Norway to track all supermarket purchases?(lifeinnorway.net)
lifeinnorway.net
Norway to track all supermarket purchases?
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norway-to-track-all-supermarket-purchases/
496 comments
Yep; societally, they've got a very different attitude towards privacy.
Everyone's salary is publicly available online. (So's the fact that you looked!) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
Everyone's salary is publicly available online. (So's the fact that you looked!) https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
As said in the article, we already share our data with the supermarket, google, etc and whatever other systems that binds all of them together.
In that situation, I'm happy that government has access to the same data because it gives it a way to balance the private sector power.
Now what is needed is the ability to opt out.
In that situation, I'm happy that government has access to the same data because it gives it a way to balance the private sector power.
Now what is needed is the ability to opt out.
> As said in the article, we already share
The article says that a number of people uses «loyalty programs». It mentions tracking though «debit card», and last time I checked Norwegians still have circulating cash. It does not mention Google, but surely there will be Norwegians that do not share data with it. Let us highlight that surely, some do not share at all.
I do not understand, contextually, the idea of «balanc[ing] the private sector power».
The article says that a number of people uses «loyalty programs». It mentions tracking though «debit card», and last time I checked Norwegians still have circulating cash. It does not mention Google, but surely there will be Norwegians that do not share data with it. Let us highlight that surely, some do not share at all.
I do not understand, contextually, the idea of «balanc[ing] the private sector power».
Cash is available, but very very rare these days. Enough so that using it is an outlier for most people < 60.
Debit, or mobile payments are the norm, to the point that even kids having a cookie stand will expect mobile payment.
Debit, or mobile payments are the norm, to the point that even kids having a cookie stand will expect mobile payment.
> an outlier
Within a Paretian framework, anything good is an outlier. What you need is a system that allows the minoritarian good to be preserved.
So, within your sentences: "using it is an outlier for most people below 60 and for privacy conscious individuals".
Within a Paretian framework, anything good is an outlier. What you need is a system that allows the minoritarian good to be preserved.
So, within your sentences: "using it is an outlier for most people below 60 and for privacy conscious individuals".
Well, problem is that being an outlier isn’t necessarily good for privacy reasons. With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t stores flag any cash transaction, and combine it with stuff like the current list of parked cars (generally parking is handled by number plate readers), or even something like surveillance cameras?
Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants for their data.
Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants for their data.
> Blending in is generally what a privacy minded individual wants
"Blending in" is very different from "giving away one's data" - which defies the purpose. You are confusing the two situations, of a dissident trying to conceal his position to survive, and of a normal individual that lives by the natural stance, "a citizen and a free man, never a subject".
The one intending to survive will act "in the shadow"; the one intending to defend his own Dignity will be very open in the stance "do not even try".
> With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t ... surveillance cameras
Of course they could, and they would have to bear the consequences of facing determined lucid bersekers if they did.
"Blending in" is very different from "giving away one's data" - which defies the purpose. You are confusing the two situations, of a dissident trying to conceal his position to survive, and of a normal individual that lives by the natural stance, "a citizen and a free man, never a subject".
The one intending to survive will act "in the shadow"; the one intending to defend his own Dignity will be very open in the stance "do not even try".
> With a tad more paranoia, why couldn’t ... surveillance cameras
Of course they could, and they would have to bear the consequences of facing determined lucid bersekers if they did.
Circulation of cash is very low, only 3% of trensfered money is in cash according to this 2019 study https://www.norges-bank.no/en/news-events/news-publications/... Since then, with COVID where many stores refused cash payments, so it may have decreased further.
The 3% value (if I am reading data correctly) is because of the pandemic - the usual recent value would have been closer to (rounded) 10%, which received a blow in the 2020 frenzy; the "2019" study covers complete 2019 but includes 2020 data.
May I interest you in a past submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31360319 , "Study finds the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not viable on cash banknotes".
About the special numbers of Sweden and Norway: this is what happens when living in Sweden and Norway, you get the false idea that reality is like Sweden and Norway look.
May I interest you in a past submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31360319 , "Study finds the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not viable on cash banknotes".
About the special numbers of Sweden and Norway: this is what happens when living in Sweden and Norway, you get the false idea that reality is like Sweden and Norway look.
Wow people really forgot that privacy is all about privacy with respect to the government because they are the ones with the monopoly on violence. It is tragic that people think private firms could ever be as evil as governments
That attitude makes sense if you come from a low-trust society where the state apparatus thinks it's running an empire. Especially if the country is large and actively trying to reshape the world.
Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because there is a lot of trust in the society, the people who want to serve in the government are usually ideologically motivated to serve the best interests of the public. It's not a particularly lucrative or high-status career, so people with other motivations tend to go elsewhere. And while people may disagree on what exactly are the best interests of the public, there are many viable political parties to choose from.
Private firms are allowed to be evil in the sense that they can put their private interests ahead of public interests. Most of them are. And because they are private, the public has only limited means to regulate them when they misbehave blatantly. They can't, for example, vote the directors and shareholders out and replace them with people who promise to serve public interests.
Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties. Because the country is too weak and insignificant to change the world, the government tends to focus on administering the country. Because there is a lot of trust in the society, the people who want to serve in the government are usually ideologically motivated to serve the best interests of the public. It's not a particularly lucrative or high-status career, so people with other motivations tend to go elsewhere. And while people may disagree on what exactly are the best interests of the public, there are many viable political parties to choose from.
Private firms are allowed to be evil in the sense that they can put their private interests ahead of public interests. Most of them are. And because they are private, the public has only limited means to regulate them when they misbehave blatantly. They can't, for example, vote the directors and shareholders out and replace them with people who promise to serve public interests.
Even if one happens to approve of the conditions under which personal data is being managed _right now_, even if one happens to approve of the current administrators and thinks they're entirely benevolent, there is no way to know who will be in charge of that data in the future, or what ends it will be used for. Once it's out there, it's out there forever.
That's why this is a matter of trust. Either you trust the government and allow it to collect the data, or you don't trust the government and don't allow anyone to collect it.
The government has the monopoly on violence. It always has access to the data held by private parties. The government and the people serving it may choose to respect laws and other promises. They may choose to avoid accessing private data without a valid reason. But if the government chooses otherwise and requires private businesses to hand over their data, the businesses will most likely comply. If you don't want to give a government-turned-bad access to some data, that data must not be allowed to exist in the first place.
The government has the monopoly on violence. It always has access to the data held by private parties. The government and the people serving it may choose to respect laws and other promises. They may choose to avoid accessing private data without a valid reason. But if the government chooses otherwise and requires private businesses to hand over their data, the businesses will most likely comply. If you don't want to give a government-turned-bad access to some data, that data must not be allowed to exist in the first place.
I think the argument is that it's already out there. Companies, with no directive to even pretend to serve the public interest, already have all that data. The government does too, because security agencies mandate that they get backdoor access. "Once it's out there, it's out there forever" - that already happened.
Given that it's already out there, there's not much more to fear in terms of a slippery slope. All that's left is to at least force the public sector to disclose more of what's going on and regulate how private interests are allowed to use it.
Otherwise, we already have the dystopia you're imagining, we just don't see it as well.
Given that it's already out there, there's not much more to fear in terms of a slippery slope. All that's left is to at least force the public sector to disclose more of what's going on and regulate how private interests are allowed to use it.
Otherwise, we already have the dystopia you're imagining, we just don't see it as well.
> Things look different in a small high-trust country with multiple political parties.
Which country are you talking about? Surely not Norway, which is a monarchy.
Which country are you talking about? Surely not Norway, which is a monarchy.
What do you mean? It is small in terms of population size, it is a high-trust country (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-who-trust-governmen...), it has had the highest democracy index in the world every year since 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index), it has many political parties and there have been coalition governments for many years?
Yes, it is a constitutional monarchy which was introduced by vote, and given its support in the population, removing the monarchy would be quite undemocratic. One of the more radical parties in parliament has raised the issue many times; in 2019 their suggestion to abolish the monarchy got a record of 36 votes in parliament (against 130)
Yes, it is a constitutional monarchy which was introduced by vote, and given its support in the population, removing the monarchy would be quite undemocratic. One of the more radical parties in parliament has raised the issue many times; in 2019 their suggestion to abolish the monarchy got a record of 36 votes in parliament (against 130)
That's really weird, you just described what I think in terms that are very accurate. Are you me ?
Hard-power violence is mostly exclusive to governments, but don't underestimate the power of soft-power "violence" and coercion.
Another thing that sets the government and private sector apart is that the government is under (mostly, even if indirect) democratic control, or otherwise accountable to the public, whereas the private sector can get by with bad press, so long as they can continue to operate. As an individual of average wealth, it is far less difficult to influence government policy and politicians as opposed to doing the same to a private organization.
Really, this is not about choosing between "good" and "evil", it is about choosing which evil you are most likely to be able to contain.
Another thing that sets the government and private sector apart is that the government is under (mostly, even if indirect) democratic control, or otherwise accountable to the public, whereas the private sector can get by with bad press, so long as they can continue to operate. As an individual of average wealth, it is far less difficult to influence government policy and politicians as opposed to doing the same to a private organization.
Really, this is not about choosing between "good" and "evil", it is about choosing which evil you are most likely to be able to contain.
As an American who also feels that privacy from the government is more important from private corporations:
I'm not a hard disagree, but I think it's easier (though not easy!) to democratically will your government to regulate private companies than it is regulate itself.
