If you surrender your data, then you do not have any right over them. If you upload your photos to facebook, then facebook has them.
For public utility, it is fine to restrict the collection and usage of personal data. But for private corporations, the private individuals should be able to decide for themselves if giving a corporation access to your entire search history for wifi access at the coffee shop is worth it.
More and more we are getting forced to use services that spy on us. Cash is being phased out for credit cards and mobile payments. I can’t even pay for parking at my uni without installing their mobile app. We need laws to protect us from these companies because they are impossible to 100% avoid.
Not anymore… at least here where I live, Government is composed of people and people will have their own agendas which might not include protecting other people or even obeying the laws they’ve passed. I see government as an instrument of power, some will use this power to help society, others to accumulate wealth at the expense of society.
That is true but still, you can probably agree with me that when dealing with the real world, the creators intention has very little bearing in whatever usage people do of something. For example: the web was a way to share scientific hypertext and now we’re doing crazy stuff with it, or, tide pods were supposed to be used for laundry… governments, much like many other human creations happened over time, in different places, with different purposes. Monarchy is government but one can argue that historically it was not meant to protect people, dictatorships also work that way. We can say that the “platonic ideal of a pure and honest government” is to protect people but thats just us reasoning after the fact. There are no “letter of intention” about creation of government which all governments across time and space need to follow. What we perceived as “purpose” has very little meaning to what actually happens.
Personally, I find most interesting when things are not used accordingly to the creators intention, this creative appropriation of stuff by inventive users is at the same time what spurs a lot of cool stuff and what dooms us all, we here in Brazil have a moniker for it “Jeitinho Brasileiro” which could be translated as an affectionate version of “the brazilian way”. Everyone here is basically born in a fractal of stuff whose real world usage does not reflect its ideal purpose to the point that it is IMHO what makes us creative and cunning.
Monarchy is government but one can argue that historically it was not meant to protect people…
Well, monarchy was actually a simple protection racket. It enabled a significant growth of the agricultural society through stabilization of violent power — no raids, just taxes.
We can say that the “platonic ideal of a pure and honest government” is to protect people…
That’s unreasonable. Establishment of a democratic government is just a consensus seeking strategy of it’s electorate. A move from a simple racket to a rule of law that is a compromise of various interests.
In feudalism, people choose other people to follow. In democracy, people chose policies to enact. Both systems are very rough and fail in various ways, but democracy has evolved because it just makes more people a lot less unhappy than an erratic dictator ever can.
… people will have their own agendas which might not include protecting other people or even obeying the laws they’ve passed…
You seem to be alienated from the political process and perceive your government as something that is not actually yours to establish and control. That’s a very dangerous position for you to take, since government has a monopoly on violence. Of course others won’t take you automatically into consideration. That’s what you do every time you do virtually anything — you never take the full situation into account.
But you just can’t quite ditch the government… otherwise your neighbor might try building a nuclear reactor using whatever he got from the Russians, which is something you (and perhaps a few other neighbors) might be against. Then on the other hand, he might convince a few others that the energy will be worth it… so you meet up, decide on some rules that will need to be followed so as to prevent an armed conflict and in the end, some who originally opposed the project might even join it to ensure it’s safety and everyone will benefit from the produced energy.
Friend, lets agree to disagree. What you say do make sense, I am not saying you’re talking bullshit or anything like that, on the contrary, I find your arguments plausible and completely in tune with what I’ve learned at the university buuuuut my own country has been a monarchy, an “empire”, a monarchy again, a republic, a dictatorship, a republic again, an who knows what will happen before 2018 ends.
Our experience, is vastly different than what is explained above. I haven’t said we’re out of the political process, heck, I’ve organized demonstrations, helped parties I was aligned with, entered all the debates I could long ago, I was a manager for a social program, and am married to an investigative journalist. I am no stranger to political processes, but it is a very simplistic approach to say “(…) your government as something that is (…) yours to establish and control”, this sidesteps all the historical process of governments here and how the monopoly of violence is used by the powerful (which might or might not be actual government) with impunity on anyone who tries to pull government into a different path. Couple weeks ago, one of our councilwoman was executed by gunshots to her car (where a friend of mine was as well as she worked for her), killing our rising star politician, and the driver, and forever traumatizing my friend. I have tons of stories about people dying while trying to change things. Talking about the root of feudalism is meaningless to whatever is happening today. Today people die for defending human rights here (and elsewhere).
