Hacker News Reader

Comment by gunian | Hacker News Reader

anyone ever want to drop the guise of privacy and have the surveillance is out in the open?

like real question that way they have the data and we have the data instead of we pretend they don't have the data in the name of privacy but they have the data

View on HN

No, because it'd be incredibly dangerous to me to have all these groups storing data about me and allowing them to determine my comings and goings.

You may think 'we're only using it for advertising', but I don't trust you and I can't. I don't want you to obtain information about my political views, or how they differ from what I say on the internet, or who I talk to about maths, or where I buy food.

> You may think 'we're only using it for advertising', but I don't trust you and I can't.

We already know that the data companies collect isn't only being used for ads, if not by the company that collects then by others who get access to that data either through sale or not. For example, Lawyers are using that data in courtrooms for things like divorce and custody hearings, and police are using it to turn innocent people into suspects.

That's not what the EULAs that you have (probably, and if not, good on you) signed indicate...

A major problem is, that even if I don't click "agree" to EULAs, I have no idea if the companies think I did or not. Also, what prevents someone else from "agreeing" on my behalf without my permission; which apparently happens often when sales people set for their new owners (which I witnessed when I was with my mother when she purchased a new car).

What's consideration in EULA?

As I interpret I don't think Swedish consumer contract law allows what you describe to matter anyway, and since the GDPR requires free consent it becomes more dubious, so obvious dataintrång.

There is no such protection in the US, and I'd imagine some other non-EU states.

I'd love something akin to a Bill of Data Rights here in the the states similar to the GDPR, but there is no way oligarchs would allow such legislation to happen

This isn't data rights though, this is that the same law that prohibits people from hacking into your computer is applicable to people doing other things with it in unpermitted ways.

Basically, a program that exfiltrates data without permission is treated no different from a rootkit, legally.

I think you might have misunderstood my meaning. I don't mean a right to use my own data. I mean a right to actually own that data in the sense that others cannot collect and sell it without my consent and proper compensation based on revenue generated by the collector.

But then we're talking about website tracking, things like that, not actual exfiltration of stored data?

but they already do wouldn't you rather know what they have stored instead of pretend they don't have the data?

> anyone ever want to drop the guise of privacy and have the surveillance is out in the open?

An essay about such a society: https://web.archive.org/web/20030212145443/http%3A//www.wire...

There isn't an end to that, what is "all the data"? Someone will always want to record more data, and then sell it to someone. How do you force people to always reveal all the data they have. I think if you start peeling back the onion on what you're suggesting you will realize that it's not really possible or practical in any sense.

You deter them with risk that is too high for what they gain. For example, if consumers are awarded considerable fines for violations, then they would stop.

good point it does seem ambiguous in this context any data generated by me or any device I am using and any downstream data derived from that

why wouldn't this be possible? company x gives you y data and tells you we sold it to z and so on and you just follow the chain using some unique identifier

they sell the data openly and i get to see what they're selling win win legislation instead of annoying cookie banners

>anyone ever want to drop the guise of privacy and have the surveillance is out in the open?

No, because I have less than zero expectation that you all <points with middle fingers at HN comment section> won't happily be complicit in something that retroactively criminalizes me or otherwise screws me (and god knows how many other people, I'm fairly unremarkable) over on the basis that doing so is X% better for Y or where X is a small value and Y is a subject that is far from an existential issue for society. Society goes off on these boondoggles from time to time, eugenics, sticking the mentally ill in prisons but with pills, etc, etc and I don't want to see that sort of stuff cranked to 11 because the public tolerated a bunch of dragnet tech that serves as a force multiplier for unaccountable decision makers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com