[eternityforest]

Well, I sure don't ever want to losing half my day to forgetting things, being constantly lost, and losing my keys and wallet constantly.

As far as effects on me, getting rid of modern tech would already be getting close to the authoritarian nightmare they talk about, far more than basically any of the laws other people complain about.

If the effects are harmful enough to regulate, it's the same kind of conversation as cigarettes and gas engines and a million other things that we put varying levels of restrictions on but don't ban.

Going after spy tech with more force than we go after everything else just seems like government enforced luddism.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< Going after spy tech with more force than we go after everything else just seems like government enforced luddism.

You do have a point especially if I examine my thoughts on cigarettes, alcohol and so on to determine what makes spy tech more of a target in my life. I think the difference is that even without regulations and restrictions, I can escape both cigarettes, gas engines and so on if I so choose.

With spy tech, even if I take just about every step there is to take, even full blown luddism does not get me the world that was. These days, being a private person takes real money ( vide FB Zuckerberg buying property to ensure privacy on his real estate ).

You do have a point nonetheless, which brings me to this: what is an acceptable restriction on it to you?

[eternityforest]

I'm not actually sure what the "maximum viable policy" would be for me. While privacy is a right, so is free speech and observation. Even something like "You can't spy whatsoever without consent" goes too far, because CCTV cameras are important, and legalizing secret recordings could deter many kinds of abuse.

One thing that definitely seems uncontroversial is protection for spaces that have an expectation of privacy. Obviously no democratic state has any business allowing AirBNB bathroom cameras, since basically nobody aside from criminals wants that to exist, and by extension any space that specifically claims to be private should have the same protection.

Requiring a "Facebook moderators may access these chat logs under some conditions" notice at the beginning of everything someone might otherwise think was private seems reasonable.

What I have more of an issue with is defining new spaces with that expectation.

The government should probably have stricter rules than everyone else on privacy, since they are the main group who both can and possibly might want to actually make use of data to harm an average person.

Digital search warrants and subpoenas have solved real problems, so I wouldn't want to get rid of those entirely, but there could be a central logging facility where you can get access to any data they have on you, get notified instantly (Or within a time limit that expires if you are arrested, if there's a need to temporarily seal it to prevent tipping off a murderer) of any new accesses, and appeal the decision that allowed them to access it, so they can't just rubber stamp give it to everyone without any transparency.

Encryption should be permanently made a right, along with anonymity networks like Tor, and Cryptocurrency in general(Although maybe not proof of work, and I sure wouldn't want to become an everyday thing we all have to deal with).

The big problem with spying is that it's just observing people and telling others what you saw, you can't fully eliminate spying without eliminating an important part of free speech.

In general, the GDPR seems to get things mostly right, but I still think the best solution is actually having private alternatives people actually would use by choice, and making sure those are legally protected.