Academic and philosophical conversations about the nature and contracts of government are awesome but please, don’t think this shit is doable, lots of people here died trying to improve the lifes of others. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to a place like here, those conversations don’t really apply (we still have them though).
I do think it’s important for people to have the power to keep the government accountable. Without checks and balances the government looks after its own interests as opposed to those of its constituents.
@soapdog@yogthos@dz This is an interesting discussion for me (though not appropriate for lobste.rs). Any interest in discussing this together, say over email or something else. I’ve always wanted to discuss this topic of government vs individual corporations but it’s a complex subject and hard to keep devolving into a bar-fight.
Shouldn’t governments primariy govern? For whatever reason, but usually something along the lines of “the common good” or “to protect (individual) rights”? But sometimes sadly also in the interests of the more powerful in society…
Why do you believe that is the purpose of governments? Can you imagine a situation where something recognized as a government doesn’t protect it’s citizens in some cases?
Is the government supposed to protect you if you put your hand in a garbage disposal, slip in the shower, or attempt suicide?
They’re definitely there to protect us. However, they’re also their own separate entity. They’re also a group of ambitious, often-lying people with a variety of goals. They can get really off track. That’s why the folks that made the U.S. government warned its people needed to be vigilant about it to keep it in check. Then, its own agents keep the individuals or businesses in check. Each part does its thing with discrepencies corrected by one of the others hopefully quickly. The only part of this equation failing massively is the people who won’t get the scumbags in Congress under control. They keep allowing them to take bribes for laws or work against their own voters. Fixing that would get a lot of rest in line.
We have seen plenty of protection of individuals by laws, regulations, and courts, though. Especially whenever safety is involved. In coding, the segment with highest-quality software on average right now is probably group certifying to DO-178B for use in airplanes since it mandates lots of activities that reduce defects. They do it or they can’t sell it. The private sector’s solution to same problem was almost always to lie about safety while reducing liability with EULA’s or good legal teams. They didn’t produce a single, secure product until regulations showed up in Defense sector. For databases, that wasn’t until the 1990’s with just a few products priced exhorbitantly out of greed. Clearly, we need a mix of private and public action to solve some problems in the marketplace.
Governments shouldn’t impose speed limits, people should just drive at reasonably safe speeds.
Just because a particular behaviour might be most beneficial to a person, does not mean they will do it. Because consumers’ behaviour has not changed (and will not), this type of surveillance has proliferated to the point it’s nearly impossible to escape, even for the most dedicated privacy advocate.
Funny you should mention that…the setting of speed limits to drive revenue irrespective of actual engineering and human factors is pretty well documented at this point.
For public utility, it is fine to restrict the collection and usage of personal data. But for private corporations, the private individuals should be able to decide for themselves if giving a corporation access to your entire search history for wifi access at the coffee shop is worth it.
But that’s precisely what fails when dealing with Facebook et al, isn’t it?
No matter how assiduously you or I might refuse to sign up for Facebook and its ilk, block their tracking scripts, refuse to upload our photos, our text messages, our data – other people sign up for these things, and give these services permission to index their photos and text message logs etc, and Facebook builds a comprehensive shadow profile of you and I anyways.
There is no avoiding or opting out of this short of opting out of all human contact, at this point, and the “simple”-sounding solution of “let every individual decide for themselves!” completely fails to engage with the collective consequences that everyone is losing privacy regardless of what decision they make individually.
When your solution doesn’t engage with reality, it’s not useful.
The technology we use today is too complicated to understand all of it.
The entire field of engineering is predicated on being able to do things without understanding how they work. Ditto beer brewing, baking, cooking, and so forth.
That’s why generally everything needs to be safe by default.
Bathtubs are not safe by default. Kitchen knives are not safe by default. Fire is not safe by default. Even childbirth isn’t safe by default, and you’d think that would’ve been solved generations ago by evolution.