I'm not a hard disagree, but I think it's easier (though not easy!) to democratically will your government to regulate private companies than it is regulate itself.
The government only has a monopoly on legal violence, but violence is beside the point. (And never mind that a bad government could simply steal the data or compel a corporation to hand it over.)
Imagine living in a state where abortion laws now allow individuals to sue other individuals who have had abortions. A corporation could use grocery data to find and sue individuals who are likely to have had an abortion. The analysis would be a bit more complex than this, but just looking at grocery data, scan for people who bought pregnancy tests, bought fewer tampons than usual, and aren't buying baby food a year later. No violence, totally legal, and absolutely devastating to the individuals involved.
Imagine living in a state where abortion laws now allow individuals to sue other individuals who have had abortions. A corporation could use grocery data to find and sue individuals who are likely to have had an abortion. The analysis would be a bit more complex than this, but just looking at grocery data, scan for people who bought pregnancy tests, bought fewer tampons than usual, and aren't buying baby food a year later. No violence, totally legal, and absolutely devastating to the individuals involved.
Check out the Dole corporation to see how evil can they actually be - https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-dark-and-bloody-hist.... Nestle with the classic baby formula marketing to 2nd/3rd world countries, chinese milk scandal etc and probably most other multinationals are in the same league.
It’s tragic that people think companies like Equifax can’t have government-level negative impacts on people.
Government certainly doesn't have a monopoly on violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)#H...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)#H...
If you have to go back a two centuries to prove a point, you're probably not right.
They're called Securitas today and are very much active, they're often contracted out to by states. They're also notoriously corrupt and abusive.[1]
1. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitas#Kritik
1. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitas#Kritik
Securitas is contracted by the state to run background checks and do other paper-pushing activities. They do not kill people under their own prerogative.
Nope, that is absolutely false. They fulfill police duties in Sweden. Prior to that they were ubiquitous security guards and engaged in violence daily.
Even as police/security, they are not permitted to go out and kill people. They can act in a lethal manner if their life is in immediete danger, just like you or I can as normal citizens. That is not unique. The CEO of Securitas cannot decide to kill you and have his henchmen go do it.
The leaders of governments can and do act like that.
The leaders of governments can and do act like that.
Uhh the same rules go for them as police when they are employed so...
At this very moment there are corporations worth trillions of dollars. More money than the worth of many countries combined. The people in charge of these companies command so much capital, they can more or less run the world if they so wish. All they need to do is set policies on loans and the entire world will literally change itself to conform.
Corporations are no stranger to violence. They're no stranger to organized crime dealings and tight relationships with governments. Coca-Cola for example has straight up assassinated union leaders.
Corporations are no stranger to violence. They're no stranger to organized crime dealings and tight relationships with governments. Coca-Cola for example has straight up assassinated union leaders.
GDP != market cap.
If your government is untrustworthy, then you're screwed in any case. Reasonable interpretation of data was never an authoritarian regime's strong point.
I do not understand the tragic aspect. Private firms have had similar powers in specific contexts, and may partner with the government, so they seem to have the same potential consequences.
If you consider all the school shootings in the US the claim that government has a monopoly on violence is nonsense. There’s plenty of non governmental violence.
"Monopoly" in this context is an elision of "[legal] monopoly": it means that legislation excludes other parties from entitlement to something. It is said that in (typical) societies some law enforcement branches are given "monopoly of violence" (and again, "violence" as /fair/ coercion) - nobody else is in general entitled to exercising "violence" (a random citizen cannot deprive another of freedom, but the law enforcement, under fitting circumstances, can).
He meant the legal one.
It is a core concept of law and statehood; if you consider it nonsense, you consider statehood of your country to be the same.
It is a core concept of law and statehood; if you consider it nonsense, you consider statehood of your country to be the same.
School shootings are an tiny part of the overall violence in the US, a country of 330 million people. We just keep hearing about it, way out of proportion, because it’s in the interest of the media (“if it bleeds, it leads”) and some politicians to keep pushing it.
at sufficient scale the difference between governments and corporations is negligible. east india company would be the most obvious example, but there's plenty nowadays.
Maybe people forgot because in recent times, corporate malfeasance has been a far bigger problem in people's lives than government overreach.
[deleted]
We can opt out by not using store rewards programs. And some go even one step further by not using credit to buy items that might be detrimental should the wrong parties get that data.
So don't buy booze and cigarettes on credit if you don't want your health insurance company to buy that data from your credit processor.
So don't buy booze and cigarettes on credit if you don't want your health insurance company to buy that data from your credit processor.
This angle is increasingly popular, but I think totally naive and even dangerous: When the shit hits the fan there is no “balance” of power between government and the private sector. History is not full of examples of corporations putting people in camps and working them to death, despite the government’s attempts to prevent it. The government has all the power (when it really matters).
VW used slave labor, as did the American plantations. Even today, forced labor is rife in some industries, like shrimp fishery in Asia.
Of course. That’s why I added “despite the government’s attempts to prevent it” above. But that obviously wasn’t enough. People genuinely think that the next concentration camps will have a Google logo.
Most of the people I talk with about data collection aren’t aware of what’s collected about them. People I’ve shared details with sometimes think I’m nuts. They just don’t believe it.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “happy that a government you trust has access”
c_--vote_win(1)
c_--vote_win(1)
Tbh I’d rather have my salary public than some of the public information out there about me. I’m still dumbfounded I can basically dox people with voting registration records if I know just a few things about them.
I’ve hunted down estranged family members before and I was kind of concerned because I was able to find a ton of information about them I wouldn’t want out on the internet
I’ve hunted down estranged family members before and I was kind of concerned because I was able to find a ton of information about them I wouldn’t want out on the internet
Invasive to whom?
I'm certainly not going to be feeling outraged by medical records disclosure when I'm dead. Do with me what you will when I'm gone--I care more about my experience when I'm alive.
I'm certainly not going to be feeling outraged by medical records disclosure when I'm dead. Do with me what you will when I'm gone--I care more about my experience when I'm alive.
Hypothetical situation: how would you feel if your medical records and used to calculate health risks for your children/other family members and refuse specific insurances (or make them more expensive)?
Non hypothetically, if your parents have a genetic condition that can be passed onto their offspring, in my country you are checked against them to try prevent them or catch them in the early stages.
For free (payed by the taxes)
For free (payed by the taxes)
That’s a good point.
I was imagining some sort of anonymized records database—turns out you can look up specific names which I agree yields some undesirable outcomes.
I was imagining some sort of anonymized records database—turns out you can look up specific names which I agree yields some undesirable outcomes.
If of all countries Norway turns into a digital totalitarian state it would break my heart. With much power comes much … risk.
I kind of dont believe this (norway becoming authoritarian), but every power given to the government is like additional leverage in a stock market. With big leverage, if your unlucky, you feel it so much more.
> In my opinion, that is much more invasive
Sorry, what? You’re saying a digitised deaths registry is more invasive than tracking all supermarket purchases?
Sorry, what? You’re saying a digitised deaths registry is more invasive than tracking all supermarket purchases?
No. That's not what the parent comment is saying.
They're saying that digitising the health records of the deceased is much more invasive.
They're saying that digitising the health records of the deceased is much more invasive.
Fair enough, I missed that nuance.
But to be honest, I don’t care what happens 10yrs after I die. I don’t want to be surveilled for the whole time I’m alive…
But to be honest, I don’t care what happens 10yrs after I die. I don’t want to be surveilled for the whole time I’m alive…
In my opinion, yes (regarding health records, as pointed out by others). Confidentiality is a core value in health care, it's even explicitly stated in the Geneva declaration:
> AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: > ... > I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died
To me, financial information seems less private. Furthermore, I can use cash or ask a friend to buy things for me, but I cannot have a friend seeing the psychologist or having an abortion in my place. If I was struggling with some taboo-ish condition (say, pedophilic thoughts), the idea that this information would be kept and possibly leaked in the future, would heighten the bar for seeking help. And although I will be dead, my health records may contain information about the living, say information about heritable conditions.
> AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: > ... > I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died
To me, financial information seems less private. Furthermore, I can use cash or ask a friend to buy things for me, but I cannot have a friend seeing the psychologist or having an abortion in my place. If I was struggling with some taboo-ish condition (say, pedophilic thoughts), the idea that this information would be kept and possibly leaked in the future, would heighten the bar for seeking help. And although I will be dead, my health records may contain information about the living, say information about heritable conditions.
Can't wait for this all to eventually leak. Countries need to realize data is not "free" and has a cost to it.
Is it not is already publicly known? Don’t think there’s anything to leak
Yeah it's public so nothing to leak, it's meant to be like this, same in Estonia, your address is public, your name, your birthdate, +/- your face picture, all the land you possess, you can interrogate who is the owner of a specific car plate without any restrictions, see a map of all the traffic accidents with precise information (date, why, what, what was damaged). Then you have semi-public data like phone location (you just need to sign NDA), and guess what ? Everything is fine.
> Is it not is already publicly known? Don’t think there’s anything to leak
The purchases made by an individual, already public? That on that day you were in that place? That you read "The Lance" instead of "The Spear", that you read Comte instead of Hegel?
The purchases made by an individual, already public? That on that day you were in that place? That you read "The Lance" instead of "The Spear", that you read Comte instead of Hegel?
