SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Developer Aral Balkan has written a reaction piece on human rights in response to some poor ideas put out by a Palantir- and Google- sponsored docent teaching "Privacy and Big Data" at a university in The Netherlands. His point is that the attempts to spin privacy as anything other than a basic human right are nothing more than efforts to eliminate it:
Given the levels of institutional corruption in academia and in the regulatory bodies and advocacy institutions that should be protecting our privacy, very few things shock me these days. So hats off to Bart van der Sloot for managing the impossible and finding a new low by framing institutional corruption as scientific neutrality in his article Dubbele petten in de privacywetenschap.
The gist of Mr. van der Sloot’s argument can be summarised with this doozy of a quote from his article1:
Should privacy science be pro-privacy, or is it an undermining of the neutrality of privacy science? If privacy science should be neutral, why is there so much commotion about the sponsorship by commercial parties like Google, Facebook and Palantir and are there few words wasted on sponsorship by activist civil rights organizations such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPiC), Privacy First and Bits of Freedom, which are outspoken pro-privacy? Does this not indicate that the criticism of sponsorship by commercial parties comes from persons who are not themselves neutral and objective, but actually pursue a pro-privacy agenda?
Where does one begin to dissect such a juicy turd?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:37PM (7 children)
So what does it mean for life science? It is science, right? So, according to that logic, it should be neutral on the question of life. So research on eliminating life should not be discriminated against, right? And anyone who opposes those efforts is obviously biased.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:28PM (5 children)
It should, yes. Research on ending life happens all the time. See insecticide/herbicide/military research as well as research on abortions. It's perfectly, even easily, possible to study something without turning it into an idealistic crusade. And for the very same person to then go on a separate idealistic crusade for the thing they were studying.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:44PM (4 children)
Justice is often protrayed in the west as as blindfolded woman with scales (evidence) in one hand and sword (the sentence) in the other, a derivation of the ancient Egyption mythos over the heart of the dead being held in balance against a feather of the goddess Ma'at. If justice is meant to be blind and just consider the facts, then surely science - regardless of what it is - ought to aspire to do the same?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @03:48PM (3 children)
If they'd replace animals with the worst crime prisoners for lab testing you can bet crime would decrease and prison costs would drop.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 17 2019, @04:46PM
I thought about that, but the idea might not work out so well. There's a great deal of uncertainty in lab experiments, and a twisted mind of a convict could imagine many potential outcomes of a random medical experiment. So they will want to cause as much damage as possible on their way out, and that just might include choking the shit out of the lab monkey charged with giving them that untested vaccine.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 17 2019, @09:31PM
Historical analogies don't back you up. Pickpockets used to do a thriving business at the crowds gathered to watch someone else's hands being cut off.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 18 2019, @12:48AM
Do you want supermutants? Because this is how you get supermutants.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @07:14PM
Privacy "science" doesn't exist in the first place. Privacy "scientists" merely justify why violating ours privacy and giving more power to people who already has horrendous power is good and the only way our society can go on. Targeted at "Hacker" "News" fag bunch and "techies" of course.