[0xCMP]

No, you make the data collection illegal and with liability like it appears Canada already did hence why this company is in trouble with regulators.

Data should be legally made in to toxic waste we all know it should be treated as.

[imgabe]

Again, if the worry is about a corrupt and hostile government, I fail to see what making it illegal accomplishes. Who do you think the regulators are?

Yes, regulation is great with a just and fair government. If the government can't be trusted, then neither can the regulations. If we can't trust the government, then we need to replace it with one we can trust.

[b112]

This is not a binary thing.

It is not "the government is corrupt, therefore all is pointless". Instead, there are scenarios such as:

- the government is comprised of people, running different departments - those people seem to think they are doing things for the common good - courts determine otherwise, and point to laws passed by legislative bodies as validation - activity stops

"Spy agencies", and "policing agencies" are constantly under these checks and balances. Cases are thrown out, individual careers are axed, when warrants are not used when they should, for example, when searching homes.

Without the laws, and court cases as they are, then the police would simply enter without those warrants, get convictions, and carry on very happy with themselves.

The real problem here is that technology grows so very fast, and that the world is changing quite rapidly. Don't even get me started on bio-tech, or near-Earth space changes over the next decade. Or Interplanetary law!

Legislative bodies, and law, are literally meant to deal with things over the course of decades or more. Legislative bodies tend to sit for 4 years or more! Change is slower, and of course, we like slower change for many things.

But this means that laws much 'catch up' to faster moving change.

Hell just crafting a law, going through the committees, hearing from experts, at least in Canada, then crafting the law, reading it in both houses, and more experts can take more than a year or two.

And that's after the will is in place to enact change.

This is part of the reason I deem the executive branch as having value, but, that is another discussion.

All said, I fear governments with this power most, and private corps next. One law takes care of both of these scenarios.

Lastly?

Never ignore the interest in something. Any old horse trader will tell you, if everyone clamours for something, it has immense value!

Knowing if I farted last week on Tuesday, is of immense information to everyone. Wha? Yet it is! And if it is of such value, if everyone climbs over each other to get that data, to hold it exclusively, to sell it, trade it, there is likely some import to such things.

If this info is so insanely valuable, then shouldn't the creator control it? Control what happens to it?

We have copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and even things like labour laws, acts to protect safety!

The entire purpose of law, is to protect "my stuff" from "that other guy". My life. My belongings. My health.

Yet this? This is all just "OK"?

The current laws surrounding data, are like period of times before labour laws, before human rights legislation, before food safety acts, and on and on.

This period of time is ending. Legislative bodies are catching up.

The question is, what will happen during the transformative period, where law catches up, and passes more and more laws about personal privacy, and control over personal data?

[imgabe]

> The entire purpose of law, is to protect "my stuff" from "that other guy". My life. My belongings. My health.

If someone sees you in public, does the fact that they see you belong to you or them?

This is important. If you see me, does your memory of seeing me belong to me? Can you own memories inside someone else's brain?

Personally, I think not.

To some extent, your appearance in a public place does not constitute "your stuff".

Yes, your health and safety should be protected. Someone seeing you in public is not, in and of itself, a threat to your health or safety.

If you go out in public, you must come to terms with the fact that other people can see you.

[b112]

Yet that's not what's happening.

What's happening is, effectively, stalking. Stalking laws exist, even if the person is following another in public.

There are limits, you see.

Further, as others have eluded to, this is not about "a person seeing another person". Instead, this is about:

- a non-entity, a device, 'watching' you - exporting that data from the locality it was taken in - storing that information forever, if desired - also scanning you directly, looking for RF signals

To claim that "a person seeing you walking down the street" is the same as this, is not valid.

For example, "stalking" entails following a person, where ever they go.

What else is all of this surveillance, if not 'following' a person where ever they go? And in most legal jurisdictions, this is a crime.

Try this same behaviour as a person? And individual? Follow a person where ever they go, take notes, never leave them alone? Bam! Stalking.

But because it's a corporation doing it, that's OK I suppose?

You keep trying to say that "a person seeing you in public" is the same as "mass surveillance being leveled against you".

It's not. Full stop.

So why not discuss this as it truly is? Please stop this conflation.

[imgabe]

Because it's not a single entity following you around from place to place. Each place is keeping it's own records.

If you go to Joe's house and Joe makes a note that you came to his house, then you go to Bob's house and Bob makes a note that you came to his house, nobody is stalking you. Each individual is keeping track of who visits them. That is not stalking.

Yes, maybe later on, the government or someone else could come along and ask to see each person's records of who visited them. But that is their information to share or not share. You went to their place! If someone comes into your place of business or residence, does the record of that person visiting you not belong at least partially to you? Are you not allowed to keep track of who enters your own property?

[shoemakersteve]

I think I see where you're coming from, in that you're allowed to have knowledge of other people, and most of the time it's perfectly innocuous. But I don't think that's a very fair comparison. There's a pretty big difference between just happening upon some information (that you would likely immediately forget because it's not important), and actively seeking out and extracting information, often combining it with more information from different sources, saving it to a "profile" associated with you, and often sharing it with third parties, all without your knowledge or consent.

You seem to be implying that there's no difference between having a single piece of harmless information about someone, and having lots of personal and/or intimate knowledge of them, especially if they aren't the ones having given it to you, and even more so if you're strangers.

[b112]

Courts, laws, judges look at the end game. They often do not care about hand waving, distracting red-herring type logic.

This is how you get torrent sites taken down, even though they host absolutely nothing. Intent, you see, is key.

And what is the intent of all of this data collection? Is it to just randomly, happen-stance note someone in passing?

Or is it a dedicated, planned, targeted collection of data on individuals?

What is the purpose of the data collection? Hmm?

This is what counts.

[bsenftner]

This. Truth.

[kapuasuite]

> Data should be legally made in to toxic waste we all know it should be treated as.

The vast majority of people do not care about privacy though, at least not to the extent that “tech” people seem to.