Well, ten years after death is a thing, while you are alive is another... Also who register matter (private companies, no matter if on their own or formally for the public vs the public State directly totally on internal resources).
Personally I agree we need statistics, data in general, but to be collected with EXTREME care and transparency because yes, we might spot health issues in advance and so save lives, we might anticipate needs and so satisfy them better with better forecasting/planning BUT we might also do nasty things.
Try to imagine if a day resources start to be scarce, a dictatorial government rise supported by most people self-(propaganda)-convinced that that's the sole option to sort the situation out and such government start the old: it's not that bad but some work to make it bad against us, we need to took the down. So a social score born, became spread, with much general data on the population: how easy can be selectively killing or just addressing careers of various people thanks to the mass of data on them, accordingly to dictatorship NOT social needs?
More "lighter" and general example: how can we prevent a cohort of people taking advantage of such big mass of data for their own profits at the expense of another cohort?
It's not just a mere matter of privacy: if we ALL know anything about anyone or nothing about anyone we are on fair and equal conditions, some will take advantage some others not because some will be smarter, just more active etc than others, but overall situation should remain in a normal fair balance. If just very few know very much on almost anyone and most others know next to nothing about those few...
Just imaging simple things like knowing with enough precision what people eat anywhere in a country: those who know can organize "better" (commercially) shelves and gain competitive advantage on competitors to a point perhaps of pushing them to the margins and then abuse the gained position to establish de-fact price policies on pretty anything. Even if data are public and collected only by the public, no one is corrupt etc those who can process such public data at scale can grab competitive advantages against all the rest.
In fairness terms: just imaging you came from a bad health family: you might be drop for many job offer because of such legacy, pay more for some health insurances etc. You might say "hey, that's true but still fair", well, it's not. It's not because potential employers know something about you, you do not equally know something about them up front.
At social scale we need a certain degree of incertitude to let the society evolve by nature instead of by planning because we MUST plan and we might even be good planner BUT nothing beat natural evolution in the long term and as a society we MUST think at the long terms. Individuals have, rightly, to think about their own life, so short an mean terms, but at a society, so State level we must also weight the very long terms. Our individual life is, unfortunately (well, for some at least) a not-that-short/not-that-long timeframe, States, populations can potentially last millennia. Planning even for a single century for us is well... More fantasy than science, and that's why we have to allow nature do it's job with a certain level of "background noise"...
Personally I agree we need statistics, data in general, but to be collected with EXTREME care and transparency because yes, we might spot health issues in advance and so save lives, we might anticipate needs and so satisfy them better with better forecasting/planning BUT we might also do nasty things.
Try to imagine if a day resources start to be scarce, a dictatorial government rise supported by most people self-(propaganda)-convinced that that's the sole option to sort the situation out and such government start the old: it's not that bad but some work to make it bad against us, we need to took the down. So a social score born, became spread, with much general data on the population: how easy can be selectively killing or just addressing careers of various people thanks to the mass of data on them, accordingly to dictatorship NOT social needs?
More "lighter" and general example: how can we prevent a cohort of people taking advantage of such big mass of data for their own profits at the expense of another cohort?
It's not just a mere matter of privacy: if we ALL know anything about anyone or nothing about anyone we are on fair and equal conditions, some will take advantage some others not because some will be smarter, just more active etc than others, but overall situation should remain in a normal fair balance. If just very few know very much on almost anyone and most others know next to nothing about those few...
Just imaging simple things like knowing with enough precision what people eat anywhere in a country: those who know can organize "better" (commercially) shelves and gain competitive advantage on competitors to a point perhaps of pushing them to the margins and then abuse the gained position to establish de-fact price policies on pretty anything. Even if data are public and collected only by the public, no one is corrupt etc those who can process such public data at scale can grab competitive advantages against all the rest.
In fairness terms: just imaging you came from a bad health family: you might be drop for many job offer because of such legacy, pay more for some health insurances etc. You might say "hey, that's true but still fair", well, it's not. It's not because potential employers know something about you, you do not equally know something about them up front.
At social scale we need a certain degree of incertitude to let the society evolve by nature instead of by planning because we MUST plan and we might even be good planner BUT nothing beat natural evolution in the long term and as a society we MUST think at the long terms. Individuals have, rightly, to think about their own life, so short an mean terms, but at a society, so State level we must also weight the very long terms. Our individual life is, unfortunately (well, for some at least) a not-that-short/not-that-long timeframe, States, populations can potentially last millennia. Planning even for a single century for us is well... More fantasy than science, and that's why we have to allow nature do it's job with a certain level of "background noise"...
"SSB claims they want a less time-consuming way of collecting and analysing household consumption statistics in order to inform tax policy, social assistance and child allowance."
Aka the more we know about you, the more efficiently we can create policies to control your behavior to our liking.
Aka the more we know about you, the more efficiently we can create policies to control your behavior to our liking.
You're already being tracked by the grocery stores, wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. the grocery industry who just wants to sell you more?
Realistically, what is the worst possible consequence of a supermarket being able to track you? At worst, I suppose you be could be charged more for purchasing a certain item at that particular chain. I highly doubt this has ever happened, since it's bad for business. The usual consequence for getting tracked at the supermarket is getting a discount on certain groceries via a loyalty program, with zero downsides for you.
What is the worst realistic consequence for a government (which has orders of magnitude more power than a lowly supermarket chain) tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax: for example, your sales tax rate increases as your purchase more meat or liquor. This has a much more profound impact than anything the supermarket is powered to do as a result of tracking your purchases.
What is the worst realistic consequence for a government (which has orders of magnitude more power than a lowly supermarket chain) tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax: for example, your sales tax rate increases as your purchase more meat or liquor. This has a much more profound impact than anything the supermarket is powered to do as a result of tracking your purchases.
The worst case scenario is that the country changes its mind about morality (happens a lot and not just as a result of invasions and coups), and suddenly a particular group which can be identified by shopping preferences is now at risk.
Imagine if this was happening in America before and then during the Prohibition era and how grape juice and yeast sales would look.
Or abortifacients and birth control pills today, given the relevant news story in the US (consider what could plausibility happen not just what actually has happened) and certain politicians describing the latter as the former.
Imagine if this was happening in America before and then during the Prohibition era and how grape juice and yeast sales would look.
Or abortifacients and birth control pills today, given the relevant news story in the US (consider what could plausibility happen not just what actually has happened) and certain politicians describing the latter as the former.
Corporations cannot put me in jail. Corporations cannot (for the most part) just take my money. Other than denying me service, corporations have little power over me, except that which is granted to them by the government itself.
Government tracking has the potential to be much worse than corporate tracking.
(I think I'm agreeing with your post, but I'm not sure)
Government tracking has the potential to be much worse than corporate tracking.
(I think I'm agreeing with your post, but I'm not sure)
In theory, a democratic government is supposed to be beholden to its people, but the problem you are describing occurs when the government is no longer under the power of the population.
corporations cannot put you in jail if law enforcement works.
if the government fails, corporations can and will put you in jail.
if the government fails, corporations can and will put you in jail.
Yes, we are in 100% agreement.
The worst outcome is those private entities treat my data as their property, to do with as they wish, without any accountability, transparency, or recourse.
In other words, the staus quo.
In other words, the staus quo.
I do not think it likely that e.g. grocery stores are expending capital to develop and implement systems to give there customers leverage to pay them less money, with no benefit (never mind net benefit) to the grocery store.
It's more likely that there is a side to the art of tracking that you do not account for, than the idea that the grocery stores are so benevolent.
It's more likely that there is a side to the art of tracking that you do not account for, than the idea that the grocery stores are so benevolent.
I think the idea is that if one in a loyalty program, and it provides them with some discount/benefits, then they are more likely to shop there instead of at some other chain. This way they spend their money at that chain, and that is good for the store. It's just one more way stores are competing with each other. It also provides the chain with some data, but I am uncertain of its utility. I don't really believe it to be useful for them in general for anything other than targeting.
The benefit to the store is that they can more closely monitor consumption patterns across time (e.g. people buying X will also frequently buy Y, but not necessarily on the same grocery trip). I don’t see how this is harmful to the consumer.
> I suppose you be could be charged more for purchasing a certain item at that particular chain. I highly doubt this has ever happened, since it's bad for business.
I'm sure it has, it's just done in a subtle manner you don't notice.
> What is the worst realistic consequence for a government...tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax:
That was determined by a democracy. And if a government wanted to do that today, it would be trivial to do via fiat. No need to build a database or even track what exactly is purchased. Just swipe your "tax setting" card before you swipe anything else.
I'm sure it has, it's just done in a subtle manner you don't notice.
> What is the worst realistic consequence for a government...tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax:
That was determined by a democracy. And if a government wanted to do that today, it would be trivial to do via fiat. No need to build a database or even track what exactly is purchased. Just swipe your "tax setting" card before you swipe anything else.
> That was determined by a democracy.
Concentration camps, extrajudicial killings, racial violence, anti-labor violence, mass surveillance, and torture have all been done by democracies too.
"We're a democracy" in Europe and the US, generally speaking, means a tiny subset of the government is democratically elected and responsible for setting high-level policy goals. It doesn't mean the government as a whole carries out the will of the people on an even regular basis or always has their best interests at heart. We should be very careful about giving any powerful organization, government or corporate, more power (and information is power) regardless of its nominal method of governance.
Concentration camps, extrajudicial killings, racial violence, anti-labor violence, mass surveillance, and torture have all been done by democracies too.
