"discussion of this post on Hacker News"
"Privacy isn’t about having something to hide, but rather, about intimacy. There are many moments in our lives that we necessarily wish to share selectively. Moments of love, moments of family, moments of grief. These are not distinguished by shame, furtiveness or guilt, but rather by the fact that they are special because of who we chose to experience them with. On the flipside, we’ve seen an increase in surveillance software used in intimate partner violence. For many, surveillance isn’t about espionage, terrorism, or government spying. For many, surveillance begins at home."
Yep, the proposal is nuts.
Unsurprisingly and as Doc Searls and Cluetrain gang have been saying for years:
"...an overwhelming majority had a strong negative reaction to being called a consumer. 45% of people said the word was impersonal and 35% said it made them feel “commoditised”. Asked to choose from a list of expressions about what they’d most like to be called, survey participants chose “customer” overall at 66%, with “guest” coming in at 22% and “consumer” ranking last at 5%."
A nice philosophical discourse about data - doesn't fix it but draws attention to the right things, the personal and human nature of data, the communication and connections that are often the point.
Predictable. Beware of anyone trying to provide "new employee health and wellness management solutions".
a bit of a strawman here with QS: "quantified selfers believe that every human problem is a bug amenable to a technological fix". Really?
yeah, another go at Mark Cuban. My question is.. why only every 3 months? Surely a monthly blood test would be better... Geez, what a storm in a teacup and another confirmation that people outside QS still influenced by healthcare system rather than thinking about their health.
this does sound like a clash of two worlds/mindsets. to anyone within QS movement the suggestion makes perfect sense. Surprised that Mark Cuban didn't use any of the thinking and arguments that QS would provide... He was right but couldn't then defend his point properly, or so it seemed. there is an article based on his response, which I will deal with next.