Hacker News Reader

Comment by karencarits | Hacker News Reader

One should be aware that Norway already has very comprehensive registers and databases about the population. Currently, it has only been a benefit, I think, as it enables detailed quality control of say health care services and high-quality register studies.

For example, all health/hospital records of deceased Norwegians are digitalized ten years after death and added to a national register. No way to refuse. In my opinion, that is much more invasive, yet it hasn't been discussed at all by the public

https://helsedata.no/en/about-helsedata.no/

https://www.digitalarkivet.no/en/

View on HN

Yep; societally, they've got a very different attitude towards privacy.

Everyone's salary is publicly available online. (So's the fact that you looked!) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239

As said in the article, we already share our data with the supermarket, google, etc and whatever other systems that binds all of them together.

In that situation, I'm happy that government has access to the same data because it gives it a way to balance the private sector power.

Now what is needed is the ability to opt out.

Wow people really forgot that privacy is all about privacy with respect to the government because they are the ones with the monopoly on violence. It is tragic that people think private firms could ever be as evil as governments

At this very moment there are corporations worth trillions of dollars. More money than the worth of many countries combined. The people in charge of these companies command so much capital, they can more or less run the world if they so wish. All they need to do is set policies on loans and the entire world will literally change itself to conform.

Corporations are no stranger to violence. They're no stranger to organized crime dealings and tight relationships with governments. Coca-Cola for example has straight up assassinated union leaders.

GDP != market cap.

Government certainly doesn't have a monopoly on violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)#H...

If you have to go back a two centuries to prove a point, you're probably not right.

They're called Securitas today and are very much active, they're often contracted out to by states. They're also notoriously corrupt and abusive.[1]

1. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitas#Kritik

Securitas is contracted by the state to run background checks and do other paper-pushing activities. They do not kill people under their own prerogative.

Nope, that is absolutely false. They fulfill police duties in Sweden. Prior to that they were ubiquitous security guards and engaged in violence daily.

Even as police/security, they are not permitted to go out and kill people. They can act in a lethal manner if their life is in immediete danger, just like you or I can as normal citizens. That is not unique. The CEO of Securitas cannot decide to kill you and have his henchmen go do it.

The leaders of governments can and do act like that.

Uhh the same rules go for them as police when they are employed so...

It’s tragic that people think companies like Equifax can’t have government-level negative impacts on people.

Hard-power violence is mostly exclusive to governments, but don't underestimate the power of soft-power "violence" and coercion.

Another thing that sets the government and private sector apart is that the government is under (mostly, even if indirect) democratic control, or otherwise accountable to the public, whereas the private sector can get by with bad press, so long as they can continue to operate. As an individual of average wealth, it is far less difficult to influence government policy and politicians as opposed to doing the same to a private organization.

Really, this is not about choosing between "good" and "evil", it is about choosing which evil you are most likely to be able to contain.

As an American who also feels that privacy from the government is more important from private corporations:

I'm not a hard disagree, but I think it's easier (though not easy!) to democratically will your government to regulate private companies than it is regulate itself.

Check out the Dole corporation to see how evil can they actually be - https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-dark-and-bloody-hist.... Nestle with the classic baby formula marketing to 2nd/3rd world countries, chinese milk scandal etc and probably most other multinationals are in the same league.

The government only has a monopoly on legal violence, but violence is beside the point. (And never mind that a bad government could simply steal the data or compel a corporation to hand it over.)

Imagine living in a state where abortion laws now allow individuals to sue other individuals who have had abortions. A corporation could use grocery data to find and sue individuals who are likely to have had an abortion. The analysis would be a bit more complex than this, but just looking at grocery data, scan for people who bought pregnancy tests, bought fewer tampons than usual, and aren't buying baby food a year later. No violence, totally legal, and absolutely devastating to the individuals involved.

If your government is untrustworthy, then you're screwed in any case. Reasonable interpretation of data was never an authoritarian regime's strong point.

