The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Democracy at risk: the terrifying power of 'big data' > Comments

Democracy at risk: the terrifying power of 'big data' : Comments

By Samuel Alexander, published 21/3/2017

The game of political campaigning has changed, and almost everyone is still playing the old game.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The article was a bit biased, in being against Trump and Cambridge Analytica it might be for Thiel, Palantir and Facebook.
- I'm not really sure of the relationships and angles going on there.

It inspired curiosity nonetheless and I'm going to now at some point have a better look at all this stuff.
I've already looked at Palantir and what they do and I suggest others do the same.
I'd add a video link but I cannot find the videos I watched on this previously.

http://heatst.com/tech/peter-thiel-trump-and-facebook-vs-cambridge-analyticas-steve-bannon/
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 6:25:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Yuyutsu ... simple things for simple minds.
Posted by Ponder, Wednesday, 22 March 2017 8:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu

It's common ground that aggression against one's person or property is harm.

But you seem to be trying to define "harm" as being exposed to sights and sounds or voices or offers that you don't want to be see or hear. According to this theory, if I walk down the street, and see people, or shop-signs, or hear spruikers, or are solicited to buy things, this is people "harming" me.

I don't agree with that, but even if it were, and even if states were formed by people voluntarily to protect themselves from harm, how would they ever remedy the problem in practice?

Even if streets were not open to the public, but were private, we would still be faced with the same problem, for example as in private shopping malls.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

As for the "government-backing" part, again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. So far as private corporations make communications to us that we don't want, even if corporations law were entirely repealed, and they did not enjoy limited liability, these same groups of people could still form themselves into voluntary associations based on contract, and still make the same communications.

So I can't see what your objection is, either in theory or practice, since
a) in theory, people, or groups of people, offering to sell you stuff is not "harm", even if you don't want it [I hate ads as much as you do]; and
b) the fact of corporate status is not a critical factor, and
c) what did you have in mind to remedy the problem?

I fully agree that *the government* shouldn't be able to access our data for any purpose; because that is genuinely non-consensual. But the same cannot be said of the private use of our data.

You don't have to *read* the fine-print to consent; clicking "I agree" is sufficient; just as you don't have to read a contract to consent: signing it is enough.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 23 March 2017 2:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jardine,

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and wisdom to know the difference."

Some things we cannot change and have to live with, but others we can, so why shouldn't we try to change them and live in a somewhat better world if we can do so without violence?

For now, all states are illegitimate and repealing their corporations-law is but a dream. Under the circumstances, if we asked them (or voted) to exclude certain classes of baddies from receiving privileges (which nobody was entitled to in the first place), we could somewhat improve the quality of life without committing any violence: withdrawal of carrots is not identical to using sticks. Sure, some might still slip through and do bad things, but since it will be less profitable, there should be fewer of them.

If one day we will be able to achieve a legitimate state with a true social-contract that includes a constitution to which all agree; and that same constitution allowed government/legislators to draw the lines and make it illegal to do harmful things that cross those lines, then why should we not draw those lines to make it illegal to knowingly expose people to sights and sounds or voices or offers that they don't want to see or hear? Today we cannot do it because it would constitute violence, but in an agreed voluntary setting it wouldn't.

Since there are so many of us on this planet, it is inevitable for negative-influences to occur, where one person does something and another suffers as a result. We try to minimise this, but sometimes we cannot and then we need to prioritise. I believe that allowing people to live peacefully without harassment, certainly in their own home/property and probably in most public places too, trumps by far the ability of others to attempt to make money out of them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 March 2017 2:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jardine,

I disagree that clicking an "I agree" button is a sufficient consent.
Often people are so computer/legal illiterate that they let others (including minors who are generally more technologically-inclined but otherwise naive) set up their accounts ("just click here, Grandma when you want to talk with me"). Also, since this is so common, routine and tiring and for many who do not understand legalese, even mysterious, it is common to assume that the agreement is benign ("haven't all my friends done the same, surely THEY would know").

Even when people understand the plain wording of the contract, they could make the assumption that the contract is benign and straight-forward and may not be intelligent enough to figure out all the intricate ways of abuse that fall between the cracks of the technical wording.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 March 2017 2:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL

Well certainly the ad for Mrs McGregor's margarine should be illegal, remember that'n (with a jig):
'Ye canna buy better than Mrs McGregor
Ye canna buy better than Mrs McGregor
Ye canna buy better than Mrs McGregorrrrrrrrr
Och it's a wonderful marrrgariinne!"

Ban it is as a manifest harm I say.

About your state founded on voluntary agreement, I don't think it could be done even in theory, let alone in practice. The reason is because a State is by definition a legal monopoly of the initiation of force and threats. A few years ago, with another libertarian lawyer, I worked on a scheme for the secession of large parts of NSW, to join an existing little-known microstate near Mudgee called Snake Hill Principality. But when we came to draft the Constitution, we found that you can't really square the circle. If you set up a state which does not have a right to legislate, then it will not satisfy the definition of a state in international law. But if it does have a right to legislate, then it will not satisfy your conception of a state based on voluntary agreement.

But however. Let's assume away this difficulty. Then how is someone to know, before they communicate with you, that their communication is unwanted? Most ads I hate, but one in 1000 is for something I actually want.

And if clicking "I agree" is not good enough, then why is signing a contract? What you're saying would overturn contract law.

The non-aggression principle is that aggression against person and property is proscribed. I can see how that would work in practice. But I can't see how your proscription against unwanted communications would work in theory, let alone in practice
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 24 March 2017 9:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy