Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lifeisstillgood

Yes. But. even regulation needs a framework to think about how to regulate.

And personal data makes an excellent framework, and saying I own data about me is a good way to make the ownership and control relevant, and allows lots of different approaches. It's feasible to imagine most (western) countries agreeing "data about a person or their digital actions" being something that can be put into their laws.

It's hard to imagine everyone agreeing "this regulatory body will oversee data"

The EU was first out the gate, and it's enrolling but heading towards restrictions on all usage then allowances for medical and academic research (you publish, you were allowed) and restrictions on personalised advertising.

It's going to get messy, but I think DuckDuckGo has the right balance - if I search for "trainers for old men" Inwill get adverts for that. But they won't "remember" my search the next time. Honestly I will be amazed if the conversion rates for DuckDuckGo and Google are different enough to justify the suck that is internet advertising today.

the problem is that digital assets (including data, code, mp3, mp4.... anything digital) can be had (owned) by multiple parties at the same time

and there are no 'frameworks' with which to think about this in a good way that doesn't result in a few having advantage over everybody else. but this is a philosophical and political issue, not a technical one

I think the music industry lawyers have fairly strong ideas over who owns a digital asset :-)

which is why the whole of the 'academic global institution' which in commercial terms is just a big chunk of "big publishing industry" is also in a state of revolution (see the z-lib and sci-hub legal battles: in India, and in Argentina; as well as the "cross-russian border" aspects which are tainted by real hot-open war at this moment)

I don't disagree, but I think the idea of owning your personal data is a red herring and/or a stalling tactic. The GDPR and its equivalents were a necessary first step, but I dont see how privacy can stop the market abuses and the rentier behaviors of the FAANGs. Privacy is great, claiming your legal rights over your data is great, but at a market/economy level it's probably a net plus for larger companies that can be compliant and/or work around its restrictions.

So, instead of talking endlessly about data ownership and micro-transactions and god knows what else we've been arguing for (checks notes) 30 years, we could just ask to regulate the tech giants. Cap their rentier rates (30% on the app stores? really), their monopoly behaviors (you are both the largest ad server and the auctioneer? really?), etc, etc, etc-freaking-etera.

If you think banning behavioral advertising, reselling demographic data, or whatever, is an easier lift than adapting accounting practices to accommodate every human's right to privacy -- sign me up!

But I'd like to think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Fundamental shifts in the social contract (caused by disruptive technologies) impact all sorts of stuff. We shouldn't limit ourselves to quick fixes.

How would regulating the tech companies result in data ownership?

It won't, nor would the inverse happen, i.e. data ownership won't "take on the tech companies". That's what the TFA argues, that data ownership is the ONLY way to reduce the power of the tech companies. And what I am saying is that a) it's not the only way, in fact there are much better/easier/proven ways, b) that just creating this false dichotomy distracts from the need for regulation and at best delays regulation or at worst it actually benefits the tech monopolies (because large companies can work under/with privacy regulations better than startups).

Not arguing against privacy, at all. But saying that privacy, which is a hard problem to figure out at scale, is the only way to regulate the FAANGS, just distracts and delays. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Agreed.

Not sure why the OP is bringing up both as if they’re related or connected.

I think regulation (as in "PG&E is regulated by some federal agency") is the red herring. Firstly other utilities have by comparison outrageous specific territorial limits, making them clearly subject to one governments regulatory efforts. Facebook has spent years crying out again and agains saying "tell us what the fucking regulations are and we will code them". No one can answer of course because a) we as a society have not worked out what this all means, b) even if we did we would not get all the governments to agree c) even if they did can you imagine one multi-national regulator with powers over facebook, google, apple ? That's the CEO job Inwant

Reply on news.ycombinator.com