[ajb]

Yes, but this is preaching to the choir.

The counter must be as visceral is the claim. They make an emotional pitch:your children are in danger, surveillance is the solution. The counter must show the dangers in visceral, emotionally relevant way. This surveillance is actually a risk to parents and children as well - that by the accusation of an opaque, unaccountable system, you will be labelled a pedophile, and your kids taken away. That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.

Abstractions like privacy,and categorical claims, aren't going to reverse this. A properly pitched campaign could do. Sure, complain that politicians and the public are dumb. That may make you feel better but it won't change this an iota. Talking to people in the terms they care about might.

[lifeisstillgood]

>>> That when sharing a picture of your own child with your own mother, you will have to worry about what the electronic bureaucracy will label your picture as.

I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach

However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.

Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.

[ajb]

That's all very well, but we just plain don't have a legal, economic, or technical system which will allow separation of the good uses from the bad uses. Once data is in someone else's possession, there's f-all way to prevent it being used to do whatever the possessor wants. Even if there is a legal agreement, it's easily abrogated, or overridden by insolvency law, or by a company having a "we can update our terms" clause. Some of this I can imagine how to address - insolvency law could be changed, for example - but in the absence of a fully robust system, promises of "we will only use your data for good" are not credible. Those who actually want to use data for good should be on the side of robust assurance of that, not just plead that they can be trusted and that no accountability is needed.

[lifeisstillgood]

It’s hard to enforce a law so we should not have the law seems a poor argument.

Let’s say we define personal data about, generated by or inferred from the actions of a natural person as owned by the society as a whole. And misuse is liable to 5% of annual turnover. It’s more or less GDPR. That seems viable - and I am sure an army of class action lawyers will be happy to help out

(Ok I need to work on a better proposal but I think this is more doable than you are allowing for)

[ajb]

I don't think we necessarily disagree. I am pessimistic about laws being effective in this case, but that doesn't mean we should not try to find ones that are. I like your idea. Thinking and trials in that direction would be good.

Data using organisations often seem to prefer fig-leaf laws that aren't effective, and lobby against ones that might be effective. "My data use is a good use, therefore I should not be subject to restrictions and oversight". Instead, anyone with a use of data which is valuable to the public should not see themselves as on the same side as the advertisers and surveillance vendors. They should see themselves as on the opposite side.

[varispeed]

Don't forget all the pedos working for government to watch all the reported images.

[mysterium]

Characterising people who analyse reprehensible material in order to try to save children from abuse as “pedos working for government to watch all the reported images” is, quite frankly, disgusting.

[trumpdong]

Reminds me of every single Chris Hansen victim who claims they heard a child was in danger and came to save her.