Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfoutz | Hacker News Reader

For me, the information asymmetry is what's upsetting. Everyone's location data being free and public seems, well, ok to me. But no exceptions for any reason.

View on HN

Really? You think that, for instance, someone trying to leave an abusive partner doesn't have more reason to want their whereabouts unknown than someone with no psychotic acquaintances? Someone who turned state's witness against their drug dealer friends?

On the other hand if they and everybody else knew the whereabouts of their abusive partner, wouldn't that actually contribute to their safety?

Assuming such data isn't easily falsified.

How so? Are you going to stay awake 24/7 to stop those abusers when they get too close to their victims?

If the theoretical data is available on the theoretical abuser, the police could monitor it, or you could have a non-profit service which monitors the proximity and alerts authorities / sends a "get out of the house" message to you.

So, instead of living a life in relative safety, you get to spend the rest of your life on alert and in fear. I really don't see how you can argue that this would be an acceptable solution.

No I would have no problem if they just watch, only if they did something hurt then its problem. In open society they can be tracked easily.

Great for you, but I think that you understand that not everyone would feel the same in such a situation?

The most theoretical part of such a scenario is the police force that follows procedures perfectly and aren't ever overworked.

Let's flip that around. The key point would be "everyone's location ... No exceptions". Then you'd know if that abusive partner was approaching you (and call relevant authorities). The dealers would probably also be known without needing a witness. Of course, we'd also know who was sleeping with whom and when.

It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine such a world but for it to be viable, society would have to have very different views on a lot of things.

The abused wouldn't be able to track their abuser's allies without knowing who they all were.

But if any of the abuser's allies did anything to the abused, they could be easily identified and tracked down; this could act as a deterrent.

If we're not capping the level of abuse it could easily be too late though. Let's take it to the extreme, somebody wants to kill you and you have no choice but to broadcast your location to everybody. Some people receiving that data, you don't know who, are happy to do the killing for the person who wants to kill you. Afterward they can be identified and tracked down, but at this extremity it's too late.

The punishment for killing is the deterrent.

For people that have rational minds. What about people who are irrational or have some sort of mental illness? I guess that's just a "too bad" for the person who is now dead?

Yes its too bad when I'm dead. I could done anything I could have done to prevent that but there will always be somebody who are irrational or have some sort mental illness or anybody who could eventually find a way to kill me if they really want to. This is happen in open or private society.

I don't think someone fleeing an abusive partner would necessarily benefit as much from knowing the abuser's location as much as the abuser would benefit from the victim's location. The information would be symmetric, but the value from it might not be.

Maybe the abuser has a car and victim is relying on mass transit. Or maybe the victim's best bet is staying with a friend whose residence is unknown to the abuser.

Agreed. I think even arguing this point shows a lack of understanding of how these cases work. Believing that information equality is the same as power equality is a fallacy.

That said, information equality does suggest a marginally higher baseline of power-sharing than gross information inequality is able to achieve.

In the case of witness protection: The witness does not know every member of the mafia, but the mafia knows the witness. There is inherently an asymmetry of power in such situations.

Assuming that the location is based on tracking a mobile phone, the aggressor could quite easily leave their phone at home and if they need a phone take an unregistered one.

The problem with open information is that those with evil intent can take precautions to ensure their activities aren't monitored.

This is not the problem with open society in itself. The same problem happen in private society. Anybody motivated enough can hack through your secret given enough effort.

"Given enough effort" is the key there. Just because someone can break into your house given enough effort doesn't mean you leave your doors off the hinges.

I would not even need to lock my doors.

I'm very happy for you that you feel that you not in a position where that is a risky step. Are you able to fathom that others may not be in that same situation, or are you content to be blasé to their differing circumstances?

You're being ridiculous. So if someone has someone else they fear will hurt then, there is no reason whatever that that dangerous person shouldn't know their whereabouts because in principle it is possible for the potential victim to know their whereabouts?

Assuming most people on HN are good programmers, there is clearly no linkage between a person's ability to write RoR code and how to reason about normal things in the world. I'm just being honest.

The problem is you can not make the judgement, that making everyone's location public is ok, for everyone. People have different preferences towards their privacy. We should respect other's choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com