Big Brains

This piece by Annie brings together some of the ideas that we have explored in this class in such a beautiful way including conceptions of property, tacit consent, and constitutional interpretation. 

Conceptualizing data as property puts it under the scope of property rights which then gives citizens the right to exclude others from it thus invoking our privacy rights is *chefs kiss.* It's interesting then to consider how tacitly consenting to use a certain service does not additionally grant platforms license to violate this right by using it for their own purposes. Deckey says "While one may agree to the terms and conditions of the initial moment of date collection... they do not consent to the evolving technology of aggregation which takes the initial situation out of context, unbeknownst to them and creates a digital file on the individual" (32.) It's like if I invited you over to my house for dinner and then you ask to go the bathroom but without my knowledge you're actually in my bedroom looking for pieces of my hair for a voodoo doll. It's clear in this case that there is a breach of privacy. 

The use of data by these platforms (and politicians) is more sinister than this though. For one, the advancement of technology and how this advancement has pervaded all aspects of our life make it near impossible to not be complicit in the collection of your data. Further the project of these platforms to tailor their content especially for you in order for you to consume more of their product drives their desire to collect copious amounts of data from you (even when you are not on the platform.) This invokes Anderson for me in that even when you are choosing to not consume their product, you may be subjected to their data collection which leaves your privacy constantly under their will. Essentially it seems that one has no substantial privacy rights (they're always watching.) This is taken a step further in a way that destabilizes the democratic process when you consider the role of data in gerrymandering. The data collected by these platforms that inform gerrymandered districts violate the role of individual voters. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more