Comment by deathhand

> >99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware

> I do not agree with this. You are saying people are too stupid to make decisions and that is amoral in my opinion.

How much of the code running on your data do you personally inspect? (Don’t forget device firmware) When your browser ships an update, do you reverse-engineer the binary? Do you review all of the open source code you use looking for back doors?

Would it be accurate to say that you don’t do that because you’re stupid? I don’t think that’s reasonable, any more than it would be to say you should carry around a test kit for any food you are planning to buy at the supermarket.

> Technology moves faster than what any law maker can create.

This is a common claim but it’s too simplistic. Laws do get passed relatively quickly when there’s a clear need - think about how things like section 230 arrived relatively soon after the rise of the web - but in most cases it’s more a clarification of existing laws. For example, cryptocurrency wasn’t mentioned in previous laws by name but the IRS had no trouble taxing it under existing laws.

Privacy shows why the “just let people choose” approach doesn’t work: you the individual have no negotiating clout with Facebook or Google, and there are many cases like revenge porn where the problem is only visible after the decision has been made.

Laws are how societies agree to function. If you don’t like the laws, you need to get involved because there simply isn’t a way to get good results by demanding that the system accommodate people who don’t show up.

> > 99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone

> I do not agree with this. You are saying people are too stupid to make decisions and that is amoral in my opinion.

No, it's just saying that most people have other priorities. If you want to make the world a better place, educate more people so that their priorities change towards caring more about the software that runs on their devices, instead of attacking people with weird non-sequiturs.

> I do not agree with this. You are saying people are too stupid to make decisions and that is amoral in my opinion.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's impossible for all people to make informed decisions on all the issues that surround them, because of both knowledge and time. And it doesn't just happen with computer and privacy, see food, for example. Do you make all decisions about what's allowed or not in your food chain? It's impossible! Unless you dedicate quite a lot of time to it, you can't know if certain foods have certain ingredients, and whether those are harmful or not. That's why we have regulation on food. We trust that regulation because we need to do more things than just worrying constantly about our food.

In the same way, most people delegate control on what can run on their device because they don't have the time or knowledge to inspect constantly what is running on their devices.

> Data portability is a thing. This was the original problem with FB and thats how we got 'takeout'.

And did takeout solve any problems? No, because it's not a technical issue.

> Using the extreme in arguments is dishonest. We are talking on HN where it is a selective group of like minded people(bubble). How does your delivery driver communicate with their social circles? Or anyone that services you?

The GP used the extreme by saying that "essentially all human communication" has been moved to social networks.

But yes, we do agree that HN is not the real world. So I'd love to know what were the warning signs to people like a delivery driver, or basically anyone that wasn't active in computer circles. Not to mention that, before, social networks, most communication was done through channels controlled by third parties (phone, letters, television). From a non-technical standpoint, things didn't change that much.

> We do not need more laws as technology advances but rather an enforcement of personal rights and protections enabling users to be aware of what is happening.

"Enforcement" is done through laws and regulations.

> It appears you are stating "people aren't smart enough to control their devices" and "We need laws to govern people"

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that people shouldn't need to invest a significant amount of time constantly verifying that their devices and networks are doing what they say they are doing, and that laws and regulations should be applied to corporations instead so that people can reasonably trust that the ones offering those devices and networks are doing things somewhat correctly.

And again, this has been done already with quite a lot of things. There are regulations for cars, food, furniture, clothes... Not because people aren't smart to control what they use, but because it's impossible for any one person to have the time and knowledge to control everything that they use.

Imagine applying your argument when talking about, say, carcinogenic substances on food. You could argue that the best way to fight that is for people to grow their own food and check that their food doesn't contain those substances, or trust that some company that sells them food is doing it for them. Or, you could push for regulation and organisms that ensure that those substances don't make their way into the food chain.

Well, this is the same. Most people have other things to do instead of learning to ensure that their devices are secure and private and then checking that for everything they get their hands on. You need regulations so that there's a consensus on what can you expect, and then enforcement so that the products you get actually comply with those regulations.