Because I own the car and it is, in reality, extremely sensitive data that can reveal everything from your political beliefs to your sexual orientation.
Why is that sensitive data? I am going to be a tad provocative here and hope people can dig deep and think about this :)
Facebook already has this, and most people are sharing this in the public sphere. I understand the worry and damage that can be done, but I feel like we are moving from a 1950s model of hide it all and pretend you a perfect, to more of a this is who I am and let me live my life as long as it doesn't hurt others or society.
I’m sorry, I usually expect these threads to turn into “but Orwell!” vs “but what do you have to hide?”, but this is the first time I can remember (at least on HN) in which a thread so quickly jumped to “but why should your sexual orientation not be for the public to know?”
It’s great that you are in a situation where you believe you are able to publicize your sexual identity without detrimental consequences. But it is the height of arrogance to presume that everyone else must have the same life situation that you do.
Sigh, I don't assume that and I know it is not from many experiences. My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions. I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society, and we need strong regulations to protect both sides.
This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN.
> I feel like that is just a fear-based response to the world, maybe we all need to be more open about who we are both for ourselves and for other people in the world.
This is a textbook presumption — you insinuate that someone’s desire to not publicly transmit their sexual/politics must be irrational, and/or everyone (or even most people) is actually in a situation where they don’t have to fear that.
What is this “extreme privacy movement” that you speak of? Data-collecting tech companies are global titans, and the public’s status quo acceptance/complacency of this is a major reason for these companies’ success. And this is even the case in America, in which the 4th Amendment is a significant bar for government to clear for any kind of search and seizure, even though citizen compliance with authority is another type of “symbiotic” relationship.
It's not extreme, it's what most people have had for millennia.
New technology is deanonymizing public space, invasions of privacy previously required great effort and expense, now they can be done trivially by accessing data on your phone, or now your car.
The ramifications of this haven't become clear to you because no-one important's decided to fuck your life over yet or you live as a conformist, but for many of the rest of us the potential downsides are glaringly obvious.
People are getting screwed by this right now in China and N.Korea. It is a real and present danger that may have ramifications for you or people you love in the future, and may even get them killed. McCarthyism was only 50 years ago, the Stasi 30, the Nazis 70. The Dutch inadvertently caused the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Jews by having a religious question on their census before the Nazis took over.
It happened before, it will happen again, and just because you don't know high school history, or simply didn't learn the lesson of it, doesn't make us extreme.
I think I am done :), you don't need to degrade the other person's intelligence to have a discussion. Or insult them. It is rude and unbecoming a member of this community.
When you continue to question whether people who are fearful are being rational, as if being fearful necessarily precludes that they have attempted rational assessment, you are the one being rude and dismissive of people’s intelligence.
I won’t even go into your absurd whining of the “extreme privacy movement” in the HN community, as if a huge part of HN’s audience aren’t daily optimists about the positive role and accomplishment of tech and data companies.
> My point is a lot of these seems to be a fear-based response driving extreme privacy reactions.
What world do you live in where fear is unreasonable? The world is not the happy place that you very clearly think it is.
I have personal friends and family who have very legitimate reasons to demand enforced privacy. People who've been abused by others; who've been abused by people who have made serious threats against livelihoods.
People whose opinions are different from those around them would be at significant risk to life, limb, and sanity if those opinions were to become known by others.
> I want a measured response that recognizes that data is hugely powerful in improving society
> This extreme privacy movement annoys the hell out of me. And, it is really strong on HN. *
You need to recognize that data is also hugely powerful in destroying it too. I think many on HN are able to and have recognized this.
> and we need strong regulations to protect both sides.
I agree; but I think the regulations and enforcement should absolutely err on the side of the user if there is ever a disagreement between the two.
I agree with most of that. I think we are closer than you think on this. I do recognize the power of data, but I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good.
> I am tired of this communities inability to conceive that this data is and can be used for good.
I don't see any inability to recognize that. What I see is is a recognition that "data can be a powerful force for good" is not a valid argument for why people should be forced to reveal that data.
