[lifeisstillgood]

Secrets are real (and hard to keep), but privacy is just the politeness of your neighbours.

We should never confuse the two - people seem to think that a right to privacy means a right to secrecy. It does not and never can. People have behaved badly enough with so called online anonymity.

We will have our entire lives stripped bare and laid out on a digital plate - this will enable an incredible outpouring of new lessons, psychological, criminal, mental health and happiness - if we treat it right. If we give individuals control over who can use their information, if we ensure PII is treated like a lawyer treats their clients confessions, that epidemiology can get what advertisers never can, we shall find that it’s not “no-one can ever know” but “health researchers can know, but I would rather my employer does not and I hope my friends understand”

We spend 20 years training children as to what is and is not acceptable in polite society - and it’s going to take a generation to figure this new set of etiquette out - but I am betting the juice is worth the squeeze

Edit: in short, it’s not the data that’s collected, it’s who uses it and how. Focus on that.

[em-bee]

it’s not the data that’s collected, it’s who uses it and how

any data that is being collected is at risk from being misused. only data that is not collected is safe. until we are able to fully protect data from misuse (which i believe is impossible), it is better to not collect data in the first place.

[lifeisstillgood]

We either live in a society with laws that can protect us or we don’t.

If we don’t believe in our society, if we need to carry guns all the time to protect us from the anarchy, it is of course really hard to believe we can build enough protections to prevent retargeted adverts.

[em-bee]

it is of course really hard to believe we can build enough protections to prevent retargeted adverts

and that's the issue. now what is easier to enforce? banning of targeted ads? or banning of collection of data?

laws can not protect us from everything. because if they did we'd loose all of our freedom. laws need to focus on protecting us from things from which we can't protect ourselves. that is already difficult enough to decide.

[lifeisstillgood]

Sorry that was sarcasm. We can easily build laws that stop adverts in our Facebook stream. Hell those laws are basically “duck duck go”.

We don’t need a lot of laws for data privacy, it’s mostly making looking at someone’s data a bit like looking at bodily fluids - socially unacceptable unless under certain circumstances

[em-bee]

we can stop ads, but i don't believe we could stop only targeted ads because then we'd have to prove that they are targeted. that's way to hard except for extreme cases (like the infamous ads for a pregnant girl)

but ads are not the only problem. we'd also need severe, and i mean bankrupting a company severe punishment for data breaches if we want to get companies to keep our data secure.

in a very advanced future where tech is so advanced that anyone can easily scan a planet to get the data they want, punishment for the abuse of data is the only option. but until then, i think we are better off to simply prevent the collection of data in the first place.

[southernplaces7]

No friend, it's also absolutely the data that's collected and how it could changeably be used for good or bad and vice versa at a whim down the road. If modern times have taught us anything it's that centralized troves of data almost inevitably get leaked and misused sooner or later. You're ridiculously naive if you trust anyone with that kind of information no matter how nicely they presented their reasons for wanting it.

I don't give a damn how wholesomely the reasons for stripping one's ability to be private and anonymous are couched, they should be no excuse for actually applying such a magnifying glass to human lives en masse.

[n1b]

Individuals do have a right to privacy and, by extension, secrecy. You are not entitled to information others do not want you to have, no matter how well-intentioned or well-resourced you are.

The only sort of society where your view should be acceptable is a society where every individual accepts their every thought and action is observed equally by all other complicit individuals.

[Cthulhu_]

> You are not entitled to information others do not want you to have, no matter how well-intentioned or well-resourced you are.

Counterpoint: taxes. By living in a country, you are subject to their laws. Said laws require you to pay taxes on things like income and property. I'm aware this is attempted to be kept secret at a large scale, but when it comes down to it, by living in a country you agree to submit or have collected that information to the responsible authority.

[lifeisstillgood]

No. We build our societies to be as beneficial for us whilst accepting the compromises.

Cars are waaaay better than horses. So now we have systems of licensing, proving you are capable of driving safely, ways to track your car ensure it is driven safely - perhaps originally if a police officer saw you and now every minute of the day we can see if you are speeding or potentially dangerous

We did all this over time, but the current system woukd give Sherlock Holmes a heart attack.

But we had to find ways for millions and millions to live on top of each other - it is not perfect and can be improved - and should be done with care.

[em-bee]

so we collect the data that is needed to track cars. but that doesn't mean we should just allow the collection of all data. the collection of data must server a purpose where the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual. this must be proven on a case by case basis.

so for example it is not necessary to track the route you take with your car, or who is inside, in order to find out if you are speeding. speed can be measured anonymously, and only when you break the speed limit, the camera saves the recording, scans the license place and identifies the owner/driver of the car. there is no need to collect any data on cars that are not speeding.

[fragmede]

It's pretty easy to find the sex offenders in my area through online registries. I can imagine that is information the sex offenders don't want me to have. Not sure what conspiracy this makes me complicit in though. Maybe you can enlighten me.

[n1b]

If we want a society where all humans are equal, my point still stands. I am imagining a future society that fulfills its obligation to equality among all its members. Perfect openness is the only solution.

In your sex offender example, the sex offender would still be allowed to maintain their secrecy, but they would forgo their right to observe the thoughts or actions of those members who are completely open.