Running? it's not unlikely you get a heart attack, what about 5% more? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
    - nilsbunger 12y ago
      Such name calling is uncalled for on a well- meaning comment that you disagree with. And in broad strokes the concept is sound - Why should I pay for others' bad habits? I'm much more sympathetic to things you can't control (and admittedly there is a gray zone in between). The example that really bugs me is federally backed flood insurance. People build homes in places that aren't safe, and then taxpayers bail them out. Moral hazard.
      - davedx 12y ago
        > The example that really bugs me is federally backed flood insurance. People build homes in places that aren't safe, and then taxpayers bail them out. Moral hazard. Hah. So, I live in the Netherlands. Do you think that everybody who lives here should move to Belgium or Germany then, given the flooding hazard here? Are the Delta Works projects a huge waste of tax payer's money? Or is it different when your entire country is at flood risk?
annnnd 12y ago
+1 for you - not because I agree with you, but because downvote on HN shouldn't be used to express disagreement.

by debt 12y ago

x1798DE 12y ago

I'm not sure why you think this dystopian vision you have wouldn't be horrible. It would have massive chilling effects on nearly everyone's behavior, since it would be incredibly efficient to seek out and socially punish anyone with transgressive viewpoints. Protecting your privacy is worth it, and despite what you think, there are strategies that are likely to help protect quite a bit of it, if the impetus becomes strong enough.

JadeNB 12y ago

> After that happens, we should hopefully then feel okay about sharing that personal information publicly. Setting aside how comfortable I feel with the rest of your suggestion (I don't), this seems to miss a fundamental point: part of the reason that some information needs to be private is that it is how you authenticate yourself. In a world where you can easily get your welfare check, and where everyone else knows all relevant information about you, how do you stop someone else from getting your welfare check? (For the near future, anyway, presumably a physical presence will trump any information-based authentication; but having to be physically present for these transactions seems like it would erase the very convenience that is your goal.)

debt 12y ago
In the movie There Will Be Blood a stranger shows up to Daniel Plainview's doorstep pretending to be his half-brother. The stranger relates some story about their childhood together and that's enough to convince Plainview of the stranger's identity(which isn't his actual identity) and relation(half-brother) to Plainview. It's false of course, and Daniel isn't happy when he finds out. But it's interesting comment on the times they lived in. There was no LinkedIn or FB or even a Driver's License for that matter to verify someone was who they said they were. Regardless, I really don't know how you actually identify someone. Likely, as you say, physically being present(retina scan, fingerprinting, both?). You raise an interesting philosophical question; that is, what is identity?
- x1798DE 12y ago
  >Regardless, I really don't know how you actually identify someone. Likely, as you say, physically being present(retina scan, fingerprinting, both?). You raise an interesting philosophical question; that is, what is identity? It's not really a philosophical question being raised. The question of identity is always, "Is the person trying to authenticate the same person as someone with whom I have some relationship?" Online, you set up a username and password, and the presumption is that any person with that username and password is the same person who set up the account. If you want to prove your "real" identity, you're basically doing the same thing, but you're instead trying to prove that you're the same person as the one who was awarded your driver's license, or the same person whose birth is certified by your birth certificate.
icebraining 12y ago
Not that I'm a fan, but here in Portugal we're all issued national ID cards with a private asymmetric key (ISO 7816), with which you can authenticate both offline and online. Technically, it's still hidden information, but it's not about you, just happens to be linked to you. Replacing the card requires physical presence, of course.

egypturnash 12y ago

Yes, it's very definitely an unpopular idea. Having all of this available will be great for people who want to find people... like, say, your violent ex, or an oppressive regime.

walshemj 12y ago
Or an ex finding an estranged partner and killing them - I worked at a telecoms company where this actually happened some one got a mate to look up his ex's new address/phone number and killed her. Which is why at least in BT senior developers on some systems had TS clearance.

joesmo 12y ago

> We as a society need to first trust a large entity That's just not going to happen. Large entities are run by people who are inherently trustworthy. This is why there's a need for privacy. I don't want to be judged on my heart rate, physical ailments, preferred music, or any of the million other items you'd like to be public. I don't think you have any idea what harm revealing such information might cause. Say I'm gay and living in some backwards town in the south. Would I want my neighbors to find out so they can tie me up to a pickup truck and drag me to death? This is just one of infinite possibilities for harm resulting in all data being accessible. Your proposal is absolutely ludicrous.

debt 12y ago
Remember that the reverse would be true as well though. I could easily vet all the crazies out of a particular area. "This guy is a homophobe, this guy is racist, this guy a violent white supremacist as of July 15 2014. So I won't move into that neighborhood." A person who fears for life due to their personal identity probably would be a bit adept at vetting potentially dangerous areas.
- deong 12y ago
  And if you're oh, say an atheist in a place like Pakistan, you do what exactly...look online to see that there's quite literally no where for you to go, have a nice glass of wine, and wait for your violent death? For that matter, whatever gave you the idea that most people get to choose what neighborhood they're going to live in? Poor people pretty often live wherever fate deposited them. The whole idea reminds of a joke Bill Maher made during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, the gist of which was George Bush saying something to Cheney like, "I don't understand what all those people are still doing in the Superdome. Why don't they get in their SUVs and drive to their summer homes?"
  - selimthegrim 12y ago
    Atheism as such isn't usually such a big deal in Pakistan, what gets people's goat is the whole insulting Mohammad thing. In practice people usually leave atheists alone. But yes, I see your point.

gnopgnip 12y ago

Would you be ok with being paying more for healthcare because you ate a candybar for lunch?

300bps 12y ago
In a shared resource like health insurance, you either pay for your actions or the actions of others. If you're a health conscious person that only eats healthy food, gets 8 hours if sleep every night and participates in moderate exercise, you're paying the same premium as someone who scarfs down junk food, sleeps 3 hours per night and never exercises. Maybe if there were a surcharge for every unhealthful thing, people would choose to be healthier and healthcare costs would actually come down.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Maybe if there were a surcharge for every unhealthful thing, people would choose to be healthier and healthcare costs would actually come down. yeah,and why not a mandatory rfid chip so they can monitor your health in realtime and adjust your premium,hey?. And you are driving ? you're then more likely to have an accident so your insurance should go up.Watching TV on the sofa instead of running? not healthy! Here you pay 10% more. Running? it's not unlikely you get a heart attack, what about 5% more? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
  - nilsbunger 12y ago
    Such name calling is uncalled for on a well- meaning comment that you disagree with. And in broad strokes the concept is sound - Why should I pay for others' bad habits? I'm much more sympathetic to things you can't control (and admittedly there is a gray zone in between). The example that really bugs me is federally backed flood insurance. People build homes in places that aren't safe, and then taxpayers bail them out. Moral hazard.
    - davedx 12y ago
      > The example that really bugs me is federally backed flood insurance. People build homes in places that aren't safe, and then taxpayers bail them out. Moral hazard. Hah. So, I live in the Netherlands. Do you think that everybody who lives here should move to Belgium or Germany then, given the flooding hazard here? Are the Delta Works projects a huge waste of tax payer's money? Or is it different when your entire country is at flood risk?

annnnd 12y ago

+1 for you - not because I agree with you, but because downvote on HN shouldn't be used to express disagreement.