I think the crux of this issue is what is or is not "my" data.
I think that any data that is generated as a result of my actions, or by machines that I own, is my data for all intents and purposes.
I understand that you disagree with that. That's entirely fair, and I'm not trying to change your thinking on this. What I'm trying to understand is on what basis you are deciding what is or is not my data.
Sure, I'll take a stab at that. Data is data, it doesn't belong to someone just because they played a role in creating it.
You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess. Yet that is data you are creating. If you found out the water company was checking your dropping for drug usage and selling that to the government you might care. Or if they were selling it to employment screeners who didn't want to hire people with Crohn's disease that might be another.
I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about. I want to see data used for improving society and discussin how we draw those lines and who gets access.
> You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess.
I do care, actually. I consent to the water company tracking how much water I use over the billing period, because they need to do that to bill me. I do not consent to any data collection or use beyond that.
> I would argue the intent of data is what matters and this discussion is really about.
I haven't even gotten to the point where intent matters, personally. I'm still stuck on consent. This is the hard line for me. Tell me what you want to do with my data, and if I agree with that use (and trust that you aren't lying and won't change your mind in the future) then I'll give consent.
> I want to see data used for improving society
We agree on this, but I'm not willing to be "thrown to the wolves" to accomplish it.
> You don't care about the water company tracking your water usage or knowing how often you flush your toilet is my guess.
You would guess wrong.
Water utilization metrics are a good proxy for determining the number of residents at the billing address which I consider should be private information -- even to the apartment lessor. It can also be a good proxy for determining health habits: use of laundry or dishwashing machines consumes a very consistent and predictable amount and flow rate of water. Even taking a bath would be fairly consistent, and a shower only somewhat less so. Not only would the amount be consistent, but the flow rate can be a proxy too. Are you going to tell me that it would be better for society to see what I do with water in my own home? Are you going to tell me that that information is the water company's data because they're providing the water that I bought?
Think I'm crazy? Check this out. There are many states where marijuana is legal. Despite that, the government seeks electric company's utilization information to determine whether or not someone's "likely" growing illicit substances. [1] Think what you want; I think this is government overreach. Which is exactly your situation with the water company, except with electricity instead.
And, as it is, I get a bill at the end of every month which details exactly how much water I've been billed for. Water is water and the bill doesn't care what I used it for, or for how many different people, or even what I did with it (...except wastewater which also gets billed).
Data, on the other hand: I have no bill whatsoever to tell me what data was taken, nor at what time. As things are today: I don't have an opportunity to limit the amount or scope of data taken other than to prevent it from being collected in the first place. Simply having a phone connected to the internet means data is being taken.
At least with water I can turn off the faucet! At least with water if there's a leak I can complain to the water provider and get repairs done! At least with water if the leak causes damage elsewhere I can get an exact estimate of damage done and hire someone to repair it if it were my fault: or demand the water company to repair damages if it's their fault.
On the other hand: once data's leaked there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it from continually causing damage. Was your social security number leaked? FACT: it was, thanks to credit reporting agencies complete disregard for security. Do you think sufficient steps have been taken to rectify that and prevent it from happening again in the future?
In the future when your water company is able to determine that you have three people living in your home instead of two (because your mother in law decided to visit for a week) and then you get advertisements for new babies (your spouse just had a scarring miscarriage through no fault of her own -- which prompted your MIL to visit), or for roommates (surely if you had a roommate for a short time then you're open to having a roommate for a longer time?), or they let the leasing office know that someone is living there without paying rent (oh wow, you are allowed to have guests over, right?), or contact the police because you live near the border and they suspect you're harboring an illegal immigrant (hope your mother in law brought her identification papers with her...): I think when that moment comes maybe then you might wish you had some privacy.
Well, I think we will simply have to say we don't agree on this :)
The next 50 years is going to be interesting as this debate evolves and we figure this out. I do not think it is going to end with this data is "mine" and only mine. I think it is going to end with here is this data, and here is how we divide it up to make the most use of it while providing x level of privacy. I could very well be wrong but that seems to be the bent of history when similar things emerge. First the fear, the hard reaction, then slow acceptance, and then an explosion of innovation.