No citizen can foresee the effects of all their actions.
Then why would we trust policies enacted by a handful of citizens deemed able to create laws any more than individual citizens making their own decisions? That’s a far riskier proposition.
~
We can’t make the world safe for people that won’t learn how to be safe, and efforts to do so harm and inhibit everybody else.
The entire field of engineering is predicated on being able to do things without understanding how they work. Ditto beer brewing, baking, cooking, and so forth. … You can’t protect people from their own ignorance, long-term, except by education.
Try buying an oven that will spontaneously catch fire just by being on. It’s going to be complicated, because there are mandatory standards. And it’s a good thing they are this reliable, right? Leaves us time to concentrate on our work.
Then why would we trust policies enacted by a handful of citizens deemed able to create laws any more than individual citizens making their own decisions? That’s a far riskier proposition.
Because a lot of shouting from many sides went into the discussions before the laws were enacted. Much like you discuss your network infrastructure policies with your colleagues instead of just rewiring the DC as you see fit every once in a while.
The entire field of engineering is predicated on being able to do things without understanding how they work. Ditto beer brewing, baking, cooking, and so forth.
No.
Engineering is about finding solutions by using every bit of knowledge available.
Ignorance is an enemy to fight or work around, but for sure it’s not something to embrace!
That’s why generally everything needs to be safe by default.
Bathtubs are not safe by default. Kitchen knives are not safe by default. Fire is not safe by default. Even childbirth isn’t safe by default, and you’d think that would’ve been solved generations ago by evolution.
I agree that we should work to make programming a common knowledge, like reading and writing so that everyone can build his computing environment as she like.
And to those who say it’s impossible I’m used to object that they can read, write and count just because someone else, centuries before, said “no, it’s possible to spread this knowledge and we have the moral duty do spread it”.
But all your example are wrong.
They are ancient technologies and techniques that are way simpler than programming: humans have learnt to master them and teach each generation how to do so.
We have to protect people.
The states and laws can help, but the first shield of the people against the abusive use of technology are hackers.
We must spread our knowledge and ethics, not exploit the ignorance of others for a profit.
I disagree with Stallman here.
If you surrender your data, then you do not have any right over them. If you upload your photos to facebook, then facebook has them.
For public utility, it is fine to restrict the collection and usage of personal data. But for private corporations, the private individuals should be able to decide for themselves if giving a corporation access to your entire search history for wifi access at the coffee shop is worth it.
More and more we are getting forced to use services that spy on us. Cash is being phased out for credit cards and mobile payments. I can’t even pay for parking at my uni without installing their mobile app. We need laws to protect us from these companies because they are impossible to 100% avoid.
[Comment removed by author]
That is literally what governments are for.
Not anymore… at least here where I live, Government is composed of people and people will have their own agendas which might not include protecting other people or even obeying the laws they’ve passed. I see government as an instrument of power, some will use this power to help society, others to accumulate wealth at the expense of society.
What your particular government does and what the purpose of the government is are two separate topics.
That is true but still, you can probably agree with me that when dealing with the real world, the creators intention has very little bearing in whatever usage people do of something. For example: the web was a way to share scientific hypertext and now we’re doing crazy stuff with it, or, tide pods were supposed to be used for laundry… governments, much like many other human creations happened over time, in different places, with different purposes. Monarchy is government but one can argue that historically it was not meant to protect people, dictatorships also work that way. We can say that the “platonic ideal of a pure and honest government” is to protect people but thats just us reasoning after the fact. There are no “letter of intention” about creation of government which all governments across time and space need to follow. What we perceived as “purpose” has very little meaning to what actually happens.
Personally, I find most interesting when things are not used accordingly to the creators intention, this creative appropriation of stuff by inventive users is at the same time what spurs a lot of cool stuff and what dooms us all, we here in Brazil have a moniker for it “Jeitinho Brasileiro” which could be translated as an affectionate version of “the brazilian way”. Everyone here is basically born in a fractal of stuff whose real world usage does not reflect its ideal purpose to the point that it is IMHO what makes us creative and cunning.
