Comment by brookst

Comment by brookst 10 months ago

I think I agree, but people will have very different views on where liability should fall, and whether there is a malicious / negligent / no-fault model?

Section 230? Is it the platform or the originating user that's liable?

Protection of personal data? Is there a standard of care beyond which liability lapses (e.g. a nation state supply chain attack exfiltrates encrypted data and keys are broken due to novel quantum attack)?

Minors viewing porn? Is it the parents, the ISP, the distributor, or the creator that's liable?

I'm not here to argue specific answers, just saying that everyone will agree liability would fix this, and few will agree on who should be liable for what.

TheOtherHobbes 10 months ago

It's not a solvable problem. Like most tech problems it's political, not technical. There is no way to balance the competing demands of privacy, security, legality, and corporate overreach.

It might be solvable with some kind of ID escrow, where an independent international agency managed ID as a not-for-profit service. Users would have a unique biometrically-tagged ID, ID confirmation would be handled by the agency, ID and user behaviour tracking would be disallowed by default and only allowed under strictly monitored conditions, and law enforcement requests would go through strict vetting.

It's not hard to see why that will never happen in today's world.

Reply View 10 replies

malfist 10 months ago

> It's not a solvable problem
Lawnmower manufacturers said the same thing about making safe lawnmowers. Until government regulations forced them to

Reply View | 9 replies
- brookst 10 months ago
  
  Well, perpetual motion is also considered unsolvable. Perhaps the right regulation would make it happen?
  Or... maybe that line of reasoning isn't super strong.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  malfist 10 months ago
  
  There's a big difference between breaking the physical laws of the universe and Big Tech not wanting to spend money on moderators.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  brookst 10 months ago
  
  "Big" is pretty vague there.
  But my point was that you asserted that regulations can overcome claims of impossibility. I was just illustrating that is not always true, and therefore we can't assume it is true here.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- ToucanLoucan 10 months ago
  
  https://i.imgur.com/mXU28ta.jpeg
  Specifically, 1970.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  Aerroon 10 months ago
  
  Well, something to consider is that part of why everything is so much expensive these days is that a lot of the solutions to those problems add costs. That cost needs to be absorbed by the price.
  One of the reasons it's so expensive to build a house is safety regulations. They exist for a reason, but they nevertheless add a substantial cost to building a house. If you had mandated such a cost to people living in 1870 then a lot fewer people could've afforded a house.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies

StanislavPetrov 10 months ago

>Protection of personal data? Is there a standard of care beyond which liability lapses (e.g. a nation state supply chain attack exfiltrates encrypted data and keys are broken due to novel quantum attack)?

There absolutely should be, especially for personal data collected and stored without the express written consent of those being surveilled. They should have to get people to sign off on the risks of having their personal data collected and stored, be legally prevented from collecting and storing the personal data of people who haven't consented and/or be liable for any leaking or unlawful sharing/selling of this data.

Reply View 0 replies