5 ms·

The Potemkinism of Privacy Pragmatism

24 points by willvarfar 12y ago

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
There needs to be restrictions on both, conceptually. Actual implementation is yet to be proposed. Relying purely on data usage reform is a pipe dream, just as the ideal of having an intelligence agency that works completely within the framework of law. It didn't work for the Church Committee, and the whole point of an intelligence agency is that it will do borderline or outright illegal acts (black bag operations, disinformation, psyops, etc.) to further state interests. Almost inevitably, this includes domestic surveillance, which the USA has been conducting en masse since at least 1945.
qwerta 12y ago
Europe (Czech) already has several limitations, and it works well. It is illegal to cross reference some database and so on. But limitations usually apply only to commercial companies, state agencies have several exceptions. What I really miss are limitations on government usage of data. We already have: * national medical registry (with all prescription purchases), * public transport ID cards, * bank history and financial records, * cell phone location history (tower based +-1 mile), * phone calls registry... And 2% of population have unrestricted access to all of this. In theory you need court permission, but in practice it is just a few key strokes away...
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
The foundation of good privacy regulation is the definition of ownership. All data about you belongs to you, no matter who collected it why and how. If you don't own your data, you don't have any privacy. Yes, that is very hard to properly regulate, leaves a lot of fair use grey areas and with the rapid pace of technologies leads to hastily created regulation like the "cookie-law" or the right-to-be-forgotten. (Although in both cases the industry deliberately made a circus of the implementation, and especially the latter is now backfiring hard on Google.) But the bottom line is, if the law doesn't recognize your fundamental ownership of your data, you have no privacy and you never will, no matter what other forms of legislation and self-regulation get implemented in the areas of collecting and using that data. The US is one of the few Western democracies that doesn't recognize this fundamental aspect of privacy, and in the information age, that makes any form of privacy regulation a complete joke. Step one should be to put the individual in control of their data at any time. If people are not informed about what happens to their data if and when it happens and are not in a position to stop it, they've already lost their privacy. Privacy should not be a faux "right" like copyright, something you can just sign away for someone else to exploit. It's a fundamental civil right, and without it we have no freedom.
anon4 12y ago
Each time I read that I'm reminded of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes can look at a person and tell you everything about them by just deducing facts from observable facts and cross-referencing what he knows. He can do that, because he's exceptionally smart and knowledgeable, neither of which is illegal - you can't forbid people from being smart and knowing things. Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind, so I feel very much against outlawing a method of doing something, which would not be illegal if you could do it by being exceptionally smart. Still, I really don't want corporations to have such power over people. The difference between Sherlock Holmes deducing that I usually ride a bicycle to work and a computer system deducing that, is that the computer system then proceeds absolutely automatically to spam me with offers about bike safety gear and indiscriminately shares that information with third parties. So perhaps the answer here is not to outright outlaw data collection, but to find a model where there is someone personally responsible for your data that will safeguard it and make sure it's not misused. Imagine a data bank institution, which collects and stores your data and then only allows a very limited access to it to certain parties. You sign up with a databank and pay a monthly fee for your account. Then, whoever wants to collect data from you uploads it to the databank's servers, never stores it locally, and you have full access to it. Each party that collects data on you can access all the data they have stored on the databank's servers, but not the data of some other party, without your permission, and you can always revoke sharing rights or just disallow someone to store data about you, effectively turning off data collection for them. It might also be a good idea to disallow parties that upload data to a databank to compute locally with that data. That is, if someone wants to perform some inference on the data they've collected, they upload a program to the databank, the databank runs it on their servers, subject to access controls that you can modify, and then they get back the results of that computation. In this model you're the one paying for the safety of your data and the people keeping it are making money not from giving it away, but from keeping it safe. And you can't keep people's personal data without being a registered and regulated databank. So next time you sign up for a Target card, you give them your databank account number and have full control over your own data.
- djulius 12y ago
  "Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind" To you, just to you, really.