"We're a democracy" in Europe and the US, generally speaking, means a tiny subset of the government is democratically elected and responsible for setting high-level policy goals. It doesn't mean the government as a whole carries out the will of the people on an even regular basis or always has their best interests at heart. We should be very careful about giving any powerful organization, government or corporate, more power (and information is power) regardless of its nominal method of governance.
>I'm sure it has, it's just done in a subtle manner you don't notice.
How do you figure? In all grocery stores I’ve visited, loyalty card discounts are clearly noted on the item's price tag. I've never seen any hidden discounts (or surcharges) that pop up only at checkout.
>Just swipe your "tax setting" card before you swipe anything else.
Very true, but decentralizing progressive sales tax collection is rife for fraud. Without centrally tracking everyone's cumulative tax burden, there would be no way to prevent people from using hacked Tax Setting cards that grossly underreport their income or cumulative meat consumption. Hacking notwithstanding, this would also be a lot more expensive that centrally tracking everything, since each Tax Setting card would have to maintain its own memory of cumulative purchases (otherwise, just ring up your massive meat order one steak at a time).
How do you figure? In all grocery stores I’ve visited, loyalty card discounts are clearly noted on the item's price tag. I've never seen any hidden discounts (or surcharges) that pop up only at checkout.
>Just swipe your "tax setting" card before you swipe anything else.
Very true, but decentralizing progressive sales tax collection is rife for fraud. Without centrally tracking everyone's cumulative tax burden, there would be no way to prevent people from using hacked Tax Setting cards that grossly underreport their income or cumulative meat consumption. Hacking notwithstanding, this would also be a lot more expensive that centrally tracking everything, since each Tax Setting card would have to maintain its own memory of cumulative purchases (otherwise, just ring up your massive meat order one steak at a time).
> In all grocery stores I’ve visited, loyalty card discounts are clearly noted on the item's price tag. I've never seen any hidden discounts (or surcharges) that pop up only at checkout.
Yes. A surcharge won't show up there. The most common way to do things is to have a very high base price and give people variable discounts.
> decentralizing progressive sales tax collection is rife for fraud.
So is distributing sheets of paper that I can exchange for goods and services. It's pretty cheap and easy to do this and I bet it can be completely done offline with security good enough that the biggest issue will be retailers letting people skip the excise tax.
As a sidenote - why are people concerned with the government putting a sin tax on meat?
Yes. A surcharge won't show up there. The most common way to do things is to have a very high base price and give people variable discounts.
> decentralizing progressive sales tax collection is rife for fraud.
So is distributing sheets of paper that I can exchange for goods and services. It's pretty cheap and easy to do this and I bet it can be completely done offline with security good enough that the biggest issue will be retailers letting people skip the excise tax.
As a sidenote - why are people concerned with the government putting a sin tax on meat?
> otherwise, just ring up your massive meat order one steak at a time
David Foster Wallace's unfinished novel "The Pale King" (which is set within the context of an Internal Revenue Service Regional Examination Centre and the people working there) contains something like that – at some point a supposed 1977 progressive sales tax experiment in Illinois is mentioned, which of course went horribly wrong and caused lots of chaos because people began splitting up their purchases in order to stay within the lowest tax band, and so it had to be repealed again after four months.
David Foster Wallace's unfinished novel "The Pale King" (which is set within the context of an Internal Revenue Service Regional Examination Centre and the people working there) contains something like that – at some point a supposed 1977 progressive sales tax experiment in Illinois is mentioned, which of course went horribly wrong and caused lots of chaos because people began splitting up their purchases in order to stay within the lowest tax band, and so it had to be repealed again after four months.
You completely forgot that those data can and will be sold to anybody interested, anywhere.
Much more worrisome image rather than taxing ie chronic junkfood eaters who will inevitably cost health system easily 100x compared to healthy persons.
Much more worrisome image rather than taxing ie chronic junkfood eaters who will inevitably cost health system easily 100x compared to healthy persons.
I also can refuse to give my data to any corporation I please. Yet any data the government requires I am forced to provide and am unable to opt out.
If we are concerned about the health care costs of people eating too much junk food I would also think we _must_ curtail any other unnecessary risky or dangerous behavior that can lead to increased health care needs like drinking, biking on a busy road, rock climbing, skiing, skateboarding, endurance sports that slowly destroy your joints, skydiving, motorized racing of any kind, horseback riding, suntanning... I could go on.
> Realistically, what is the worst possible consequence of a supermarket being able to track you? At worst, I suppose you be could be charged more for purchasing a certain item at that particular chain.
The way it works in Norway at the moment is that you can get a membership at any of the grocery chains, download an app and what not. Then you register your debit card in that app, and it monitors what you buy, and you get discounted prices on stuff you buy the most of and/or benefits in general.
Personally I have no problem with this, because it's an opt-in thing.
The way it works in Norway at the moment is that you can get a membership at any of the grocery chains, download an app and what not. Then you register your debit card in that app, and it monitors what you buy, and you get discounted prices on stuff you buy the most of and/or benefits in general.
Personally I have no problem with this, because it's an opt-in thing.
I may be getting hung up in semantics, but calling this a sin tax is stupid. Who cares if alcohol is a “sin” or not? That’s irrelevant, what matters is that it’s a highly addicting poison that harms everyone.
> calling this a sin tax is stupid
"Sin tax" is the name for a targeted excise tax to discourage consumption. The name goes back to the 1500s when the Catholic Church used such a tactic (or at least justification) to tax certain activities.
Whether we current use a moral framework to distinguish what goods to tax, it's become an accepted term.
"Sin tax" is the name for a targeted excise tax to discourage consumption. The name goes back to the 1500s when the Catholic Church used such a tactic (or at least justification) to tax certain activities.
Whether we current use a moral framework to distinguish what goods to tax, it's become an accepted term.
Now you are tracked by both private entities and the state.
I don't want to be tracked by anyone, without my explicit consent, which I should be able to withdraw anytime.
I don't want to be tracked by anyone, without my explicit consent, which I should be able to withdraw anytime.
But you agreed to be managed by the government right? Remember when they came round and you signed the contract? To pay 40%+ in taxes? For the ability to vote once every 4-5 years for someone to represent you?
You don't? Nor me.
Governments presume to have authority over everything in their domain. The belief in the false idea of 'government' by the majority is what sustains their power.
It is actually immoral and fraudulent. They are meant to serve us - and a servant is less than a free man/woman. That is not how they see it though - they are only serving themselves.
You don't? Nor me.
Governments presume to have authority over everything in their domain. The belief in the false idea of 'government' by the majority is what sustains their power.
It is actually immoral and fraudulent. They are meant to serve us - and a servant is less than a free man/woman. That is not how they see it though - they are only serving themselves.
Look, I am far from pro-government interference. That being said, I personally disagree with much of your argument here.
You implicitly agree to some measure when you participate in the society set up by government.
There is today a very common attitude that governments are intentionally only serving a small elite. This populist - perhaps even intuitive - rhetoric is exaggerated for most of the Western world.
If you’re living on your own out in the wilderness, I can see your argument. But this actually does exist to some degree in how uncontacted peoples[0] are generally not subject to the laws of the government whos jurisdiction they fall under. This isn’t a lifestyle most of us would choose but perhaps there is some merit to making this path easier to take for those who desire it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
You implicitly agree to some measure when you participate in the society set up by government.
There is today a very common attitude that governments are intentionally only serving a small elite. This populist - perhaps even intuitive - rhetoric is exaggerated for most of the Western world.
If you’re living on your own out in the wilderness, I can see your argument. But this actually does exist to some degree in how uncontacted peoples[0] are generally not subject to the laws of the government whos jurisdiction they fall under. This isn’t a lifestyle most of us would choose but perhaps there is some merit to making this path easier to take for those who desire it.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
I dispute your assertion that society is setup by the government.
Yes, I agree and see now that I made a bad choice of words there.
Correcting it I would rephrase it to say that massive components of society are directly facilitated by the government as one example: (roads -> shipped goods, travel experiences, etc)
Correcting it I would rephrase it to say that massive components of society are directly facilitated by the government as one example: (roads -> shipped goods, travel experiences, etc)
How do you like that the roads previous generations paid for are now being turned into bike lanes, that you pay to park, etc.
Did the government make the right decisions then? Are they making the right decisions now?
Did the government make the right decisions then? Are they making the right decisions now?
Well, roads are temporary and it becomes a bit of a ship of Theseus question there to say who actually paid for them.
> Did the government make the right decisions then? Are they making the right decisions now?
Government is allowed to occasionally make the wrong decision. Perfection is an imperfect standard.
> Did the government make the right decisions then? Are they making the right decisions now?
Government is allowed to occasionally make the wrong decision. Perfection is an imperfect standard.
A small elite utilizing a governmental structure to control a much larger human population is basically the story of history since the dawn of agriculture and the formation of city-states.
A radical relatively recent notion is that democratic systems of government which allowed the public to elect representatives to the decision-making positions within the government would alter this historical dynamic and would eliminate the concentration of real power in the hands of a small group of elites. This notion hasn't really worked out in the USA as it's rather clear that American politicians today almost universally serve as the equivalents of corporate middle managers within a larger power structure controlled by entities like large banks and hedge funds, industrial conglomerates in energy/tech/pharma/ag/etc, military industrial contractors and affiliated government bureaucracies, and corporate and state propaganda organizations, who funnel wealth up to a tiny minority (quite similar in proportional structure to say, the House of Saud's ~15,000 affiliates relative to the Saudi population of what, ~35 million?)
