Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamiequint | Hacker News Reader

Isn't your best choice when it comes to privacy to choose which services to use and which ones not to use, rather than relying on your government dictate rules they don't fully understand to companies which may put their entire business at risk?

In other words, in terms of things you care about absolute data privacy may be #1 on your list, others may be willing to accept less privacy for an internet that can continue to exist on an ad supported business model. Why should you have your way (enforced by the government) and others not get their way. We already have strong disclosure laws in both the US and Europe about data use, and at the end of the day it's your choice.

View on HN

As an individual who is concerned about their own privacy facing corporations with terabites of information, how can you hope finding out what happened to your data without gaining leverage through the government?

Read the Privacy Policy where in the US and EU companies are required by law to say how they're using your data.

So, relying on governments to dictate rules to protect us, in other words.

Disclosure laws impose minimum negative effects on the end-businesses that are required to provide them, while being simultaneously beneficial for consumers. I think they are a good balance and end up being a net positive for society.

A strictly libertarian viewpoint would say that no disclosure should be required and you should just choose to avoid any service that doesn't provide full disclosure. After all, it's their right to not provide that information to you and it's your right to not use that service as a result.

It's not as simple as choosing which service not to use - for example, people who have your details in their address book might inadvertently leak your data without your knowledge.

So while I agree that people should be free to trade privacy for other things like getting a free service, I do wish there are stronger regulations to protect people who choose to opt out. And better transparency on how your data is being used.

That argument basically distills to: someone I have a contract with might break the contract, so I think the government should either prevent them from creating that contract or should actively audit that the party I want to do a deal with is fulfilling their end of the deal. Why should this be the responsibility of legislators ex ante rather than the responsibility of the court system ex post facto?

You're suggesting a free market approach. "Just don't use the service if you don't like the terms". That's fine. But there should be limitations on what people can sign away. You cannot agree to work for below minimum wage, and you cannot sell yourself into slavery, and you cannot sign away your personal data rights.

Please define "personal data rights". Should Best Buy not be allowed to know that you shop there and send you targeted offers based on what you've bought in the past? Should a group of department stores not be allowed to share anonymized customer purchasing data with each other? Why should this one particular thing be banned and enforced (by force) on businesses by the government? Is it actively harming society? If so, how?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com