Let's hope a real data privacy law, if we had one, would be less Delos-friendly.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Westworld is pretty sure we’ll get a privacy law in the next 20 years
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
And then Dolores will hack the Incite recommendation engine and use it to make that gullible-gullible human fall in love with her and do the AI Revolution! Yay 
I mean what could be _worse_ than using human gullibility as a weapon against them Ex Machina style
I mean what could be _worse_ than using human gullibility as a weapon against them Ex Machina style
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Look, people in 2020 will give up every piece of personal information they have just to find out which breed of dog they are on a Facebook quiz....lord only knows what they'll give up to shoot robo bandits and sleep with robohookers.
Upvote
76
(76
/
0)
What I find most appalling in the lack of data privacy in the U.S. is that I can agree to give my data to one company (lets call it A) by agreeing to their terms of service and also decide to not touch another company (appropriately called B), I cannot object to B getting all the data I gave to A should Company B buy Company A.
I agreed to give my data to A and Only A, but in the U.S. that doesn't mean squat (currently, as I understand it)
If what I'm describing sounds familiar, it's the current situation of Intuit buying Credit Karma, though for complete disclosure: I personally agreed to give my data to both; but my hypothetical still applies.
I agreed to give my data to A and Only A, but in the U.S. that doesn't mean squat (currently, as I understand it)
If what I'm describing sounds familiar, it's the current situation of Intuit buying Credit Karma, though for complete disclosure: I personally agreed to give my data to both; but my hypothetical still applies.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
Company B doesn't even have to buy Company A. All that Company B has to do is avail themselves of the services offered through their Friendly Neighborhood Data Aggregator/Broker. That allows them to glom on to all of the *anonymized* data that the aggregator/broker has packaged up from practically any damn data-sucking platform anywhere, because they are a *Trusted Third-Party Partner*.
The Delos and Intuit content linked in the article is nicely polished and professional, but whether it's the futuristic scifi dystopia of 2039, or the stark dystopian reality of 2020, we're all living in the mind of Cory Doctrow.
Upvote
20
(21
/
-1)
If you watched the second movie, Futureworld, They got themselves kidnapped by the corporation, had their brains scanned, then after they were murdered, robots were programmed to be them, so they could promote the park. It's kind of like life in the Trump administration.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
When ever I get presented with and updated privacy policy on a website, why bother reading it ? No matter what they say , your info will be shared to virtually every business in the world
Hopefully the law treats these the same as the terms of service ,basically they mean nothing
Hopefully the law treats these the same as the terms of service ,basically they mean nothing
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I'm a bit confused... I assume this is from the HBO show, right? It emulates real life in the somewhat distant future?
In what reality does legislation passed by Congress go into immediate effect? My mind glitched at that point, and the rest went un-read.
Perhaps a bit more of an intro to the story would have set it up better, especially for folks who haven't seen the latest incarnation of Westworld? Starting with the present, going to the future, and bringing it all together in the end would have made for a more coherent presentation, IMHO.
As for privacy laws, anything passed by congress is likely to have enough loopholes to hang half the lawyers in the country - which wouldn't necessarily be a BAD thing, except it'd be the wrong half of the lawyers who should be hung.
Our government has a vested interest in supporting the constitution. The Constitution has exceptions for invading privacy. Arguments about the merits of how well due process is done aside, the fact is, with due process, privacy can be invaded by the government.
Digital privacy has multiple layers of levels to it, from non-existent, to "unbreakable encryption". The thing is, that's all a totally new territory with respect to the concept of privacy and the implementation of due process. In the past, the government could, at least in theory and mostly in practice, successfully obtain anything that still existed. In a virtual world, that's much less certain, and there are reasons why we don't want our digital privacy in the hands of governments, or anyone else. Nor do we want ways for the government, or anyone else, to "crack" our privacy.
This more likely requires a social solution than a technical one, since having ways to crack encryption for the sake of obtaining information under the umbrella of due process inherently makes privacy moot. It's very much all or nothing. Given that, its not technologically possible to solve.
That means we come up with social solutions to it that don't involve technology. Perhaps something along the lines of dealing with a locked device as if it was a shredded piece of paper from which nothing can be obtained. Disposing of the device by shredding would do the same thing. It might make law enforcement more difficult, but it would protect the reality of privacy without trying to do the technologically impossible.
Howsoever it's done, the technological reality is that you either have unbreakable encryption or no privacy at all. Anything else is quibbling. Since technology can't afford a solution to that conundrum (at least not yet), the solutions aren't going to come from technology. That means social legal solutions that preserve privacy.
After all, forcing a "crack" in encryption processes would be a precondition of a lack of due process, which is not constitutional. If someone uses a combination to put things in a safe that will destroy the contents if someone doesn't enter the right combination, they need a warrant to get into it, or risk losing it altogether. Better that data be lost to preserve privacy than to allow the government to just bypass privacy rights altogether.
Upvote
-12
(3
/
-15)
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
I'm very sympathetic to the principles behind privacy laws. When it comes to using my mobile devices and computer, I am very scrupulous about protecting my privacy and security online using as many tools available and I am sure you all do too. That being said, unfortunately, privacy laws come with one huge caveat in that the established technology companies are the ones who end up benefitting from them as Europe's experience with GDPR has revealed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/tech ... oogle.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/tech ... oogle.html
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
That's how it all went down! Complacency over compliance. Their fellow travellers Omni Consumer Products didn't bother to fully test the "20-seconds-to-comply" subroutine as they assumed it was laughable to waste resources for the minuscule numbers of non-compliant citizens. Meanwhile, over at Cyberdyne Systems, the mainly games-industry sourced executives assured NORAD they would have plenty of time to patch things after deployment.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Is it just me or does the article contain no information related to its title? What is Westworld's idea of a privacy law? How does it compare to real world privacy laws? How is it "Delos-friendly"?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)