Comment by max76 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by max76 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Did data ownership ever work like that in the physical world?

Insider trading is a crime in which someone takes an action based on data they had no right to. (Trading on corporate secrets, or data that belongs to the corporation and not the individual profiting.)

If a student finds a copy of the answers to a test, even if the student finds the data in a completely legitimate way, it is considered academically dishonest for the student to take the test after learning this information.

In many games learning certain information is considered cheating. For example, in Poker it is cheating to know another players cards expect after a player folds and chooses to show their cards.

Until very recently it was illegal to make a copy of "Happy Birthday" in the form of a live performance at restaurants in the United States.

Yes, in the real world data has owners and it can be illegal/restricted to provide copies of the data or to perform certain actions with the data.

Nice examples, yes.

I hope I didn't come across as someone from the if-you-don't-have-anything-to-hide crowd.

I do think your conclusion is a bit quick, though.

> Yes, in the real world data has owners

Things happen in the real world, and people perceive and know it as a consequence. We came to call some of that data (if recorded with machines I guess).

We wouldn't think of perceptions in terms of ownership. It just wouldn't work. We don't have a response for intrusion, e.g. If someone catches us in the act, there's just no protocol. We often just pretend it didn't happen, and are embarrassed. You can't unsee it, or punish someone for seeing something private.

We can throw them out of our house, if they trespass. But if they see you through the window, what do we do?

My point earlier was only: ownership as an analogy for data is not as helpful as some think it is.

But if you stick with ownership, you possibly end with making very strict rules around personally identifiable information (PIN), like in Europe. Some of that ends in log files, like IPs. I think that is a bit like walking by and peeking into a shop window. The shop owner might see you too (perception). Why is that the shoppers protected information? I think it's rigid and comes from off analogies. That's not to say some data doesn't need to be private.

In the end, when this cultural development is further along the way, we might have very specific rules. Like with books, and movies, which have fair-use rules etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com