> It seems like that is just a response to society needing to be more accepting, aka us to be more accepting of who people really are.
Well yes, but until that time, and even during that time, I don't want that revealed. I have a friend who's working somewhere that would probably be entirely welcoming of his orientation, but he keeps it secret because it's his choice and he still has fears about what would happen if it's revealed.
You should check out what happened less than a century ago. Among other things, it started this whole digital conundrum.
It's naive to think that concentrating so much power over so many people in the hands of so few people can go any sort of well. What happens when the regulators, or the ones charged of overseeing them, want in on the fun? What if they're coerced, which suddenly is trivial to do?
Progress comes from individuals, as such, individuals should be empowered by great tools to make the most of their data. Wanting corporations to solve all the problems is another case of pushing off personal responsibility.
We haven't actually achieved that state of grace yet, so in the meantime, in some times and places people actually can be in danger because of who they are. Perhaps you have seen the names Muhlaysia Booker or Jamal Kashoggi in the news recently.
That's a very naïve and privileged position. It boils down to "I don't have a problem, so no one else does." You'll probably learn one day you are more vulnerable than you realize.
It is and I am an old history major so yes I am aware :).
I am not advocating for a total loss of privacy, merely that it is is a spectrum, and technology seems to be driving an acceleration of what is socially acceptable. And, that might be a good thing long term.
How do you change people's acceptance of things they are afraid of? You show them they don't need to be. You don't do that by hiding and pretending you are something else. You show them that you are x and y and still a good normal person. It can get you killed, it can lose your jobs, it can lose you friends, it can lose you your family. It is an incredible sacrifice that millions of people in the USA make every year. They do it for themselves, but also for all the other people that are x or y and who they want to see raised without all that bullshit.
Feel free to run to the front of the battle and take the arrows for the rest of us. Chiding others for not sacrificing themselves to boost corporate profits is a shitty thing to do.
I also don't believe you've thought through all the failure modes and misaligned incentives that happen over time.
Not wanting to live in a "1984" dystopia is not extreme by any means.
I am not chiding in any way, I apologize as my point must have not been well written if that is how it landed. Sorry :(
We are not in 1984, and that is fiction. I fully acknowledge I have not fully thought through every branch of the problem, but what I don't want to see is this idea that all data is at the hands of the person who played a role in creating it. Some data needs to go back to the company and society if it serves a solid purpose in helping improve either.
Ok, but it's not your place to decide the rights of others nor their responsibility to make your car safer paid for with their privacy. If you want to be safer put on a seatbelt and helmet and drive more slowly, rather than expressing entitlement to others whereabouts, choices, and associations.
History is largely a story of those without power breaking free from those who do and take advantage. Also, an inability to learn from fiction is a disadvantage.
Sure it is my place, I am a member of this society and we live in a Democracy. I get my views, you get yours, lets talk about it and think about it and slowly over 50 years some stuff will get hammered out :)
And, as I said, I am not convinced that all data you interact with is yours. I think data is data and it has attributes that should go other places whether you want it too or not.
History and fiction are great tools to explore ideas. So maybe just try exploring the idea that knowledge and advancement of society depends on a certain amount of data to float free. If we clamp down too hard it might paralyze advancement.
It's your opinion, not place I'd say. Minority rights cannot be ethically eliminated by a majority vote.
To be honest, while I care about privacy in general, am not concerned about every little datum myself. In a healthy reality companies and governments would give us lots of options and control, let us opt-in. But that never happens does it? They'd prefer you'd not even be aware it's happening. Only when shamed in the media does a company even attempt to provide the appearance of options.
Why do you think that is? Because they sell your information, that's why.
If it weren't that fact I wouldn't be so hardline on the subject. But, it's the reality we live in.
Not sure I follow, as I do have a say in this as do you and every other person in this country :). To argue someone doesn't have to say is a tad weird.