If you consider all the school shootings in the US the claim that government has a monopoly on violence is nonsense. There’s plenty of non governmental violence.

He meant the legal one.

It is a core concept of law and statehood; if you consider it nonsense, you consider statehood of your country to be the same.

School shootings are an tiny part of the overall violence in the US, a country of 330 million people. We just keep hearing about it, way out of proportion, because it’s in the interest of the media (“if it bleeds, it leads”) and some politicians to keep pushing it.

"Monopoly" in this context is an elision of "[legal] monopoly": it means that legislation excludes other parties from entitlement to something. It is said that in (typical) societies some law enforcement branches are given "monopoly of violence" (and again, "violence" as /fair/ coercion) - nobody else is in general entitled to exercising "violence" (a random citizen cannot deprive another of freedom, but the law enforcement, under fitting circumstances, can).

at sufficient scale the difference between governments and corporations is negligible. east india company would be the most obvious example, but there's plenty nowadays.

That attitude makes sense if you come from a low-trust society where the state apparatus thinks it's running an empire. Especially if the country is large and actively trying to reshape the world.

Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because there is a lot of trust in the society, the people who want to serve in the government are usually ideologically motivated to serve the best interests of the public. It's not a particularly lucrative or high-status career, so people with other motivations tend to go elsewhere. And while people may disagree on what exactly are the best interests of the public, there are many viable political parties to choose from.

Private firms are allowed to be evil in the sense that they can put their private interests ahead of public interests. Most of them are. And because they are private, the public has only limited means to regulate them when they misbehave blatantly. They can't, for example, vote the directors and shareholders out and replace them with people who promise to serve public interests.

Even if one happens to approve of the conditions under which personal data is being managed _right now_, even if one happens to approve of the current administrators and thinks they're entirely benevolent, there is no way to know who will be in charge of that data in the future, or what ends it will be used for. Once it's out there, it's out there forever.

I think the argument is that it's already out there. Companies, with no directive to even pretend to serve the public interest, already have all that data. The government does too, because security agencies mandate that they get backdoor access. "Once it's out there, it's out there forever" - that already happened.

Given that it's already out there, there's not much more to fear in terms of a slippery slope. All that's left is to at least force the public sector to disclose more of what's going on and regulate how private interests are allowed to use it.

Otherwise, we already have the dystopia you're imagining, we just don't see it as well.

That's why this is a matter of trust. Either you trust the government and allow it to collect the data, or you don't trust the government and don't allow anyone to collect it.

The government has the monopoly on violence. It always has access to the data held by private parties. The government and the people serving it may choose to respect laws and other promises. They may choose to avoid accessing private data without a valid reason. But if the government chooses otherwise and requires private businesses to hand over their data, the businesses will most likely comply. If you don't want to give a government-turned-bad access to some data, that data must not be allowed to exist in the first place.

> Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties.

Which country are you talking about? Surely not Norway, which is a monarchy.

What do you mean? It is small in terms of population size, it is a high-trust country (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-who-trust-governmen...), it has had the highest democracy index in the world every year since 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index), it has many political parties and there have been coalition governments for many years?

Yes, it is a constitutional monarchy which was introduced by vote, and given its support in the population, removing the monarchy would be quite undemocratic. One of the more radical parties in parliament has raised the issue many times; in 2019 their suggestion to abolish the monarchy got a record of 36 votes in parliament (against 130)

That's really weird, you just described what I think in terms that are very accurate. Are you me ?

Maybe people forgot because in recent times, corporate malfeasance has been a far bigger problem in people's lives than government overreach.

I do not understand the tragic aspect. Private firms have had similar powers in specific contexts, and may partner with the government, so they seem to have the same potential consequences.

> As said in the article, we already share

The article says that a number of people uses «loyalty programs». It mentions tracking though «debit card», and last time I checked Norwegians still have circulating cash. It does not mention Google, but surely there will be Norwegians that do not share data with it. Let us highlight that surely, some do not share at all.

I do not understand, contextually, the idea of «balanc[ing] the private sector power».