Well, monarchy was actually a simple protection racket. It enabled a significant growth of the agricultural society through stabilization of violent power — no raids, just taxes.
That’s unreasonable. Establishment of a democratic government is just a consensus seeking strategy of it’s electorate. A move from a simple racket to a rule of law that is a compromise of various interests.
In feudalism, people choose other people to follow. In democracy, people chose policies to enact. Both systems are very rough and fail in various ways, but democracy has evolved because it just makes more people a lot less unhappy than an erratic dictator ever can.
You seem to be alienated from the political process and perceive your government as something that is not actually yours to establish and control. That’s a very dangerous position for you to take, since government has a monopoly on violence. Of course others won’t take you automatically into consideration. That’s what you do every time you do virtually anything — you never take the full situation into account.
But you just can’t quite ditch the government… otherwise your neighbor might try building a nuclear reactor using whatever he got from the Russians, which is something you (and perhaps a few other neighbors) might be against. Then on the other hand, he might convince a few others that the energy will be worth it… so you meet up, decide on some rules that will need to be followed so as to prevent an armed conflict and in the end, some who originally opposed the project might even join it to ensure it’s safety and everyone will benefit from the produced energy.
Friend, lets agree to disagree. What you say do make sense, I am not saying you’re talking bullshit or anything like that, on the contrary, I find your arguments plausible and completely in tune with what I’ve learned at the university buuuuut my own country has been a monarchy, an “empire”, a monarchy again, a republic, a dictatorship, a republic again, an who knows what will happen before 2018 ends.
Our experience, is vastly different than what is explained above. I haven’t said we’re out of the political process, heck, I’ve organized demonstrations, helped parties I was aligned with, entered all the debates I could long ago, I was a manager for a social program, and am married to an investigative journalist. I am no stranger to political processes, but it is a very simplistic approach to say “(…) your government as something that is (…) yours to establish and control”, this sidesteps all the historical process of governments here and how the monopoly of violence is used by the powerful (which might or might not be actual government) with impunity on anyone who tries to pull government into a different path. Couple weeks ago, one of our councilwoman was executed by gunshots to her car (where a friend of mine was as well as she worked for her), killing our rising star politician, and the driver, and forever traumatizing my friend. I have tons of stories about people dying while trying to change things. Talking about the root of feudalism is meaningless to whatever is happening today. Today people die for defending human rights here (and elsewhere).
Academic and philosophical conversations about the nature and contracts of government are awesome but please, don’t think this shit is doable, lots of people here died trying to improve the lifes of others. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to a place like here, those conversations don’t really apply (we still have them though).
I do think it’s important for people to have the power to keep the government accountable. Without checks and balances the government looks after its own interests as opposed to those of its constituents.
I clicked at your profile with absolute certain that you’d be from Brazil. Now I’m kinda depressed I was right.
Can spot a Brazilian from miles away right? Don’t know if I laugh or cry that we’re so easy to recognize through our shared problems.
I can feel your pain (and I admire your courage for talking in a public space about the issues you see in your government).
But @Yogthos is right: we should not be afraid of our governments, at least not of democratic ones.
In democracy the government literally exists to serve people. If it doesn’t, it’s not a democracy anymore.
@soapdog @yogthos @dz This is an interesting discussion for me (though not appropriate for lobste.rs). Any interest in discussing this together, say over email or something else. I’ve always wanted to discuss this topic of government vs individual corporations but it’s a complex subject and hard to keep devolving into a bar-fight.
Change the name then, not the definition of what it is.
Shouldn’t governments primariy govern? For whatever reason, but usually something along the lines of “the common good” or “to protect (individual) rights”? But sometimes sadly also in the interests of the more powerful in society…
Why do you believe that is the purpose of governments? Can you imagine a situation where something recognized as a government doesn’t protect it’s citizens in some cases?
Is the government supposed to protect you if you put your hand in a garbage disposal, slip in the shower, or attempt suicide?
