I think this is a great point, regulation trying to stop new technologies always fails. Instead, it should try to control it in order to protect their constituants.
Just as business models ought to be constructed that leverage the Internet instead of fight it, so should regulation.
I think this is a great point, regulation trying to stop new technologies always fails. Instead, it should try to control it in order to protect their constituants.
Edit: Admittedly I wrote this comment before reading the article. The Copyright Directive is definitely a fail in regulation. I was under the impression that this was about the GDPR. So please...
Edit: Admittedly I wrote this comment before reading the article. The Copyright Directive is definitely a fail in regulation. I was under the impression that this was about the GDPR. So please excuse the tone if it comes off a bit rant-ish, but the ideas there still hold. One silly regulation does not mean that regulation in itself is wrong.
Tracking people is not new technology. IDK since when, but since quite some time you can have a connection between two computers, and you can send data through it. The whole GDPR etc. are about what you're communicating through the pipes, not new technology, because there isn't any new technology here. It's new tech when you invent the toaster, not when you put a slice of bread between it. The distinction is important because lots of evil (or at least idiotic) stuff is being pushed as "new technology", where none of it is actually, "new" or "technology", let aside "new technology".
The current system of ad business and other data-driven (or maybe "data-ridden") stuff is an abuse of quite old tech, and old legislation. These businesses actually push old tech (like centralised internet and AJAX, though glorified) which they exploit (I don't want to openly suggest the conspiracy-ish interpretation of this, but it pops into one's mind when thinking about this). New tech is decentralisation, federation, P2P, Tor, etc., and is ignored by all of the big players in the internet business.
Regulation like GDPR is golden, and just like ad servers and silos ameliorate their spyware (the FB like button you put on your web pages is spyware), serious states that work for their respective citizens should ameliorate regulation, and make it---ideally---impossible for the serious players to exploit and abuse users. Just like states protect us from cheese made of rotten milk or parmigiano reggiano not made in Emilia-Romagna, they should protect us from this serious threat which is abusive companies whose business is basically sophisticated phishing.
It seems like I misspoke, I meant rising technology. It has always been possible to track computers, but it has never been this centralized, Orwellian, or commercialized.
It seems like I misspoke, I meant rising technology. It has always been possible to track computers, but it has never been this centralized, Orwellian, or commercialized.
I think your point about new tech is correct, but no new technology is involved, IMO. It's the (ab)use of established tech that creates these problems, and there's no defence other than...
I think your point about new tech is correct, but no new technology is involved, IMO. It's the (ab)use of established tech that creates these problems, and there's no defence other than regulation. It can not stop new tech from appearing, but it can prohibit the abuse of current tech.
I think this is a great point, regulation trying to stop new technologies always fails. Instead, it should try to control it in order to protect their constituants.
Edit: Admittedly I wrote this comment before reading the article. The Copyright Directive is definitely a fail in regulation. I was under the impression that this was about the GDPR. So please excuse the tone if it comes off a bit rant-ish, but the ideas there still hold. One silly regulation does not mean that regulation in itself is wrong.
Tracking people is not new technology. IDK since when, but since quite some time you can have a connection between two computers, and you can send data through it. The whole GDPR etc. are about what you're communicating through the pipes, not new technology, because there isn't any new technology here. It's new tech when you invent the toaster, not when you put a slice of bread between it. The distinction is important because lots of evil (or at least idiotic) stuff is being pushed as "new technology", where none of it is actually, "new" or "technology", let aside "new technology".
The current system of ad business and other data-driven (or maybe "data-ridden") stuff is an abuse of quite old tech, and old legislation. These businesses actually push old tech (like centralised internet and AJAX, though glorified) which they exploit (I don't want to openly suggest the conspiracy-ish interpretation of this, but it pops into one's mind when thinking about this). New tech is decentralisation, federation, P2P, Tor, etc., and is ignored by all of the big players in the internet business.
Regulation like GDPR is golden, and just like ad servers and silos ameliorate their spyware (the FB like button you put on your web pages is spyware), serious states that work for their respective citizens should ameliorate regulation, and make it---ideally---impossible for the serious players to exploit and abuse users. Just like states protect us from cheese made of rotten milk or parmigiano reggiano not made in Emilia-Romagna, they should protect us from this serious threat which is abusive companies whose business is basically sophisticated phishing.
It seems like I misspoke, I meant rising technology. It has always been possible to track computers, but it has never been this centralized, Orwellian, or commercialized.
I think your point about new tech is correct, but no new technology is involved, IMO. It's the (ab)use of established tech that creates these problems, and there's no defence other than regulation. It can not stop new tech from appearing, but it can prohibit the abuse of current tech.