I get the feeling you’re saying this because the harm caused by privacy loss is complicated, uncertain, time offset, etc, while “harm” feels to you like losing $100 or getting punched. You should think about the 1960s civil rights movement. Imagine you’re in the midst of it, without the hindsight of settled history, with actually many authority figures telling all these silly “activists” to get a real job and stop making such a fuss about something we all got on fine without until they started on their tantrum. What thought process would you need in order to correctly analyze whether the things being fought against were genuinely harms? What is the result of applying that thought process to privacy?
This is, by the way, playing catch-up, privacy has been an internationally recognized human right for many years. I’m just trying to help you see human rights from a perspective other than “something somebody is ordering me to care about”.
I'm sayint it because it doesn't cause harm. If you allowing fuzzy stuff like that to be harm does not make sense to me and is a slippery slope. The examples of "harms" the article uses are that law enforcement could enforce the law (which is not a harm), or that law enforcement could commit harm using information (which is already illegal). I wasn't alive in the 60s so I can't relate to your example. "Human rights" are not a linear thing. There is no reason to adopt one because another company has it. It should be decided by the people of the country themselves without inside influence.
They make up their own definitive of harm that includes that. The article is about how the definition of harm the law uses, doesn't match how they would like to see it defined.
You do not understand how the law works, and you are making a fool of yourself.
They are in the middle of asking a court to clarify what the law means by the word "harm". That is not settled as yet. Things like that get settled by litigation. They are taking a position in such litigation.
We've lost a great deal of nuance in our discourse by taking our previous richly varied and gradated universe of wrongnesses and projecting them all onto the "safety/harm/consent" axis.
It's as if we're no longer capable of conceiving of something that is bad independent of that thing causing harm. Consequently, in order to express sophisticated moral concepts in our guttural pidgin of a moral vocabulary, we need to use combinations of words that are facial absurdities, like "privacy harm is harm".
If you understood my comment you would understand that I don't agree with them. If you are trying to passively aggressively call me out for not reading reading article (of which I did), do so directly.
What is there to understand about it? You don't make an argument, just a shallow dismissal. There's nothing about your comment that indicates you read TFA.
You could engage with the article and explain why you don't agree with the argument that is being made - or you could simply leave no comment at all. That is the hidden subtext of the comment you are replying to here.
There's a 30ish page (not including all the legal template) brief explaining their arguement. How is that not making a case? There's even a excerpt from the brief going over one of their arguments.
