Hacker News Reader

Comment by idle_zealot | Hacker News Reader

If the policy is "you can't sell you privacy" that would be pretty cool. It would require tech companies to come up with a business model that doesn't profit from pervasive surveillance. It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable.

View on HN

That is exactly what EU laws say — privacy is a right. You cannot give up your rights in exchange for money, just like you cannot legally sell yourself as a slave to someone, as that would be illegal for both parties.

Ad tracking has nothing to do with privacy. The app is already tracking your every move to serve relevant content. Serving relevant ads is the same thing and is no more of an infringement on your privacy.

> Ad tracking has nothing to do with privacy.

It has; it directly violates my privacy by tracking me against my will. This implies collecting data about me without my consent.

> The app is already tracking your every move to serve relevant content.

Which is also illegal under the GDPR: An app may not track anything it doesn't immediately require to provide a value to the user, it may not track anything it didn't get explicit consent to track, and must disclose why it is tracking what, how, why, as well as where and how long it keeps that data.

> Serving relevant ads is the same thing and is no more of an infringement on your privacy.

Serving relevant ads is fine, if you can do it within the boundaries I described in the previous paragraph. If you cannot, you cannot do this legally in the EU. There is no wiggle room here; apparently some people refuse to understand that some American business practices are simply not feasible in the EU - period.

I'm saying that the app looks at what you like in order to serve you content in the feed. Do you dispute this?

>"It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable"

Do societies have rights? Where are these rights defined, and how are they limited (if they are at all)? Are you talking about constitutions (and therefore states), or 'international law'?

Obviously within the context of this discussion, we are talking about states (in this case the EU) making laws.

As to whether or not, they have a right to make laws? I think that’s outside of the scope of this discussion because they clearly already made the law and meta isn’t challenging their right to do so.

I did not think it was obvious, and thought that the parent's definition of 'society' was significant to the discussion. The EU is not a state, though it does make laws. As to whether it has a 'right' to make laws, that depends on your view of rights, and may involve Political Authority (which is somewhat problematic).

I was replying to a comment, not directly addressing Meta.

Are you genuinely, in good faith, asking if societies can define rules?!

Anyone or any group can make a rule; highwaymen and pirates can make rules. The parent comment was about a “right” to do so, which begged the question as to the origin of the right.

‘We hold these truths to be self evident’

The bottom line is that all rights are an invention.

The right I am referencing is that to self-governance.

Self-governance of what? As a person?

The reason I think it's reasonable to limit your right to sell yourself as a slave is because if it wasn't limited then a lot of people in very precarious economic situations would sell themselves and there would be a very real interest in creating those situations to force more people into slavery. You can see that with the usurious interest charged by payday loan companies. Usury is also usually illegal in civilized societies for a similar reason.

Similarly you shouldn't be allowed to abrogate your right to privacy because it creates an incentive to force other people to do so as well.

> It is well within our rights as a society to deem such a model unacceptable.

Then... pay for it?

No one is saying it's illegal for companies to demand pay as cost of access. What they can't legally do is take your privacy in lieu of payment. So "pay or don't use" is legal, and always has been. "Surrender your data to use" is not, and following that "Surrender your data or pay to use" isn't either.

Aren’t there actually three options?

1. Pay

2. Give them data

3. Do not use

Why are people not allowed to consent to (2)?

Because basically everyone giving up all privacy for a modicum of convenience makes the world a worse place. It's a seatbelt situation; people consistently make the wrong decision, so the option is removed. In the abstract it's distasteful to remove autonomy like that, but on occasion we need to make collective calculated decisions like this.

I don't get how it makes me worse off if someone else voluntarily consents to give up their privacy?

Maybe you'll understand it when I replace one inalienable right with another in that sentence: "I don't get how it makes me worse off if someone else voluntarily consents to selling themselves to slavery?"

It is much easier for your government to institute a repressive regime if most of your fellow citizens have given up their privacy. Once instituted, the regime can prevent you from leaving the country and harm you in many ways even if you personally were very careful to preserve your privacy.

Although the decision sounds so simple the underlying principle cannot be accepted. Privacy is an inalienable human right, just like being a free person. We, as a modern society, decided that some things are illegal regardless of my much both parties agree to do so. One cannot own another person, or work without compensation, or sell their organs to evade prison time. What EU is saying is that such a transaction is illegal. And just like the slavery, numerous companies are doing everything in their power to keep it.

Same reason you can't sell your organs or sell your physical freedom / time in prison (falsely admit guilt because someone paid you to do so in order for them to avoid prison) or even end your own life. The country you live has citizens who have banded together to created laws and regulations that say these various freedom-y things, if engaged in at scale by people who might have individual reason themselves to do it, are considered harmful to society and so prohibited.

The same reason they're not allowed to choose a phone with a walled-garden ecosystem: A few bureaucrats in Brussels don't like it.

It's more that two sets of elected representatives (the Council and the Parliament) have passed laws that forbid this.

If you're an EU citizen then you can lobby both sets of representatives. If you're not then this isn't really any of your business.

Like, I hate that the NSA can slurp up all my data, but as a non US citizen I have limited ability to prevent this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com