24 points by willvarfar 12y ago

There needs to be restrictions on both, conceptually. Actual implementation is yet to be proposed. Relying purely on data usage reform is a pipe dream, just as the ideal of having an intelligence agency that works completely within the framework of law. It didn't work for the Church Committee, and the whole point of an intelligence agency is that it will do borderline or outright illegal acts (black bag operations, disinformation, psyops, etc.) to further state interests. Almost inevitably, this includes domestic surveillance, which the USA has been conducting en masse since at least 1945.

qwerta 12y ago

Europe (Czech) already has several limitations, and it works well. It is illegal to cross reference some database and so on. But limitations usually apply only to commercial companies, state agencies have several exceptions. What I really miss are limitations on government usage of data. We already have: * national medical registry (with all prescription purchases), * public transport ID cards, * bank history and financial records, * cell phone location history (tower based +-1 mile), * phone calls registry... And 2% of population have unrestricted access to all of this. In theory you need court permission, but in practice it is just a few key strokes away...

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

The foundation of good privacy regulation is the definition of ownership. All data about you belongs to you, no matter who collected it why and how. If you don't own your data, you don't have any privacy. Yes, that is very hard to properly regulate, leaves a lot of fair use grey areas and with the rapid pace of technologies leads to hastily created regulation like the "cookie-law" or the right-to-be-forgotten. (Although in both cases the industry deliberately made a circus of the implementation, and especially the latter is now backfiring hard on Google.) But the bottom line is, if the law doesn't recognize your fundamental ownership of your data, you have no privacy and you never will, no matter what other forms of legislation and self-regulation get implemented in the areas of collecting and using that data. The US is one of the few Western democracies that doesn't recognize this fundamental aspect of privacy, and in the information age, that makes any form of privacy regulation a complete joke. Step one should be to put the individual in control of their data at any time. If people are not informed about what happens to their data if and when it happens and are not in a position to stop it, they've already lost their privacy. Privacy should not be a faux "right" like copyright, something you can just sign away for someone else to exploit. It's a fundamental civil right, and without it we have no freedom.

anon4 12y ago

Each time I read that I'm reminded of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes can look at a person and tell you everything about them by just deducing facts from observable facts and cross-referencing what he knows. He can do that, because he's exceptionally smart and knowledgeable, neither of which is illegal - you can't forbid people from being smart and knowing things. Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind, so I feel very much against outlawing a method of doing something, which would not be illegal if you could do it by being exceptionally smart. Still, I really don't want corporations to have such power over people. The difference between Sherlock Holmes deducing that I usually ride a bicycle to work and a computer system deducing that, is that the computer system then proceeds absolutely automatically to spam me with offers about bike safety gear and indiscriminately shares that information with third parties. So perhaps the answer here is not to outright outlaw data collection, but to find a model where there is someone personally responsible for your data that will safeguard it and make sure it's not misused. Imagine a data bank institution, which collects and stores your data and then only allows a very limited access to it to certain parties. You sign up with a databank and pay a monthly fee for your account. Then, whoever wants to collect data from you uploads it to the databank's servers, never stores it locally, and you have full access to it. Each party that collects data on you can access all the data they have stored on the databank's servers, but not the data of some other party, without your permission, and you can always revoke sharing rights or just disallow someone to store data about you, effectively turning off data collection for them. It might also be a good idea to disallow parties that upload data to a databank to compute locally with that data. That is, if someone wants to perform some inference on the data they've collected, they upload a program to the databank, the databank runs it on their servers, subject to access controls that you can modify, and then they get back the results of that computation. In this model you're the one paying for the safety of your data and the people keeping it are making money not from giving it away, but from keeping it safe. And you can't keep people's personal data without being a registered and regulated databank. So next time you sign up for a Target card, you give them your databank account number and have full control over your own data.

djulius 12y ago
"Having a machine to do it for you, to me, is a natural extension of your mind" To you, just to you, really.