Private data and contracts

Continuing the discussion from Economics of paying app devs for GETs:

So you are saying you would give them the right to copy, as long as they don’t redistribute those copies?
That really reminds me of copy-right, but maybe I’m confused…

Your medical info would also be worth nothing (i.e. a pharma company or local newspaper could “return” you the files after they used information contained therein).

If you trust your healthcare provider, why do you need a contract with them. Do you have a contract with them or not?

A contract can be negotiated, sure. You can ask your hospital to modify your contract to mandate that just your data are additionally encrypted with OpenPGP and your public key. Good luck with that!
They’ll most likely suggest you to find a better hospital. But at least you’ll have tried!

A contract can be accepted or not, so your acceptance is in fact a Yes or No statement. No one forces you to click on I Agree.

As someone who’s invested in making a series of artistic photos, I don’t give a rat’s ass about someone’s reputation.
I put the content up there and require people to agree or not. If they don’t, they won’t see the content. If they do, they’re obliged to stick to it or otherwise I can ask for restitution (in your world, “rob them”).

You say you don’t empathize with someone who creates “artificial scarcity”, but you yourself create artificial scarcity of good genomics and other data that could be useful in research by not sharing them. If your healthcare provider sold your “personal but not copyrighted” data to Pfizer, you could give them just 1 star in your review. I’m sure that would make them loose sleep.

You probably even agreed to their T&C’s by way of electronic contract which you “consider a joke”, but you still think you somehow have certain rights with respect to data you gave them without any valid contractual relationship that clearly defines each side’s rights and obligations.

I’m not claiming the approach I describe is correct. I’m only trying to show you that you can’t have it both ways.

Sorry but “information wants to be free, unless it’s my own” doesn’t make sense.

Yes but that would be a breach of confidence.

No as they’re state funded not privatized. In fact I’ve rarely needed any such contracts. And for the most part I DON’T trust doctors. And when I am lucky enough to find a health care provider I can actually trust I generally don’t need contracts unless it’s for legal ass covering on their end. (Chiropractors or a registered massage therapist, that kind of thing. People that still want to work within the system.)

True there are limits on how much one can negotiate or if either party will accept negotiation but still the fact is a true contract allows the user TO negotiate.

Obligated by whom or what? You can ask for restitution sure and I can laugh in your face for being so naive. Obligation implies some kind of power to enforce said obligation. See the REASON you’d care about reputation is you’d want to know if someone would honor their agreements with you. There’s no such thing as obligation without the state. Only honor and reputation. You’re used to a system under a state that enforces contract law. But without the state there is no such thing as contract law. Therefore the only way to have a contract is to form agreements with reputable parties. Ergo why the notion of you contracting with someone you don’t know or trust is so hilarious.

Doesn’t matter if it’s useful to them. It’s my data and yes I created it. If my healthcare provider sold my data then they’d be fired and I’d opt for a healthcare provider I could trust with my data. Which is another reason SAFE is so important: to take back control of one’s personal health data so it isn’t sold and traded to various corporate entities.

But we aren’t discussing the same thing. You’re talking about selling art piece by piece. I’m talking about keeping health data secret and not at all trying to sell my own data. You’re trying to make profit. I am not. In fact the doctor is being paid NOT to share my data, which is part of medical ethics. But even if the doctor wasn’t being paid it’s part of the medical trust. The doctor or other medical professional wouldn’t be trusted with the knowledge in the first place if they couldn’t keep their mouth shut or be trusted not to sell my secrets. You on the other hand are trying to make money off of charging people exorbatant fees for something that costs you virtually nothing to produce. And that’s what you fear because you do not exclusively control the means of reproduction. Health information is something personal. Art is public, especially when you sell it for money. If you can’t trust your doctor to keep your confidence how can you trust them to be honest with you or treat you professionally? But if you can’t sell random art to some stranger you never met somewhere? Then what? There’s no reciprocity needed, no relationship. Nothing. No trust. No reputation. So no contract. I don’t know you so there is no contract. I need to know my doctor so there is a contract there. But it’s more of a social contract thing. More about trust and reputation than about law and obligation.

When his data is copied:

When content provider’s having the same issue:

In which freaking concept of law does that have to do with anything?
Unfortunately this discussion has reached the point of absurdity.

But the content they are providing isn’t personal data. And moreover they are trying to profit off of it. Though I do see your point in that it’s a breach of trust but that’s why I pointed out the reputation system.

  1. This is exactly my point. Your entire arguement is based on the assumption it’ll be backed up by the state, by law.
  2. Law is meaningless if you can’t enforce it.
  3. You can’t enforce a contract with unknown parties save using smart contracts and code.

Default position is THERE IS NO LAW! There are only relationships. There are no rules. Rules are artificial constructs created AFTER we form relationships and as a result of our ideologies and philosophies. On the SAFE network there will largely, by default, BE NO LAW until people opt to agree to it some rule sets via apps.

In which “freaking concept of law does that have to do with anything”? In the one in which there is no law and I simply click accept because that’ll allow the program to run but I don’t empathize with your position of trying to make profit off artificial scarcity. That one. The one in which you naively believe there is law to protect you and you don’t need to worry about forming relationships or investing in reputation.