They’re definitely there to protect us. However, they’re also their own separate entity. They’re also a group of ambitious, often-lying people with a variety of goals. They can get really off track. That’s why the folks that made the U.S. government warned its people needed to be vigilant about it to keep it in check. Then, its own agents keep the individuals or businesses in check. Each part does its thing with discrepencies corrected by one of the others hopefully quickly. The only part of this equation failing massively is the people who won’t get the scumbags in Congress under control. They keep allowing them to take bribes for laws or work against their own voters. Fixing that would get a lot of rest in line.
We have seen plenty of protection of individuals by laws, regulations, and courts, though. Especially whenever safety is involved. In coding, the segment with highest-quality software on average right now is probably group certifying to DO-178B for use in airplanes since it mandates lots of activities that reduce defects. They do it or they can’t sell it. The private sector’s solution to same problem was almost always to lie about safety while reducing liability with EULA’s or good legal teams. They didn’t produce a single, secure product until regulations showed up in Defense sector. For databases, that wasn’t until the 1990’s with just a few products priced exhorbitantly out of greed. Clearly, we need a mix of private and public action to solve some problems in the marketplace.
Governments shouldn’t impose speed limits, people should just drive at reasonably safe speeds.
Just because a particular behaviour might be most beneficial to a person, does not mean they will do it. Because consumers’ behaviour has not changed (and will not), this type of surveillance has proliferated to the point it’s nearly impossible to escape, even for the most dedicated privacy advocate.
Funny you should mention that…the setting of speed limits to drive revenue irrespective of actual engineering and human factors is pretty well documented at this point.
But that’s precisely what fails when dealing with Facebook et al, isn’t it?
No matter how assiduously you or I might refuse to sign up for Facebook and its ilk, block their tracking scripts, refuse to upload our photos, our text messages, our data – other people sign up for these things, and give these services permission to index their photos and text message logs etc, and Facebook builds a comprehensive shadow profile of you and I anyways.
There is no avoiding or opting out of this short of opting out of all human contact, at this point, and the “simple”-sounding solution of “let every individual decide for themselves!” completely fails to engage with the collective consequences that everyone is losing privacy regardless of what decision they make individually.
When your solution doesn’t engage with reality, it’s not useful.
This will be true when everybody will be able to program and administrate a networking system.
That’s the only way people can understand what they are giving and for what.
Till then, you must protect them from people who use their ignorance against them.
You can’t protect people from their own ignorance, long-term, except by education.
You have to. No citizen can foresee the effects of all their actions. The technology we use today is too complicated to understand all of it.
That’s why generally everything needs to be safe by default.
The entire field of engineering is predicated on being able to do things without understanding how they work. Ditto beer brewing, baking, cooking, and so forth.
Bathtubs are not safe by default. Kitchen knives are not safe by default. Fire is not safe by default. Even childbirth isn’t safe by default, and you’d think that would’ve been solved generations ago by evolution.
Then why would we trust policies enacted by a handful of citizens deemed able to create laws any more than individual citizens making their own decisions? That’s a far riskier proposition.
~
We can’t make the world safe for people that won’t learn how to be safe, and efforts to do so harm and inhibit everybody else.
Try buying an oven that will spontaneously catch fire just by being on. It’s going to be complicated, because there are mandatory standards. And it’s a good thing they are this reliable, right? Leaves us time to concentrate on our work.
Because a lot of shouting from many sides went into the discussions before the laws were enacted. Much like you discuss your network infrastructure policies with your colleagues instead of just rewiring the DC as you see fit every once in a while.
No.
Engineering is about finding solutions by using every bit of knowledge available.
Ignorance is an enemy to fight or work around, but for sure it’s not something to embrace!
I agree that we should work to make programming a common knowledge, like reading and writing so that everyone can build his computing environment as she like.
And to those who say it’s impossible I’m used to object that they can read, write and count just because someone else, centuries before, said “no, it’s possible to spread this knowledge and we have the moral duty do spread it”.
But all your example are wrong.
They are ancient technologies and techniques that are way simpler than programming: humans have learnt to master them and teach each generation how to do so.
We have to protect people.
The states and laws can help, but the first shield of the people against the abusive use of technology are hackers.
We must spread our knowledge and ethics, not exploit the ignorance of others for a profit.