The alternative approach of communism has merely replaced one set of elites (inherited aristocratic wealth) with another (members of government bureaucracies selected by internal bureaucratic politics, see China for example), where the general population doesn't even have the illusion of being represented in a democratic process. In some cases (Cuba) this has indeed raised the average standard of living for the majority of the population, which is an uncomfortable fact for many, although repression of all dissent tends to be the price for that.
Now, maybe equalizing technology can get us out of this mess to some extent, but it truly dates back to the origins of what we call civilization. Kings and priests weren't really possible until farmers figured out how to grow far more food than they themselves needed; some narcissitic types figured out they could control this excess and use it to set themselves up at the top of the social pyramid (rather literally as in Egypt, Mesoamerica, etc.), and that's continued relatively unchanged right on up to the present day (with some improvements of course, for example the elimination of chattel slavery in most places).
A radical relatively recent notion is that democratic systems of government which allowed the public to elect representatives to the decision-making positions within the government would alter this historical dynamic and would eliminate the concentration of real power in the hands of a small group of elites. This notion hasn't really worked out in the USA as it's rather clear that American politicians today almost universally serve as the equivalents of corporate middle managers within a larger power structure controlled by entities like large banks and hedge funds, industrial conglomerates in energy/tech/pharma/ag/etc, military industrial contractors and affiliated government bureaucracies, and corporate and state propaganda organizations, who funnel wealth up to a tiny minority (quite similar in proportional structure to say, the House of Saud's ~15,000 affiliates relative to the Saudi population of what, ~35 million?)
The alternative approach of communism has merely replaced one set of elites (inherited aristocratic wealth) with another (members of government bureaucracies selected by internal bureaucratic politics, see China for example), where the general population doesn't even have the illusion of being represented in a democratic process. In some cases (Cuba) this has indeed raised the average standard of living for the majority of the population, which is an uncomfortable fact for many, although repression of all dissent tends to be the price for that.
Now, maybe equalizing technology can get us out of this mess to some extent, but it truly dates back to the origins of what we call civilization. Kings and priests weren't really possible until farmers figured out how to grow far more food than they themselves needed; some narcissitic types figured out they could control this excess and use it to set themselves up at the top of the social pyramid (rather literally as in Egypt, Mesoamerica, etc.), and that's continued relatively unchanged right on up to the present day (with some improvements of course, for example the elimination of chattel slavery in most places).
> You don't? Nor me
Technically (in at least some systems), you do when you ask for residency - when you leave the parent's house to live somewhere defined in the territory, and make that formal. That is the "signature of the contract".
The simile of the "service" holds credit. Of course, do not forget that many other models were drawn in History (e.g.: Hobbes, "better compromise than the insecurity which comes with anarchy", etc).
Technically (in at least some systems), you do when you ask for residency - when you leave the parent's house to live somewhere defined in the territory, and make that formal. That is the "signature of the contract".
The simile of the "service" holds credit. Of course, do not forget that many other models were drawn in History (e.g.: Hobbes, "better compromise than the insecurity which comes with anarchy", etc).
You're free to live in the woods if you don't like the deal. You don't get to use any of society's infrastructure if you don't opt in, though. You won't be taxed, of course, since you can't engage with any economic activity within society. I'm sure you could make a nice commune in the wilderness somewhere. Just don't bring anything from society with you, like tools, clothes, food, livestock, seeds. Good luck out there.
That's the thing: you can't really do that. And the argument shouldn't be "society vs wilderness", but "existing vs new society".
In the past, it was really hard to sever ties with one society and government and go form a new one, but you could actually find places where nobody would immediately chase you away (even then most expansion was at the expense of natives, though). Nowadays that's impossible. A small number of people could maybe live in Siberia undetected, but that's more like partisan warfare than establishing a new country: The moment Russian government finds out anyone's there, they're getting deported. Your best bet for not living in an existing state is amassing an army (likely illegal in your home country) and invading a weak state. Good luck.
In the past, it was really hard to sever ties with one society and government and go form a new one, but you could actually find places where nobody would immediately chase you away (even then most expansion was at the expense of natives, though). Nowadays that's impossible. A small number of people could maybe live in Siberia undetected, but that's more like partisan warfare than establishing a new country: The moment Russian government finds out anyone's there, they're getting deported. Your best bet for not living in an existing state is amassing an army (likely illegal in your home country) and invading a weak state. Good luck.
You, uh, sorta can't. There is no unowned land left. You can squat but that is living as an outlaw.
Also >You don't get to use any of society's infrastructure if you don't opt in, though. You don't represent the rest of us, so why are you pretending to the authority to make stipulations like this? I'd imagine if there were any outlands left to retreat to, you would at least have some bartering going on there at the fringes.
Also >You don't get to use any of society's infrastructure if you don't opt in, though. You don't represent the rest of us, so why are you pretending to the authority to make stipulations like this? I'd imagine if there were any outlands left to retreat to, you would at least have some bartering going on there at the fringes.
I'm not pretending to be an authority on anything, or representing anyone but myself. You can't just pick and choose which parts of society you want to comply with. If you do, you get incarcerated. As a direct consequence, interfacing with society's infrastructure is a soft opt-in, which will result in your incarceration if you don't live within the bounds of that society. So it's not a stipulation, nor do I require any authority, nor do I need to speek for anyone, when saying it, since it's a necessary component of the theoretical.
> You can't just pick and choose which parts of society you want to comply with.
You can't pick any parts. Choice has nothing to do with it. You serve the government, it does not serve you. You are a slave.
But you can pretend that you picked what society is asking you to do, if you like - that you picked how much tax you paid, that your government borrowed so many trillions, the way they spend that money, which wars they fight, etc, etc. If you don't believe me, try and change something.
I personally think that's an example of Stockholm syndrome, but each to their own.
You can't pick any parts. Choice has nothing to do with it. You serve the government, it does not serve you. You are a slave.
But you can pretend that you picked what society is asking you to do, if you like - that you picked how much tax you paid, that your government borrowed so many trillions, the way they spend that money, which wars they fight, etc, etc. If you don't believe me, try and change something.
I personally think that's an example of Stockholm syndrome, but each to their own.
It is an interesting argument, but I think the reality is you don't get to opt-in. You are automatically opted in based on the local jurisdiction and, more importantly, you have no way to opt out beyond Michael Scott's cry 'I declare bankruptcy!'.
You can go to live in a forest. Your obligations to the jurisdiction remain.
You can go to live in a forest. Your obligations to the jurisdiction remain.
Where can this be done legally in the US?
You should probably check for "public land", which is found in almost all States but is very, very frequent west of Texas. See e.g. the map at:
https://vividmaps.com/non-private-land-in-united-states/
But you should check what you can do in it. It will be probably legal to park a vehicle there and very probably illegal to dig a moat around it (public means "of everyone", not just "free").
https://vividmaps.com/non-private-land-in-united-states/
But you should check what you can do in it. It will be probably legal to park a vehicle there and very probably illegal to dig a moat around it (public means "of everyone", not just "free").
Why would someone who rejects society care about society's laws?
Because (s)he may not care about society, but society - in particular, the government - care about him/her.
To avoid issues, to avoid conflict.
runnerup(2)
What a load of BS. The predominant form of social organization is from a majority status. The people who voted in that government are the ones who direct the government resources, and are determining what it's polices are towards the governed.
The people in Norway have a clear and simple choice; they can sit and do nothing, or they can do something. Action might entail moving the hell out of the country and complain from a distance. They could also vote in a new government, but it's up to them.
As far as that BS idea that "They are meant to serve us", no you are quite wrong. The Government serves the people who voted it in, and gave it control of those resources. That Government, in the end, has no obligation to _anyone_ else . Its only obligation is to those who voted it in, and it uses that granted power as a proxy for those people (and corporations) to enact their will. Don't' like it? Fine, do something about it, rather than complain here about big, bad Government.
The people in Norway have a clear and simple choice; they can sit and do nothing, or they can do something. Action might entail moving the hell out of the country and complain from a distance. They could also vote in a new government, but it's up to them.
As far as that BS idea that "They are meant to serve us", no you are quite wrong. The Government serves the people who voted it in, and gave it control of those resources. That Government, in the end, has no obligation to _anyone_ else . Its only obligation is to those who voted it in, and it uses that granted power as a proxy for those people (and corporations) to enact their will. Don't' like it? Fine, do something about it, rather than complain here about big, bad Government.
Wouldn't it be wild if there were some sort of middle ground between "say and do nothing" and "die in a failed militant uprising"?
>tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
I don't know if that was sarcasm or you being really naive.
I don't know if that was sarcasm or you being really naive.
I don’t think the view that “government is bad” is any less naive than the alternative, and it’s a rather less sophisticated viewpoint. Assuming you live in a functional country, I’d even go so far as to say it’s a juvenile viewpoint.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm fairly certain this is how many view this issue and supporting government over privatization in the current environment. They may not be your friend but they may help compete against and regulate those currently suppressing you.
For that to change, privization needs to stop focusing on minimizing its alignment for personal gain and has to look at shedding a bit back towards society, realigning more at a slight loss of gains, not capturing gains purely for itself.
If that doesn't happen, you're going to continue to see surges of support for government, ideas of socialism, etc.
