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: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday February 18 2019, @05:02AM
Exactly so.
--
Head: Cannot open 'brain' for reading. No such file or directory.