Hacker News Reader

Comment by subverter | Hacker News Reader

Does it though?

If people don't care about privacy, then government is wasting their time creating regulation that doesn't matter to people. That's not useful.

If people don't know about the privacy implications of technology, is adding regulation the best way to inform them? There are lots of organizations like EFF that are much more effective with their resources to inform people compared to government. And wouldn't it be speculative to create regulation without first determining how people feel about it?

Don't get me wrong – I think privacy is extremely important – I just don't think government can address it nearly as well as the free market, which is much more in tune with how important it is to people.

View on HN

I must admit, this is an interesting spin on it.

Most people are not aware of the scale of this thing. And it's just getting going. I don't think people's ignorance is a good reason to not protect them. If all the companies are at it (which they are due to lack of regulation and need to compete), then what good is it informing the user. What choice do they have? It's all very well saying they can choose to not use said service/product etc, but that is tant-amount to bribery - and an unrealistic prospect. So what actually happens is people click through the T&C's grudgingly (well, the ones who understand what going on), and downwards we go.

We should not be forced into such a choice and the only way that will happen is regulation.

EDIT: then again, this will never happen, because where do you think the gov gets their information from!

If politicians think it will help them win elections, it will totally happen.

I think people are much more aware of it since Snowden. And, as with all knowledge, people have chosen to respond in different ways. Some have become much more privacy-minded and actively seek out like-minded products and companies. Others haven't because it's not that important to them, which is their prerogative.

> I don't think people's ignorance is a good reason to not protect them.

Even if there are some who are completely in the dark about privacy, this mindset would lead to regulation protecting people from literally everything, as there will always be people ignorant of something. I don't think it's the right default stance to take.

> We should not be forced into such a choice and the only way that will happen is regulation.

We have a right to privacy in the sense that we can choose not to use a product or service that invades our privacy. But we can't force our right to privacy on others.

The good news is, if there's a market for privacy-minded products, entrepreneurs will provide for that market. And I believe there is a market, because there's an increasing amount of privacy-minded alternatives.

> EDIT: then again, this will never happen, because where do you think the gov gets their information from!

Hah, this we can agree on! And I think it highlights an important point: How can we trust government to protect our privacy when they've been the biggest aggressor against our privacy?

Whilst I don't agree with all you said, indeed the problem we have as a society is that (as snowden et al have revealed), is that I cannot even trust my firmware. And if I cannot trust my firmware, what is the point of securing anything above it.

A market solution to privacy issues involves consumers making informed choices about how much information they share, which is currently relatively difficult. Companies are able to track a wide variety of information with only minimal effort to inform people or acquire consent.

Regulation could make their use of data far more visible, or even require explicit consent for different instances of tracking. This isn't holding the market back, it's enabling individuals to make more efficient decisions about which transactions they think are actually beneficial to them.

I'd actually say it's relative easy to find privacy information about a product or company. Independent researchers and organizations (like EFF) are exposing privacy violations all the time. It's oftentimes just a search away.

Case in point: Pokémon Go. It didn't take long at all before they were exposed (http://adamreeve.tumblr.com/post/147120922009/pokemon-go-is-...) for requesting full access to your Google account. The subsequent outrage caused them to take a more privacy-minded stance.

My point being, this information is and can be made available to consumers without requiring government or regulation. A whole new non-profit organization could be established that does just that: researches and publishes privacy-related data on products/companies. It could even have a program that rates and awards gold stars to those that pass their requirements, like EFF's Secure Messaging Scorecard (https://www.eff.org/node/82654).

> This isn't holding the market back...

Regulation always makes it harder for new entrants to the market, while simultaneously keeping incumbents in power (because they're often large enough to handle the time and money required to comply). And with less competition comes less choice, poorer service, and higher prices.

It sounds backwards, but not regulating privacy actually makes it easier for privacy-minded companies to enter the market and find success.

>I'd actually say it's relative easy to find privacy information about a product or company. ... It's oftentimes just a search away.

And I think that's still far too much effort to expect from people for every single company they interact with. People should not be able to give up their privacy without actively choosing to do so.

>Regulation always makes it harder for new entrants to the market, while simultaneously keeping incumbents in power ... not regulating privacy actually makes it easier for privacy-minded companies to enter the market and find success.

In order to have a competitive market for privacy, it needs to be a visible choice.

If companies can hide data gathering in the small print, it makes it hard to convince people that your product is meaningfully different. Whereas if the other company has a big notice saying "We sell your data to advertisers" and yours doesn't, it's a lot easier to sell.

Yes, the cost of compliance will marginally reduce competition overall, but competition in terms of privacy will be greatly increased because people will actually factor it into their decisions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com