For that to change, privization needs to stop focusing on minimizing its alignment for personal gain and has to look at shedding a bit back towards society, realigning more at a slight loss of gains, not capturing gains purely for itself.
If that doesn't happen, you're going to continue to see surges of support for government, ideas of socialism, etc.
Maxim 29:
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
At least you (hopefully) know what the Supermarket is up to - as you say, they just want to sell you more stuff. The government on the other hand - who knows what plans they might cook up.
This was my take on it. The supermarket can't reach into my paycheck and take more money at their whim, nor can they put me in jail.
That's incredibly facile. The supermarket can, and will, sell all your data because there's profit in it. Now try to make sense of how you know what they're up to.
At least with the government, you have a ton of elected representative who can help you if the government does something dumb with the data.
At least with the government, you have a ton of elected representative who can help you if the government does something dumb with the data.
I know Norway isn't in the EU, but the GDPR prevents (or rather lets users decide on) sales of data like this. Not sure how it would interact with mass collection of data by a government agency, but any such transfers might be exempted by an additional law.
This is a false dichotomy, we don't need to be tracked by either.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
This sounds like a fantasy. I much prefer the supermarket getting my data and trying to sell me more because their motivations are _clear_ to me.
The government is supposed to have my interests at heart yet, it is impossible to even come close to knowing everyone's interests. It is even more difficult to simultaneously satisfy them unless this "everyone" happens to be incredibly homogeneous in culture, values, and lifestyle. Kinda like a small northern country. Additionally, this assumes an altruistic leadership in the first place.
In reality what happens is the interests of the factions in power are what are held up by government at any given time. In democracy those factions change routinely and so do the things they care about. This creates uncertainty and risk. So yeah I prefer the predictability of a corporation to the ever changing and ever more powerful politics of government. At least I know what I am dealing with.
This sounds like a fantasy. I much prefer the supermarket getting my data and trying to sell me more because their motivations are _clear_ to me.
The government is supposed to have my interests at heart yet, it is impossible to even come close to knowing everyone's interests. It is even more difficult to simultaneously satisfy them unless this "everyone" happens to be incredibly homogeneous in culture, values, and lifestyle. Kinda like a small northern country. Additionally, this assumes an altruistic leadership in the first place.
In reality what happens is the interests of the factions in power are what are held up by government at any given time. In democracy those factions change routinely and so do the things they care about. This creates uncertainty and risk. So yeah I prefer the predictability of a corporation to the ever changing and ever more powerful politics of government. At least I know what I am dealing with.
It doesn’t look like this will stop supermarkets from tracking people, this will just require them to share that information with the government, so this tracking will be in addition to the existing tracking, not replacing it. I would say that’s objectively worse.
It also creates the incentive for the government to allow more and more invasive tracking by the shops.
You should consider reading “Seeing Like a State” for a history of how even well intentioned social engineering policies can go seriously off the rails.
The assumption that anyone beside yourself has your best interest at heart is the one thing that I simply cannot comprehend. Time and time again, humans have shown that they do not care about others beyond what is expected within the rules of the society ( and even then it really depends on how well those rules are enforced - see recent pandemic's 'we are all in this together' messages but from yachts ).
Realistically, only you can have your own interests at heart. Obviously, exceptions in the form children and mental handicaps comes in, but, well.. does government and corporations see the population at large as children?
In other words, being tracked is not good for the individual regardless of who is tracking you. It doesn't matter if government tracking is better or worse. They are both bad and they erode your ability to do things as you see fit.
Realistically, only you can have your own interests at heart. Obviously, exceptions in the form children and mental handicaps comes in, but, well.. does government and corporations see the population at large as children?
In other words, being tracked is not good for the individual regardless of who is tracking you. It doesn't matter if government tracking is better or worse. They are both bad and they erode your ability to do things as you see fit.
Grocery stores who track me are subject to the pressures of competitive enterprise. The government is not.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that, at least in the US, about 50% of the entire population at any given time tend NOT to believe that the government has their best interest in mind
And that's to say nothing of the fact that, at least in the US, about 50% of the entire population at any given time tend NOT to believe that the government has their best interest in mind
jonahbenton(4)
The people in government (and/or lobbyists and special interest groups controlling them) absolutely do not "have your best interests a heart".
I'm way less concerned about someone who just wants to sell me more than about the government. It's trivial for me to not buy a new package of sugar-snacks no matter how much they advertise it, whereas governmental actions can ruin my life.
I'm way less concerned about someone who just wants to sell me more than about the government. It's trivial for me to not buy a new package of sugar-snacks no matter how much they advertise it, whereas governmental actions can ruin my life.
So, “it’s ok because someone already tries to do it and they’re worse?” This is the second worst argument against privacy I’ve ever heard after “I have nothing to hide”. Privacy is essential for human dignity. Tracking everything a person does and buys is dehumanizing and ripe for abuse.
But there’s no precedent for personal data being misused mishandled or abused right?
But there’s no precedent for personal data being misused mishandled or abused right?
The Norwegian government may have a reputation for actually putting my best interests at heart but on the balance I think most governments do not have a good track record of putting my best interests at heart either unintentionally or that the people in charge are outright corrupt.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. the grocery industry who just wants to sell you more?
Oh man, if somebody with the power of a state tracked everything I did in order to improve my life, and for no other reason than that, I would love it. Sounds like a guardian angel. Sign me up.
But... what if they didn't care about me very much, never really thought of me at all, and really just saw me as one person among tens of millions? What if instead of helping me, their main motivation was to get re-elected?
And what if the government in power was somebody I actively didn't like, and had even protested against? Maybe I felt they were evil and irresponsible. Would I still want them tracking me and trying to change my behavior?
I can think of people I would want to give that kind of power to, but it's the people I don't know about yet that worry me.
Oh man, if somebody with the power of a state tracked everything I did in order to improve my life, and for no other reason than that, I would love it. Sounds like a guardian angel. Sign me up.
But... what if they didn't care about me very much, never really thought of me at all, and really just saw me as one person among tens of millions? What if instead of helping me, their main motivation was to get re-elected?
And what if the government in power was somebody I actively didn't like, and had even protested against? Maybe I felt they were evil and irresponsible. Would I still want them tracking me and trying to change my behavior?
I can think of people I would want to give that kind of power to, but it's the people I don't know about yet that worry me.
> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores
With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
But this is not the case here.
With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
But this is not the case here.
>> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores
>
> With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no.
Assuming no facial recognition, phone tracking or license plate reading, all that means is they aren't tracking you between visits. Certainly the items purchased together are tracked. And they get lumped together into the "cash, no card" group. And if you buy any age restricted products where they can see your ID, your birthdate is entered into the system, which is probably unique enough among cardless cash users in any grocery store.
Assuming no facial recognition, phone tracking or license plate reading, all that means is they aren't tracking you between visits. Certainly the items purchased together are tracked. And they get lumped together into the "cash, no card" group. And if you buy any age restricted products where they can see your ID, your birthdate is entered into the system, which is probably unique enough among cardless cash users in any grocery store.
> With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no.
Several stores track your phone inside the store. Some also use facial recognition.
I haven’t seen any store use automatic license plate readers on customer cars but It wouldn’t surprise me if some do.
Several stores track your phone inside the store. Some also use facial recognition.
I haven’t seen any store use automatic license plate readers on customer cars but It wouldn’t surprise me if some do.
>Several stores track your phone inside the store
phones made in the last few years have mac address randomization to thwart this type of stuff. It's not perfect, but it suffices to prevent them from building a profile of your purchases between visits.
>Some also use facial recognition.
good thing covid made face masks socially acceptable ;)
phones made in the last few years have mac address randomization to thwart this type of stuff. It's not perfect, but it suffices to prevent them from building a profile of your purchases between visits.
>Some also use facial recognition.
good thing covid made face masks socially acceptable ;)
In England they definitely do for parking purposes. Like, you get two hours free parking and after you have to pay. And they track it via licence plate readers.
"With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no."
Oh, but you are. You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. There is a demographic like you, in other words. You might very well be tracked through the store so that they can study where you go and what you stop at as well.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
Ok. Except that they might just use it to do good overall too. I very highly doubt you can be any more sure than the rest of us.
Oh, but you are. You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. There is a demographic like you, in other words. You might very well be tracked through the store so that they can study where you go and what you stop at as well.
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart
Ok. Except that they might just use it to do good overall too. I very highly doubt you can be any more sure than the rest of us.
> You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card.
More than that you’re lumped in with other folks who have the same habits and brand preferences as you, which may very well be a lump of exactly one person.
More than that you’re lumped in with other folks who have the same habits and brand preferences as you, which may very well be a lump of exactly one person.
The grocery store can’t send me to prison nor can it order a judge to block my bank accounts based on my political believes and actions.
The grocery industry can't put you in jail or kick your door in.
Well, since we sat on our collective asses and blamed the consumer while corporates were building mass survaliance, we should not be surprised that the state is joining the party.
Or to tax you more efficiently.
Isn’t that just what sales tax is for? Another comment mentioned increasing your tax bracket if you bought too much meat, but trivially they could just add a sales tax on meat instead to the same effect.
With this they can make a progressive sales tax. "Oh, if you buy meat according to the national average, you pay the standard tax. But if you are eating more than that, you pay double."
You haven't eaten your five-a-day fruit and veg - more tax on your chocolate. Oh, you haven't reached your 10000 steps today either - more tax.
