The other aspect is the seeming flat out contradiction between web as public square on the one hand and DMCA on the other.
I was going to say "4th amendment" :)The other aspect is the seeming flat out contradiction between web as public square on the one hand and DMCA on the other.Is the web really synonymous with the public square?If so then, due to the leaky-by-design nature of the devices, operating systems, apps and services currently available to the world population, privacy is headed to dodo status pronto.On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 21:36 Benjamin Goering, < " target="_blank"> > wrote:It's this asymmetry of power that seems implicit in allowing corporates or government to aggregate behavioral indices that concerns me. I just don't see the value as being worth the risk at all.Legislation disallowing the US government from aggregating data is a worthy debate. In practice, I worry it may be a false sense of security, and can see both sides of the inevitable argument and tension between constitutional powers of Congress to make laws and constitutional powers of the President to command the military. Are you against only aggregation of your nations' citizens? Or all foreign citizens too? Do you think it's important that your government know when a motivated enemy is walking in the front door? I do. Let's say the law prevented your government from doing any data aggregation. Why wouldn't a defensively-minded chief executive just ask an ally to do the data aggregation and share the insights? Is that any better? I cannot remember the relevant keywords to search for to find a link, but I seem to recall it being fairly public knowledge that the US already does just this to circumvent/comply with the 4th amendment.Now, let's think through not "allowing corporates... to aggregate". I control several corporations. How is law enforcement going to stop me from aggregating, when all aggregating is is me-at-work downloading a bunch of public files and keeping them in one place? I am MUCH more concerned about what it would take to enforce disallowance, i.e. impeding my liberty to seek and keep information. Furthermore, once I've downloaded them and have them somewhere safe, how would law enforcement even reverse this in a way that doesn't violate the 4th amendment?At least in the case of "corporate" aggregation (i.e. aggregation by 'the people'), I believe allowing it is fine, limiting certain ways of profiting off of it is good for everyone, and that not allowing it is more dangerous than anything.On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:10 PM Adrian Gropper < " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> > wrote:Thanks for engaging. The essence I'm talking about is asymmetry of power. The aggregator of behavioral surplus gains power over the individuals that are behaving or not. That power is used to improve the surveillance and aggregation in a positive feedback loop that has no visible end other than coercion to keep social order or otherwise keep the incumbent in control.It's this asymmetry of power that seems implicit in allowing corporates or government to aggregate behavioral indices that concerns me. I just don't see the value as being worth the risk at all.AdrianOn Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:01 PM Benjamin Goering < " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> > wrote:What I meant by " Aggregation/bundling is one of the most fundamental ways of creating value." was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_bundling(not data aggregation specifically).Decentralization is cool, until you want to search everything or find the good stuff. Then real humans doing real things relaly benefit from aggregation, and they have/will pay for it in currency and nonmonetary goods/services. Decentralization and aggregation are two sides of the same coin.> Isn't that the essence of surveillance capitalism?I read too much metaphysics and never really understood what anyone meant by 'essence'. Data aggregation is no more the essence of surveilance capitalism than FISA court gag orders are.> At what point does the value created through private or government aggregation turn into coercion / slavery?In my experience, never, but I acknowledge the alternative experience of others' as valid too.Theoretically, once whoever has a monopoly on violence starts using the threat of that violence or withholding of human rights to coerce you to behave a certain way, and enforces that coercian through surveilance. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-credit/china-to-bar-people-with-bad-social-credit-from-planes-trains-idUSKCN1GS10SOn Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:52 PM Adrian Gropper < " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> > wrote:On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:56 PM Benjamin Goering < " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> > wrote:Aggregation/bundling is one of the most fundamental ways of creating value.Isn't that the essence of surveillance capitalism? Should society encourage value creation by allowing anyone other than the subject themselves to aggregate data about them? At what point does the value created through private or government aggregation turn into coercion / slavery?Adrian--Benjamin Goering, Software Producer
--Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.--Benjamin Goering, Software Producer
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.