Cash is available, but very very rare these days. Enough so that using it is an outlier for most people < 60.

Debit, or mobile payments are the norm, to the point that even kids having a cookie stand will expect mobile payment.

> an outlier

Within a Paretian framework, anything good is an outlier. What you need is a system that allows the minoritarian good to be preserved.

So, within your sentences: "using it is an outlier for most people below 60 and for privacy conscious individuals".

Well, problem is that being an outlier isn’t necessarily good for privacy reasons. With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t stores flag any cash transaction, and combine it with stuff like the current list of parked cars (generally parking is handled by number plate readers), or even something like surveillance cameras?

Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants for their data.

> Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants

"Blending in" is very different from "giving away one's data" - which defies the purpose. You are confusing the two situations, of a dissident trying to conceal his position to survive, and of a normal individual that lives by the natural stance, "a citizen and a free man, never a subject".

The one intending to survive will act "in the shadow"; the one intending to defend his own Dignity will be very open in the stance "do not even try".

> With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t ... surveillance cameras

Of course they could, and they would have to bear the consequences of facing determined lucid bersekers if they did.

Circulation of cash is very low, only 3% of trensfered money is in cash according to this 2019 study https://www.norges-bank.no/en/news-events/news-publications/... Since then, with COVID where many stores refused cash payments, so it may have decreased further.

The 3% value (if I am reading data correctly) is because of the pandemic - the usual recent value would have been closer to (rounded) 10%, which received a blow in the 2020 frenzy; the "2019" study covers complete 2019 but includes 2020 data.

May I interest you in a past submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31360319 , "Study finds the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not viable on cash banknotes".

About the special numbers of Sweden and Norway: this is what happens when living in Sweden and Norway, you get the false idea that reality is like Sweden and Norway look.

This angle is increasingly popular, but I think totally naive and even dangerous: When the shit hits the fan there is no “balance” of power between government and the private sector. History is not full of examples of corporations putting people in camps and working them to death, despite the government’s attempts to prevent it. The government has all the power (when it really matters).

VW used slave labor, as did the American plantations. Even today, forced labor is rife in some industries, like shrimp fishery in Asia.

Of course. That’s why I added “despite the government’s attempts to prevent it” above. But that obviously wasn’t enough. People genuinely think that the next concentration camps will have a Google logo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

Most of the people I talk with about data collection aren’t aware of what’s collected about them. People I’ve shared details with sometimes think I’m nuts. They just don’t believe it.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “happy that a government you trust has access”

We can opt out by not using store rewards programs. And some go even one step further by not using credit to buy items that might be detrimental should the wrong parties get that data.

So don't buy booze and cigarettes on credit if you don't want your health insurance company to buy that data from your credit processor.

Tbh I’d rather have my salary public than some of the public information out there about me. I’m still dumbfounded I can basically dox people with voting registration records if I know just a few things about them.

I’ve hunted down estranged family members before and I was kind of concerned because I was able to find a ton of information about them I wouldn’t want out on the internet

Invasive to whom?

I'm certainly not going to be feeling outraged by medical records disclosure when I'm dead. Do with me what you will when I'm gone--I care more about my experience when I'm alive.

Hypothetical situation: how would you feel if your medical records and used to calculate health risks for your children/other family members and refuse specific insurances (or make them more expensive)?

Non hypothetically, if your parents have a genetic condition that can be passed onto their offspring, in my country you are checked against them to try prevent them or catch them in the early stages.

For free (payed by the taxes)

That’s a good point.

I was imagining some sort of anonymized records database—turns out you can look up specific names which I agree yields some undesirable outcomes.

If of all countries Norway turns into a digital totalitarian state it would break my heart. With much power comes much … risk.

I kind of dont believe this (norway becoming authoritarian), but every power given to the government is like additional leverage in a stock market. With big leverage, if your unlucky, you feel it so much more.

> In my opinion, that is much more invasive

Sorry, what? You’re saying a digitised deaths registry is more invasive than tracking all supermarket purchases?

