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.
(Score: 4, Funny) by CZB on Sunday February 17 2019, @04:51PM (1 child)
If you can't devise a way to torture mice, rats or monkeys, is it really science? Or just a branch of philosophy? (like math)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 18 2019, @12:49AM
Explosions are also valid science.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17 2019, @06:08PM
It exists to burn research dollars to publish papers. Regardless where the dollars come from, in such a way as to make the money continue to flow.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fyngyrz on Sunday February 17 2019, @09:41PM (2 children)
I'm just going to drop this here. [fyngyrz.com]
--
Knowledge is strength. Unless the opposition has more money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 18 2019, @01:16AM (1 child)
Expectations can be managed, particularly, if one has the power of a state behind them.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday February 18 2019, @05:02AM
Exactly so.
--
Head: Cannot open 'brain' for reading. No such file or directory.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bussdriver on Monday February 18 2019, @01:13AM (6 children)
Whenever human rights come up there often is a misunderstanding that they are given somehow.
By definition, once you define it as a human right it is then afforded to all humans on only 1 condition: being human. Governments and others do not create or give it, they can only infringe upon natural inherent rights, that is all. It even emphasizes what should be obvious logic in the USA's constitution to make sure it's a clear point to all who read it, that you can not enumerate human rights and thereby exclude them in reality because they were excluded on paper.
The crux of the whole thing comes down to popular definitions of what is or is not a human right. This makes for problems since everybody is not going to agree on the definition and that such a definition can never be the ultimate authority. The constitution alludes to this problem by saying it's a natural inherit above-human absolutism with a generic reference to a creator(god.) We can squabble over discovering the definitive truth, but it exists like a law of nature whether we discover and understand it or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 18 2019, @01:20AM (2 children)
Except, of course, where rights are defined differently so that isn't true.
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Monday March 18 2019, @02:18PM (1 child)
A definition is a social consensus. You can define anything whatever way you wish but if nobody agrees you may as well be speaking in tongues. You give the dictionary and society power to decide what things mean. Even so, popular culture redefines and creates new words (for good or ill) regardless of the authorities.
The fact that words do hold a lot of power is another topic. It's obviously a means by which to control people indirectly; thing is, power can force a great many things but people's minds can not yet be monitored and controlled... not completely.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 18 2019, @03:20PM
And? You've gone from "natural inherent rights" to "is a social consensus".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @03:32PM
But how is "being human" defined?
(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.