Thanks, that’s an informative reply I hadn’t thought of
Distinction without a difference
They state they're only interested in group level data, isnt there a way to collect data that is not able to link purchases to any individual.
Theoretically, it seems possible, if the data is never stored against the SSB, but only stored pre-aggregated against demographic markers such as location, age, etc.
If so, wouldn't it be a net win that the government has data to better plan import/export or anything else and maybe make this data public so people can use this data to come up with new businesses in the right locations without compromising individual privacy.
Theoretically, it seems possible, if the data is never stored against the SSB, but only stored pre-aggregated against demographic markers such as location, age, etc.
If so, wouldn't it be a net win that the government has data to better plan import/export or anything else and maybe make this data public so people can use this data to come up with new businesses in the right locations without compromising individual privacy.
[deleted]
> Aka the more we know about you, the more efficiently we can create policies to control your behavior to our liking.
How about this phrasing instead?
_"The more we know about you, the more efficiently we can create policies to control your behavior to *YOUR* liking."_
Not all governments are unfriendly to their people. Or, should I say, not all people imagine their government is evil. I'm looking at you USA.
How about this phrasing instead?
_"The more we know about you, the more efficiently we can create policies to control your behavior to *YOUR* liking."_
Not all governments are unfriendly to their people. Or, should I say, not all people imagine their government is evil. I'm looking at you USA.
Examples for such idea are needed.
If it is to get the feedback that government (kybernan) by definition requires, you use aggregates, not nominal data.
If it is to get the feedback that government (kybernan) by definition requires, you use aggregates, not nominal data.
Video analysis, grocery delivery data sold to data brokers, etc. are unregulated in some places like the US. So you are much more likely to have, for example, your health insurance revoked for whatever untransparent reasons in places where this kind of data collection is all in the private sector.
that's the point of any policy by definition. All policies do is create either negative or positive incentives that deter or encourage behavior respectively, I don't see why you ought to do it on the basis of bad data rather than good data.
When you get child tax credits or pay a carbon tax very explicitly the point is to control what you do, that's not new, secret or particularly sinister.
When you get child tax credits or pay a carbon tax very explicitly the point is to control what you do, that's not new, secret or particularly sinister.
This communicates a different thing to me.
This reminds me that thanks to credit/debit cards and IT, supermarket chains, banks and corporation have a detailed information on what I buy.
And we have no idea how they use this information. We may only assume and I don't think we would be happy if we would found out.
Not that I want the government to know too.
This reminds me that thanks to credit/debit cards and IT, supermarket chains, banks and corporation have a detailed information on what I buy.
And we have no idea how they use this information. We may only assume and I don't think we would be happy if we would found out.
Not that I want the government to know too.
“Hello #3576. You have reached your 1kg monthly limit of natural meat. Please consult the official list for alternatives.”
Or "you've reached your monthly quota of alcohol purchases". Which isn't far fetched at all! In parts of Canada, up into the 50s, you had to bring your permit booklet to buy alcohol from state operated stores where they recorded your purchases:
https://www.tvo.org/article/buzzkillers-a-brief-history-of-t...
I mean,
> Vinmonopolet (English: The Wine Monopoly), symbolized by Ⓥ and colloquially shortened to Polet, is a government-owned alcoholic beverage retailer and the only company allowed to sell beverages containing an alcohol content higher than 4.75% in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet
> Vinmonopolet (English: The Wine Monopoly), symbolized by Ⓥ and colloquially shortened to Polet, is a government-owned alcoholic beverage retailer and the only company allowed to sell beverages containing an alcohol content higher than 4.75% in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet
Vinmonopolet is nicer than any liquor store I was at in the US, though (Am american, lived in norway the last 9 years). And there are options to get it delivered to your house. Plus, it is really easy to order something if they can get it (and ways to import it yourself if you don't see it on their website). My liquor store experience improved greatly upon moving here.
Do they close early? Sure, but that's easy to work around. Are they expensive? Sure, but I don't drink heavily so it isn't a big deal.
Plenty of places have such a solution, including some US states.
Do they close early? Sure, but that's easy to work around. Are they expensive? Sure, but I don't drink heavily so it isn't a big deal.
Plenty of places have such a solution, including some US states.
Sweden is similar - you can't buy a beer with > 3.5% alcohol. Subjectively, they improved the quality of these 2.1% / 3.5% beers. It was piss some 10 years ago.
Higher percentage, "normal" alcoholic products are sold in government-run Systembolaget[1]. And there's almost no cash in Sweden.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
Higher percentage, "normal" alcoholic products are sold in government-run Systembolaget[1]. And there's almost no cash in Sweden.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
It's so sad that Sweden doesn't allow real beer in the shops like Norway does.
I don't know, I have started to think we shouldn't sell any type of hard drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, in grocery stores. Why not sell these products in separate specialized stores, like we already do with Vinmonopolet?
> any type of hard drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, in grocery stores.
I volunteered at an addiction and methadone clinic for awhile. I recommend you try it then come talk about what “hard drugs” are.
I volunteered at an addiction and methadone clinic for awhile. I recommend you try it then come talk about what “hard drugs” are.
First, it is not the drug but a persons past experiences (usually some kind of trauma) that drives addictive and destructive behaviour. Opiates just happens to be one of the most effective tools to supress and temporarily deal with said trauma.
Secound, methadone is an awful drug primarily prescribed for it's much longer half-life (compared to diamorphine/heroin). This makes it more convenient for the ones who are tasked with controlling the traumatized persons intake of the medication. Diamorphine is less physically addictive than methadone and features considerably fewer side effects.
Alcohol is more damaging to the body and harder and more risky to quit than diamorphine. This fact is easily overlooked because the drug is so ubiquitous and socially accepted in our culture. The recreational and casual use that we observe in everyday life makes us believe that alcohol is a less dangerous drug.
Alcohol and tobacco are among the hardest drugs we have, it's just that we are so habituated to their use that we falsely believe they are safer, less addictive and easier to quit once physically dependent.
Secound, methadone is an awful drug primarily prescribed for it's much longer half-life (compared to diamorphine/heroin). This makes it more convenient for the ones who are tasked with controlling the traumatized persons intake of the medication. Diamorphine is less physically addictive than methadone and features considerably fewer side effects.
Alcohol is more damaging to the body and harder and more risky to quit than diamorphine. This fact is easily overlooked because the drug is so ubiquitous and socially accepted in our culture. The recreational and casual use that we observe in everyday life makes us believe that alcohol is a less dangerous drug.
Alcohol and tobacco are among the hardest drugs we have, it's just that we are so habituated to their use that we falsely believe they are safer, less addictive and easier to quit once physically dependent.
Alcohol kills more people than "harder" drugs and is much more acceptable within polite society. Same situation with tobacco, which also happens to be one of the most difficult substances to quit that we know of. Your average patient suffering from substance abuse will have an easier time quitting most drugs in comparison to nicotine. Given intravenously, nicotine is 5-10x more potent in producing a euphoric effect than cocaine.
Heroin, meth, etc. might kill you quicker and be more unpleasant to administer with more noticeable withdrawals, but if we're talking about ultimate cost to society they're not the worst offenders.
Heroin, meth, etc. might kill you quicker and be more unpleasant to administer with more noticeable withdrawals, but if we're talking about ultimate cost to society they're not the worst offenders.
Please remake your argument using RATE of users who remain high functioning.
There are still US states where wine can only be sold in state-owned stores.
When I visited Ottawa (in Canada) a couple of years ago you had to go the the special liquor store (LCBO) to get beer!
Currently working at a PA one, I even get a .gov address.
Dear monkeybutton, you're about to commit a consumptioncrime, a social service worker will visit your household in the next few to days to check if everything is fine with you and your loved ones.
This was the case in Sweden as well (probably the rest of Scandinavia too, but I don’t know for certain off the top of my head).
> Please consult the official list for alternatives.”
More likely a new way to tax stuff that the government does not like. Eating too much red-meat from methane-producing cows? Extra climate change tax for you!
More likely a new way to tax stuff that the government does not like. Eating too much red-meat from methane-producing cows? Extra climate change tax for you!
They should probably think about the Natural Gas that makes up 60 % of the total value of Norway's exports before they go virtue signalling to people eating meat from farms that use tractors.
> They should probably think about...
Problem is hypocrisy is hardly a reason that you can use against those in power.
Problem is hypocrisy is hardly a reason that you can use against those in power.
But they are also exporting green electricity certificates to balance it off. #greenwashing
[deleted]
[deleted]
Can’t they just add a meat sales tax to accomplish that?
Or just measure the methane output and charge the farmers a tax on that directly. That would give them incentive to feed their cows that methane reducing seaweed.
> Can’t they just add a meat sales tax
No, because the (sinisterly clever) idea of ekianjo allows the implementation of something which is sought by some: progressive taxation of limited resources or externalities etc, as opposed to fixed one. It's akin to rationing. You drive 10000 miles/y, pay 1/u or 1000; if 20000 miles/y, pay 2/u or 4000...
No, because the (sinisterly clever) idea of ekianjo allows the implementation of something which is sought by some: progressive taxation of limited resources or externalities etc, as opposed to fixed one. It's akin to rationing. You drive 10000 miles/y, pay 1/u or 1000; if 20000 miles/y, pay 2/u or 4000...
Not if the tax is progressive (higher earning people, or people eating more meat get taxed at a higher rate).