No. That's not what the parent comment is saying.

They're saying that digitising the health records of the deceased is much more invasive.

Fair enough, I missed that nuance.

But to be honest, I don’t care what happens 10yrs after I die. I don’t want to be surveilled for the whole time I’m alive…

In my opinion, yes (regarding health records, as pointed out by others). Confidentiality is a core value in health care, it's even explicitly stated in the Geneva declaration:

> AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: > ... > I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died

To me, financial information seems less private. Furthermore, I can use cash or ask a friend to buy things for me, but I cannot have a friend seeing the psychologist or having an abortion in my place. If I was struggling with some taboo-ish condition (say, pedophilic thoughts), the idea that this information would be kept and possibly leaked in the future, would heighten the bar for seeking help. And although I will be dead, my health records may contain information about the living, say information about heritable conditions.

Can't wait for this all to eventually leak. Countries need to realize data is not "free" and has a cost to it.

Is it not is already publicly known? Don’t think there’s anything to leak

Yeah it's public so nothing to leak, it's meant to be like this, same in Estonia, your address is public, your name, your birthdate, +/- your face picture, all the land you possess, you can interrogate who is the owner of a specific car plate without any restrictions, see a map of all the traffic accidents with precise information (date, why, what, what was damaged). Then you have semi-public data like phone location (you just need to sign NDA), and guess what ? Everything is fine.

> Is it not is already publicly known? Don’t think there’s anything to leak

The purchases made by an individual, already public? That on that day you were in that place? That you read "The Lance" instead of "The Spear", that you read Comte instead of Hegel?

Well, ten years after death is a thing, while you are alive is another... Also who register matter (private companies, no matter if on their own or formally for the public vs the public State directly totally on internal resources).

Personally I agree we need statistics, data in general, but to be collected with EXTREME care and transparency because yes, we might spot health issues in advance and so save lives, we might anticipate needs and so satisfy them better with better forecasting/planning BUT we might also do nasty things.

Try to imagine if a day resources start to be scarce, a dictatorial government rise supported by most people self-(propaganda)-convinced that that's the sole option to sort the situation out and such government start the old: it's not that bad but some work to make it bad against us, we need to took the down. So a social score born, became spread, with much general data on the population: how easy can be selectively killing or just addressing careers of various people thanks to the mass of data on them, accordingly to dictatorship NOT social needs?

More "lighter" and general example: how can we prevent a cohort of people taking advantage of such big mass of data for their own profits at the expense of another cohort?

It's not just a mere matter of privacy: if we ALL know anything about anyone or nothing about anyone we are on fair and equal conditions, some will take advantage some others not because some will be smarter, just more active etc than others, but overall situation should remain in a normal fair balance. If just very few know very much on almost anyone and most others know next to nothing about those few...

Just imaging simple things like knowing with enough precision what people eat anywhere in a country: those who know can organize "better" (commercially) shelves and gain competitive advantage on competitors to a point perhaps of pushing them to the margins and then abuse the gained position to establish de-fact price policies on pretty anything. Even if data are public and collected only by the public, no one is corrupt etc those who can process such public data at scale can grab competitive advantages against all the rest.

In fairness terms: just imaging you came from a bad health family: you might be drop for many job offer because of such legacy, pay more for some health insurances etc. You might say "hey, that's true but still fair", well, it's not. It's not because potential employers know something about you, you do not equally know something about them up front.

At social scale we need a certain degree of incertitude to let the society evolve by nature instead of by planning because we MUST plan and we might even be good planner BUT nothing beat natural evolution in the long term and as a society we MUST think at the long terms. Individuals have, rightly, to think about their own life, so short an mean terms, but at a society, so State level we must also weight the very long terms. Our individual life is, unfortunately (well, for some at least) a not-that-short/not-that-long timeframe, States, populations can potentially last millennia. Planning even for a single century for us is well... More fantasy than science, and that's why we have to allow nature do it's job with a certain level of "background noise"...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com