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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @07:48PM (1 child)
No, it doesn't exist "like a law of nature." A law of nature is in fact objectively true. The circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r. On earth objects in free fall accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 at sea level of earth's surface. There are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule of water. These things cannot be changed under any circumstances known to man.
"Rights" are not objectively true, they are at best shared value judgments. Heinlein said it best, but I'll paraphrase. If I take a gun and shoot you in the head, what has become of your "right to life?" If I shoot you in the leg and chain you to a pole what has become of your right to liberty? You can in fact "pursue happiness" no matter what but there is no guarantee of finding it. (Although how you'll pursue righteousness after I've taken your life away is a different question). And let's not get started about Locke's actual third right - that of property, conveniently skipped by the framers. Were these "natural laws" I would not be able to do either if you truly have them independently of anything else.
Rights don't exist without an "ultimate authority" or some other "authority" that will establish that violating them carries a penalty. Whether that is a belief in God or a State or just a community of people who say, "nope, you murder someone we'll take your life away," rights are safeguarded by belief. Not because they are self-establishing.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. And it doesn't mean that privacy isn't a "thing". And if it is a Thing, if it can be quantified and measured then it is indeed possible to establish science around it.
But what TFA is, is a sloppy editorial blog in response to someone else's opinion that somehow got picked as a news story. That's about it.
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Monday March 18 2019, @02:53PM
I said "like a law of nature" as an analogy. It's logic based, and as such abstract from the observable and mostly induction based science. By accepted definitions 2+2=4 and that is like a law of nature; but it's stronger... and weaker depending on how you look at it. They are completely different, but have a strength that is alike and many including you seem to thing they are the same sort of thing. Math is a pure logic construction; but logic is more fundamental and flexible. Anyhow it's stronger in that it's not merely observation, it's self hoisted but it's weaker in that it's pure thoughts/definitions while consistent observation appears as an unalterable input.
Logic is the foundation of math. Physics is an application of math to observed nature.
You missed my points... did you read it all? Ok...By definition, rights ARE a concept which is a form of definition! 2+2=4. FORCE can't change that other than to bend your will and while you might admit 2+2=5 you can still think privately along with the whole suppressed population the way you all want. You can break somebody's body or their resistance but you can't be sure you broke their mind. The use of "natural" or "inherited" terminology is more literary in the case of an abstract definition such as a human right. 2+2=4 is not self establishing or self enforced it takes creatures to define and understand it; it's so rigidly defined and abstract that it's an extreme example. Few things are so extreme but that doesn't mean it's not the same. Some computer or math nerds can get into how 2+2=3 or 5 is legitimate, BTW... which might make the point with you about abstract definitions being critical.