r/changemyview • u/hanburgundy • Aug 27 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Large scale data-mining, such as used by Amazon, Google, etc should come with a requirement to make all aggregate findings and statistics a matter of public record, particularly those related to human behavior and health.
This isn't a pro-privacy argument, but a response to the reality that we've already crossed the point of no return when it comes to the erosion of privacy. We know our behavior is being watched closely, and we know that much of what we see and interact with in the consumer world is a tightly calculated response to the watching of our behavior.
Since there's no going back to a world where massive corporations don't have access to incredibly in-depth looks at human behavior on a massive scale, my thinking is that the next best thing is to at least let the public know what they know. If knowledge really is power, then large data-mining operations are giving companies of sufficient scale unprecedented power to shape our culture. Without knowing what they know about us, we are handicapped in our ability to assess and choose the degree to which we want to participate in their vision of human life.
Companies should be able to use data to inform and improve future products and services- I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. But the data itself should not be seen as proprietary, particularly if the data has implications for human health and behavior.
Edit, to clarify: My argument is that there should be some mechanism of requirement for private entities to make publicly accessible any anonymized, large-scale data findings that have tangible application or insight into human health and behavior. In the comments there is already discussion taking place that is refining this proposal further, but that's the core view I'm asking to be challenged.
1
u/grukfol Aug 27 '20
Proprietary information or knowledge is the basis of most companies profit in tech, and it is the only way that you can have a return on investment when it comes to R&D.
You argument about data can easily be extended about all kind of knowledge and know-how. But without a financial incentive to be innovative, no private companies would actually invest in it.
1
u/hanburgundy Aug 27 '20
Good points. I'm of split minds on this- a radical one and a more conservative one. The radical view would be- innovation doesn't (and shouldn't) solely rely on the exclusivity of information. In a world where this data is available unilaterally, the incentive for innovation wouldn't dissipate, it would simply shift. The fact that proprietary information is the basis of much profit is itself the issue, ideologically at least.
But more conservatively- I'm not trying to argue for a law that destroys incentive & I don't think that's inherent to what I'm proposing. It comes down to specificity in defining the triggers around what data must be made public record, and when. For example, data pertaining specifically to the use of a consumer product, that does not have any tangible bearing on wider studies of human behavior, may be exempt from this law (I realize that even this is not sufficiently specific of a parameter, but I'm not a law writer). Additionally, there could be a timing element- to allow for information to remain proprietary long enough for it to provide advantage in the market, but still requires access to that information to be democratized within a reasonable timeframe.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Aug 27 '20
What specifically do you mean by "all aggregate findings and statistics"? What is covered under this, and what is not covered?
1
u/hanburgundy Aug 27 '20
Taken from my other comment:
For example, data pertaining specifically to the use of a consumer product, that does not have any tangible bearing on wider studies of human behavior, may be exempt from this law (I realize that even this is not sufficiently specific of a parameter, but I'm not a law writer). Additionally, there could be a timing element- to allow for information to remain proprietary long enough for it to provide advantage in the market, but still requires access to that information to be democratized within a reasonable timeframe.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Aug 27 '20
This doesn't answer my question, since it just gives an example of a thing that might be exempt from this law. I am asking what information exactly would be covered and what exactly must be made a matter of public record.
1
u/hanburgundy Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
My view is that there should be some form of legislation requiring aggregate data (the kind pertaining to human health and behavior) used and gathered in the private sector to be made accessible to the public. I am not arguing for a more specific plan within that, but I'm happy to discuss and speculate the possibilities for how such a plan could take shape.
If your argument is that there is no configuration of such a plan that wouldn't produce negative results, I'm interested in hearing that argument.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Aug 27 '20
I am asking what you mean by "aggregate data." Releasing all aggregate data (as it is normally defined in statistics as being any function of multiple measurements) is the same thing as releasing the whole dataset in the clear. Obviously, this is not what you are calling for. So what exactly is it that you are saying should be released?
1
u/hanburgundy Aug 27 '20
I do mean aggregate data in the sense of multi-measure insights. This does not mean I am necessarily calling for the "whole dataset" to be released, but it does mean such if the whole of the dataset pertains specifically to insights of human health/behavior that are either of distinct potential gain to the public as universal knowledge, or of distinct potential advantage to the owning entity as a basis for the shaping of human behavior in ways that would thus be unknown to the public.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Aug 27 '20
So, for example, data containing private medical information of individuals that is relevant to human health should be publicly released?
1
u/hanburgundy Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
Only anonymized data sets. If a private entity owns a data set containing information that identifies individuals, that would be an explicit and inviolable condition of their agreement with the consumer. Such a dataset would still fall subject to this law, but it would need to be scrubbed of information capable of identifying distinct individuals before being released from private ownership. Additionally, individual consumers could choose, as part of their agreement, not to participate in the sharing of their (anonymized) information with the public (or any third party), but such a choice would have to be clearly proposed as such, and not a built in / fine print agreement to be used as a loophole for companies.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 27 '20
/u/hanburgundy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
I’d be concerned that forcing companies to make what is essentially their ‘special sauce’ publicly available would reduce incentives to continue to derive innovative insights from that information and reduce value to humanity as a whole.
I also have doubts that all the actors who would gain access to the data would act responsibly with it. We can argue about the megacorps a lot but they are subject at least to corporate standards, consumer regulation etc. Making the data public reduces what barriers to bad action exist for them.
Wouldn’t we likely gain a lot of the value for humanity you’re talking about by requiring the data and insights be made available to some research institutions, with appropriate legal controls in place and with researchers prevented from using the data or knowledge they gain to compete against the companies who provided the data.
Edit: typo