Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The idea that privacy can be traded away transactionally is a misrepresentation. Privacy is a choice; depending on who I am interacting with I will withhold certain information about my life.

If someone convinces a friend or family member of the lie that they can trade privacy for services, then my communications with them are compromised without my consent.

This is all about every being's right to choose to be private. The idea that it's okay to impinge this right as long as someone thought of it as a transaction is morally bankrupt.




It's not always a choice, though. If I need to rent a car, I need a credit card. Now my credit card company knows where I went on vacation or traveled for work. I have to have an email account, but if I apply for a job, now my email providers knows quite a bit about me.

None of these things are necessarily the end of the world if there's some data protection guarantee. But to say it's simply a choice ignores how much data other people have on us, just by going about our daily lives.


What I'm saying is that it's immoral for your credit card company to spy on you, regardless of what language they snuck into your contract. Same for your email provider.

It's even less acceptable if a company uses its customers to spy on people who aren't customers.

To rationalize it by saying "well, you could have used a different bank" is self-indulgent nonsense.


Agreed; the article covers regulation meant to foster competition but ignore regulation needed to cover user privacy "rights" over the data collected.

Generally speaking, this article seems to gloss over the fact that this data is generated by actual human beings; examine for instance this section on ownership:

"And it adds to the confusion about who owns data (in the case of an autonomous car, it could be the carmaker, the supplier of the sensors, the passenger and, in time, if self-driving cars become self-owning ones, the vehicle itself)."

So the person from whence the data was generated doesn't own the data, despite owning the vehicle on which it was generated? Isn't that kind of crazy? edit: Ah I do see the passenger in there now, I'll leave this up because the point still stands that "the passenger" is a very passive way to describe the human being involved.


If you read the comments to the California DMV on self-driving regulations, you see this. There are parties [1] which want to track where the cars go, and object to DMV's privacy rules. But they also object to public disclosure of details of accidents and disconnects, and access to sensor data after a crash without manufacturer involvement.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/6558e3eb-8d38-427e...


This is a VERY important point.

I don't use FB, but a data-promiscuous person who knows a ton about me recently unfriended my closest contacts. Ignorance is bliss?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: