Yes but for a shirt? Capturing a shirt shoplifter is worth the same effort and potential damage to innocents as a murderer? Or a bank robber? Or an organized group hitting electronics retailers? If someone refuses to pay a parking ticket, how much collateral damage is worth getting them to pay their ticket?
Also I feel your comment may be implying that this sort of hyper aggressive enforcement is the only thing keeping crime down - I would suspect that crime at the level of shoplifting a shirt is more often due to need and desperation than to purely malicious intent, and while hyper aggressive enforcement may have some deterrent effect those crimes would probably be better resolved by trying to eliminate the core issues driving them in the first place.
And how exactly do you propose the Sierra Club enforce its decisions? Sharp words and a stern glare?
A government brings with it the ability to actually enforce laws, and I think there are sufficient examples in world history as to why the ability to enforce is just as important, if not more, as the ability to legislate. That's partly why we now have the Constitution instead of still using the Articles of Confederation.
That in itself may be considered a victory, depending on how far China is pushed and how they respond. If the rest of the world won't/can't do business with China anymore, that would be bad for China. HK's last ditch objective could end up as goading China into chopping off it's own feet to put down the protestors. A pyrrhic victory for sure, but still a victory in the long run.
That's an optimistic world-view. If they put down the protesters violently, I'm not convinced it would really have an impact more than 6 months out. Maybe I'm too cynical, but honestly, there don't really seem to be any negative long-term repercussions for bad actors in today's world.
A HK crack down would be flash point which would force the hand of many countries. European nations such as Germany have been trying to avoid taking sides in order to preserve market access. Thus far the CCP have succeeded in gradually degrading free societies ability to speak ill of them. A HK crack down would force all who believe in liberal values to grow a spine.
I hope so. I just don't see how relations wouldn't be slowly normalized again within a year. I've seen very few lasting measures for bad actors. Even Russia, which was responsible for the downing of MH17 killing 193 Dutch citizens, is a major trading partner of the Netherlands.
It pushes innovators out, which is strategically problematic long-term. If you were an innovator, would that be the kind of environment you'd want to stay in?
It is already oppressive and corrupt today, yet it has no problem attracting as many "innovators" as it needs to. The only thing that may be unwelcoming are local instabilities like the hong kong stuff.
Eh, in some instances you can define extremeness relative to alternatives, not number of believers. Execution as a punishment is more extreme than a fine regardless of how many people favor execution over fines. I would argue that generally a position being extreme results in fewer believers, not that fewer believers results in a position being extreme.
Agreed. This is how we use the term in political science anyway. Even if an "extreme" opinion becomes majoritary, it remains just as extreme on a supposed "spectrum" of possibles. "More" than "extreme" usually takes you off-spectrum, e.g. anarchy (which is often considered beyond extreme right, at least in Europe) or "hive mind" would fit beyond extreme left ideas of collectivism (a sci-fi concept of unified minds and thinking, like colonies of ants but next level. lol.) Both are off the political spectrum though, can't describe them using the same elements.
Reality is obviously much more "blurry". Most political experts would argue (rightfully so, imho) that most "extreme" views are in fact not "left" or "right" of moderate ones; they sit in a different "plane" so to speak, a third space distinct from left/right (you'd indeed find a lot of right-ish and left-ish ideas mixed in with most "extreme" ideologies; you also find lots of moderate and extreme views in otherwise 'normal' (statistically) parties).
Left/right itself, or moderate/extreme, are also pretty poor and unsubstantial ways to define any idea or anyone, it's a poor man's shortcut to summarize a context, not ideas themselves. Most people today would sit far left of anyone in past history, for instance, while being much more individualistic at the same time.
Reality is complex. The media don't like complex (is media plural? shall I call it something else in pronoun?). Hence, theatric storytelling of the left versus the right, and/or moderates vs. extremes, iced with a general misunderstanding of statistics. I will now refrain from making any conclusion.
Reminds me of a concept called Overton window [0]. Just want to mention this describes how people behave, as in a human weakness. Not how people should behave to form optimal opinions / societies.
> Eh, in some instances you can define extremeness relative to alternatives, not number of believers.
Relative extremeness, sure, but that makes something more or less extreme, not “extreme” without a comparative.
> Execution as a punishment is more extreme than a fine regardless of how many people favor execution over fines.
But execution for most serious crimes was for a very long time a standard position, not an extreme one, while not executing people was an extreme position (though it's now pretty standard in most of the world, with broad—or indeed any—use of execution being an extreme position.)
> I would argue that generally a position being extreme results in fewer believers, not that fewer believers results in a position being extreme.
If you would argue that, go ahead, but you've provided neither evidence nor much argumentation, just conflation of absolute and relative uses of “extreme”, and your example of capital punishment seems to disprove your thesis.
> Execution as a punishment is more extreme than a fine regardless of how many people favor execution over fines.
Not if you are talking about fining or destroying sentient robots. The sentient robot probably has a pretty good back-up system of his mind, so he can just respawn in a different body, his bank account, though, is singular and coupled to the identity that its brain can prove to be. So executing such a robot is not very extreme, it is at most an inconvenience. Taking his money though, is something that has a more lasting impact. At least this is what I made up.
The point I am making is that what is 'extreme' is dependent on context and there is no such thing as intrinsic extremeness.
But there is a solution to that. Anything that can be easily identified as being the result of someone's own choices they are on the hook for and/or can get insurance for. Yes, these things would have to be enumerated, with some things debated and others refined, but insurance companies didn't seem to have any trouble enumerating what they will or will not cover and this isn't any different. Most if not all of the issues with implementing a system like this will be things that have been done before.
But, a percentage that would have bought black market goods may instead go the stereotypical route for underage drinking - getting someone of age to legally buy the product and pass it on.
People still fall for "convincing" emails and social media profiles with a name and a photo. I work tech support at my university, and we regularly have to deal with faculty clicking on things they shouldn't, or not clicking on things they should. I also do some work for a local non-profit and a month ago two employees came uncomfortably close to costing us thousands.
Cryptographic trust won't help much either unless it is packaged and presented in the right way to the end user - it's basically advanced black magic to most people. I would love to have cryptographic verification setup for the non-profit's communication so that they can have some guarantee of legitimacy, but first I have to figure out how to make it fit into their workflow and not require them to actually take any action.
It's important to keep in mind that we have some distorted sampling. I would guess that most if not all of the people on HN are technical to some degree, so we may tend to have a bit of a bubble. We are a pathetically, uncomfortably small minority.
Never, ever, ever rely on humans doing the right thing if you can help it, whether in the form of an individual, a corporation, or a government.
I did say "started to adjust their natural assumptions". Clearly some people haven't yet; perhaps for some people who didn't grow up with the internet, it's not really possible. But we as a society are adapting, is the point.
They may not technically be the only platforms (extending to include all big tech), but practically speaking they are effectively the only platforms, which is what really matters. Someone may technically be able to change from Comcast to Verizon, but if it would cost them 10k then it becomes rather impractical and the net effect is the same as if Comcast was the only option. The barrier to switching must be considered as well as the existence of options.
However I agree that breaking them up may not be the solution - mandated interoperability may be. At least then there would be the benefits of having freedom of choice with plenty of options without the downsides of losing access to your data and your social network (which I think constitute the majority of the switching barrier). Similar mandates in healthcare and education would also be beneficial. This would of course not immediately solve the problem, but I would rather have to deal with getting developers to be mindful of the needs of their users than face the impossibility of getting users in the first place.
An entity should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage, so long as the practical barriers to competition are not affected (ie, network effects)
Switching costs are low. People use YouTube, Telegram, Slack, Instagram, Snapchat, and Reddit all day. Countless smaller forums are wildly popular for specific interests.
If they fell, whatever platform is next in line would start receiving the criticism.
But further, I think we've seen many times in tech that about the time something gets so large that people start wanting to regulate it is about when tides are shifting anyway. The thing to reduce the influence of these networks won't be regulation, it will be some combination of boredom, disillusionment, a better alternative, the next generation wanting something different from their parents, etc. To force split before that happens just ensures the market-provided solution is weaker and less revolutionary than it could be, since the competition it is overcoming has artificial handicaps. That makes progress slower overall.
Part of the problem I think is that these people don't actually comprehend what is happening and the possible consequences. To them it's just a magic black box.
Maybe I’m one of these people. What exactly are the consequences? So far, the most damaging consequence of overreaching customer privacy is the famous teenage pregnancy leak when Target sent out coupon mailers to expecting moms based on shopping history.
That’s a really weirdly specific issue, and hard to imaging a similar scenario that would affect my life in some equally horrible way.
Am I missing something? Why should I be so afraid of Home Depot or whatever knowing a little bit about me?
My wife got a box of Enfamil Fedexed to our door as a promotion on what would have been the due date of our baby. Unfortunately, she miscarried at 3 months.
They knew this because marketers get near real-time access to prescriptions, hospital admissions and other things.
You should care because your information will be sold or traded, and behaviors can be correlated against medical and other outcomes.
Are you a divorced dad who has moved within 90 days and play daily fantasy sports? I can buy a list that will find you for $250. You are a risk for opioid addiction and may get denied service in the future for medical issues. Or you may attract advertising tailored to get you to gamble or drink more, when you are at your most vulnerable.
If what you are saying is true (I'm genuinely asking), that sounds like behavior that should absolutely be made illegal and severely punished.
I try to maintain a "lite" internet footprint (no facebook, only social media is LinkedIn, I use a VPN when I can) ... it's a little disturbing to think that someone can just purchase my buying history and use it as, essentially, an attack vector to serve me ads or gaslight me into buying stuff I don't really want or need.
Yes, you are. The events surrounding what happened to my wife was very painful (an ectopic pregnancy that nearly killed her), and a thoughtless reminder was very unwelcome. I still feel violated and betrayed.
In our case, I found out the marketing list from Enfamil and bought it for my zip code. I complained to the hospitals’ privacy officer and the state regulator and found that everything was legal.
In our case, the hospital pharmacy issued drugs to her indicative of a pregnancy. The pharmacy or insurer provides that information in real time to data brokers. The pharmaceutical companies assign quotas and send salespeople for certain drugs. There are other ways for data to get out that we’re not certain of. Perhaps the insurer “anonymizes” and sells subrogation information. Or the lab. In any case, they knew that my wife was admitted to an OB floor of a hospital, but didn’t know the outcome.
It’s not going away. The US government uses these same techniques with companies like Google to combat extremism or terrorist conversions — they actually use factors like this to target potential recruits with counter-information via ads.
> I complained to the hospitals’ privacy officer and the state regulator and found that everything was legal.
Both of those are the wrong venue for complaint on this issue; the hospital privacy officer exist to protect the hospital from liability and will never confirm to an outside party, especially a complaining party, that an act is a violation of the hospital’s legal duty, and the state regulator isn't responsible for enforcing federal law.
The right place for complaint is the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office or Civil Rights, which is actually responsible for enforcing the privacy provisions of HIPAA. Or getting your own attorney.
It's not a HIPPA violation because they give the information to one of their "partners", and you agree to this in all the crap that gets signed.
I went to a Norton Hospital Immediate Care Center and paid cash because I didn't have insurance at the time. Because I paid cash, Norton turned all of my contact information over to a company that sells health insurance and gives loans to pay for medical services. They bugged the everlovin' shit out of me with automated phone calls until I decided enough is enough.
The Immediate Care Center denied giving any information out and were shocked this was happening, but Norton central billing knew about it, said they would remove me, but the 3rd party already had my info so it was too late.
The 3rd party were complete assholes, and when I got fired up because I wouldn't give them even MORE personal info to be removed from their call list, they said it was my fault: if I had just called them back and given them the 15-digit code, an agent would have removed me. That's also a lie, because I eventually did try that.
To protect my privacy, I told Norton my phone number had changed, and my new number was 812-555-1212, which is the 812 area code directory assistance number.
They did the same thing to my sister when she paid with cash because her husband had just changed jobs and she didn't have the new insurance info yet.
That's really awful; I'm so sorry you both had to go through that.
Would you mind sharing more information about how you found that list (esp for a given zip), and how you think they tied that information to an address? My email is in my profile, if you wouldn't mind reaching out.
I called and asked Enfamil. They readily provided the name of the marketing list. When I bought it, you had to get a minimum number of entries, which I did by targeting a couple of local zip codes.
I don’t have ready access to it now, but it had all sorts of stuff, probably about 150 columns. Stuff ranging from likely medical conditions to car owned, to stores frequently shopped to specific consumer products used.
As a more serious and well-known concrete threat, this type of data is regularly aggregated by data brokers, and then used by stalkers and domestic abusers to commit crimes.
I imagine it being available and cheaply for sale is also a boon for various financial crimes/fraud.
It's not home depot specifically to be worried about knowing a little about you, but about them not being competent to control that data and everyone's little bit becoming a lot more significant and dangerous when combined.
edit: Also, the same type of information can easily be used later by government. I imagine if Uyghurs were not being specifically targeted by the Chinese government for cultural extermination there would be little trouble in their cultural identity being discernible from certain purchasing profiles. Once they are rounded up into camps, the last 15 years of detailed surveillance about them becomes very troublesome for them.
Never heard of them selling to individuals but it wouldn't surprise me if they do. At the very least a record should be kept of who they sold the data to in case it is used for a purpose like stalking someone.
I work in credit scoring and you should be afraid of what you will not be eligible / priced systematically for in the future.
What will employers find when they use this for background checks? If you regularly buy alcohol a drinks_alcohol flag could be set or a health_indicator could increase.
This feels like it should be better dealt with via legislation. Already sounds like health data, which is legislated to high-heaven in the US, and also sounds like the juiciest ever GDPR suit waiting to happen in the EU.
Well the example was now around health data, but you can easily make up other more innocuous examples that will discriminate enough to give you a disadvantage.
It's not that you should necessarily be afraid of it but rather that you should be more aware of it. Advertising is now weaponized to the point that companies can take advantage of people through psychological tricks to get them to disadvantage themselves just to make a sale. Imagine the housing crisis amped up to an order of magnitude. Transactions, theoretically, should be based on good faith from both parties. If a business has far more insight into you than you have into them, though, then nearly every transaction has the potential to be predatory.
Is there a concise, well written, summary of the types of things that are likely to happen to folks because of data collection? Would be nice to have something to give people that don’t understand.
This is, in general, the problem with America and other countries, in my opinion. Technical literacy is extremely low for the level of technical sophistication present in everyone's everyday life. I know it's not great in other countries but I think America has it worse in a lot of ways because our society encourages companies to take advantage of people in every way imaginable and lawmakers are possibly even less tech savvy than the majority of the population. People don't actually understand the consequences of their actions (agreeing to ToS, giving Facebook their data, using Amazon Echo/Google Home, etc.) and so they can't actually make an informed decision. The EU, at the very least, has attempted to make this conversation more public through the GDPR, but America is too self-involved to even consider educating the populace.
Full stack + all the nuts, bolts and intangibles (from server provisioning to interpreting the vision of stakeholders). Constrained by class schedule, so remote strongly preferred but on site is workable if schedule is flexible. Personal website still very much a WIP, but see resume link. I like challenging projects and learning new things.
Also I feel your comment may be implying that this sort of hyper aggressive enforcement is the only thing keeping crime down - I would suspect that crime at the level of shoplifting a shirt is more often due to need and desperation than to purely malicious intent, and while hyper aggressive enforcement may have some deterrent effect those crimes would probably be better resolved by trying to eliminate the core issues driving them in the first place.