There already is taxes like that, e.g on gasoline. Its very easy, just put a flat tax per liter. Then the more you use the more you pay. No need for extra surveillance, unless you want progressive taxaction of those resources.
this would arguably be a great thing
I’m a vegetarian because of environmental (and more recently, ethical) reasons. I’m an enormous advocate of reducing the quantity of animal products that the world uses.
This is definitely not a “great thing”. There are much less invasive ways to influence behavior and nudge consumers to consume fewer harmful products. Like simply using product-specific taxes or labeling requirements. Or targeting the producers directly.
We don’t need to increase government surveillance, ever.
This is definitely not a “great thing”. There are much less invasive ways to influence behavior and nudge consumers to consume fewer harmful products. Like simply using product-specific taxes or labeling requirements. Or targeting the producers directly.
We don’t need to increase government surveillance, ever.
You should look up "Dairy is scary" on YouTube then (promise, it's worth it!). Being a vegetarian has much less impact than one might think.
Heh I’ve been vegan for ages, just watched it. Great reminder.
Meat is part of a healthy diet. Sure, some survive on other stuff, but in general, meat is healthy.
It's essential.
Seconded. I'm on an all-meat diet and I turned my health around thanks to it. Most often people who advocate eliminating meat look sickly, because they are.
I'm happy that worked for you, but nutrition is too complex to make sweeping statements like that. Some scientists say that animal fats are unhealthy, while others correlate the increase in lifestyle diseases with the increased consumption of vegetable fats. We just don't know enough about how the body works.
[deleted]
I'm all for meat, fish and vegetables. That's the healthiest slice of the available foods. Any reason you've cut out vegetables entirely? I'd consider eating lots of green veg, while avoiding the starchy ones. My entrance point was AIP which basically forces one to do this.
I think it has to do with gut biome somehow. I've seen excellent biome diversity scores from other people on the diet, but in my case it's from repeated experience with gradually eating more and more fruit (and nothing else), not necessarily large quantities even (though I did ocassionaly eat quite a lot apples).
I haven't really tried with vegetables (not interested taste-wise), so it might be the carbs / fruit sugars that weren't great for my gut biome, which I suspect is messed up as it is for many people nowadays.
I haven't really tried with vegetables (not interested taste-wise), so it might be the carbs / fruit sugars that weren't great for my gut biome, which I suspect is messed up as it is for many people nowadays.
I never needed to turn around my health as a vegetarian. There's about a 99.999% chance that I'm stronger and faster than you, I wish I could demonstrate. You'd be embarrassed saying what you just said in front of me!
I believe vegetarians can be healthy.
However, I’ve identified many people that were vegans just by their looks before they (inevitably) announced it. You’re supposed to be able to supplement your way in to what you need but either the majority don’t or they’re still missing something.
However, I’ve identified many people that were vegans just by their looks before they (inevitably) announced it. You’re supposed to be able to supplement your way in to what you need but either the majority don’t or they’re still missing something.
> I believe vegetarians can be healthy.
There's no need for belief, all over the world vegetarians live around a decade longer. There could be any number of confounding factors of course but the burden of proof concerning health and diet is definitely on the pseudo-carnivores consuming their packaged flesh.
There's no need for belief, all over the world vegetarians live around a decade longer. There could be any number of confounding factors of course but the burden of proof concerning health and diet is definitely on the pseudo-carnivores consuming their packaged flesh.
> There's no need for belief, all over the world vegetarians live around a decade longer.
Controlling for wealth, total calories consumed, and a number of other known and suspected positive and negative contributors to longevity, quantity of meat eaten seems to end up positively correlated with longevity across the board.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/#!po=26...
The better conclusion might be that vegetarian is an elite affectation that is not as bad for you as the competing elite affectation of overeating.
Controlling for wealth, total calories consumed, and a number of other known and suspected positive and negative contributors to longevity, quantity of meat eaten seems to end up positively correlated with longevity across the board.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/#!po=26...
The better conclusion might be that vegetarian is an elite affectation that is not as bad for you as the competing elite affectation of overeating.
[deleted]
Where do you get your dietary fiber from?
I don't, turns out transit works fine (actually much better) without it.
I won't speculate on whether this would apply to everybody but my hypothesis is my health issues stemmed from gut biome disregulation caused by - way too many causes to list - and somehow only total elimination of carbohydrates and plant matter fixes it.
I won't speculate on whether this would apply to everybody but my hypothesis is my health issues stemmed from gut biome disregulation caused by - way too many causes to list - and somehow only total elimination of carbohydrates and plant matter fixes it.
HN is so fucking stupid.
Part of. Extreme consumption of meat, especially red meat, is unhealthy. Not to mention bad for the planet.
[deleted]
Let's not stop there and let's profile people on everything they purchase and increase their taxes on everything that's not remotely considered healthy enough, because you know, they increase the burden on the whole society!
That's the recipe for the abolition of individual freedom.
That's the recipe for the abolition of individual freedom.
There’s a lot of talk in N about the “people health” and how people need to eat less sugar etc. And how things like sugar should be taxed more. But you can still buy as much candy and whatever at the grocery store. And it doesn’t seem terribly expensive, either. (Alcohol is, though.)
There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative.
EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.
There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative.
EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.
You can choose to pay more taxes/fees at least, people already do that for certain things that are designed to nudge people to behave properly (e.g. pay 10 cents for a bag to encourage you to bring reusable bags and some people just don't care). Sin taxes are not new things.
Beltalowda(3)
Meat is literally recycled grass. Zero net carbon footprint. Sure cows release methane, but it’s part of a cycle and doesn’t contribute to long-term climate change.
All other “C footprint” is a consequence of poor farming practices, not meat. Blame the process (and the energy source) not the product.
All other “C footprint” is a consequence of poor farming practices, not meat. Blame the process (and the energy source) not the product.
Ah yes, the meat people eat definitely has more impact than the oil Norway produces.
You don't get to dectiate what people eat, imagine the other side, you are not eating enough meat, we will tax vegetables more in your purchases.
You don't get to dectiate what people eat, imagine the other side, you are not eating enough meat, we will tax vegetables more in your purchases.
[deleted]
In the US we do it already. The insurance companies can themselves define what healthy lifestyle is and they charge you higher premium. Or deny you coverage.
If you have any objection you can take them to the court and face their multi million legal teams.
If you have any objection you can take them to the court and face their multi million legal teams.
Compared with taxes, at least this way everyone gets the same amount of meat independent of how wealthy they are.
This is bad because different people want meat different amounts. Best case you get a meat black market (with corrosive effects on law and order ala alcohol prohibition) which will still lead to very inefficient meat allocation.
[deleted]
Because the wealthy surely wouldn't be able to find a way around a supermarket meat restriction...
*illegally
Sure, there are illegal ways around all laws. That does not make laws useless.
Sure, there are illegal ways around all laws. That does not make laws useless.
Norway is already the country where it's quite normal to drive to Sweden to buy tobacco, alcohol and yes meat, and other stuff that's cheaper across the borders. Restaurants source cheaper meat illegally this way etc.
Unfortunately, Sweden is in the EU and Norway is not so there's quite a lot of customs rules on that border.
Unfortunately, Sweden is in the EU and Norway is not so there's quite a lot of customs rules on that border.
And I should point out that this is a day trip: It takes me less than 90 minutes to get to Sweden. There are busses and trains that go as well. There might be a lot of customs rules on the border, but I've never seen them actually stop folks either.
Right, the border is chill (except for the crazy covid times, hope that's behind us). Mostly easy and fair rules for regular people. But the point is, if your car is full of meat and it's for a restaurant, not personal consumption, it's definitely illegal.
I lived in Tromsø and drove to Sweden and Finland a fair few times... there is zero customs enforcement. At least for cars, for lorries they're probably tracked in some other way.
If Norway reaches the point where they have to ration meat, I don't see the problem with such a system.
You don't have to track everyone to ration resources.
You can just say, 1KG per person, and voilla its done.
You can just say, 1KG per person, and voilla its done.
Uh, you literally have to track people's consumption to ration resources.
During WWII it was done with state-issued ration tickets and a crackdown on the inevitable black market that emerged. That's a good alternative to this.
During WWII it was done with state-issued ration tickets and a crackdown on the inevitable black market that emerged. That's a good alternative to this.
No. The limit will be less generous. :)
baisq(1)
Doing stuff like this today is going to be 100x better than what people 3 generations from now will have to live through thanks to climate change.
The question is whether we’re willing to inconvenience ourselves today to protect future generations - and the answer is looking like no.
The question is whether we’re willing to inconvenience ourselves today to protect future generations - and the answer is looking like no.
The answer is no for stupid solutions like tracking everybody’s meat consumption and a government limiting it. You will be swiftly told to fuck off (and rightly so). You need to get people on your side and contributing without massively changing their lifestyles, instead of alienating them. We need massive reductions in business contributions to climate change and we need investment in current clean energy solutions and investment in further research. The current younger generations already are less well off economically than the last. They shouldn’t have to make further sacrifices for future generations.
Exactly, I don't know why we are focusing on meat while we all know that energy and business emissions are more important, it looks like its an intentional distraction from big oil, and to give Norway's government more spying powers.
I don't necessarily disagree in principle, but I think what you're saying will be very hard or impossible.
Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive.
Further research in clean energy is all very nice, but that's what I've been hearing for 25 years, and if we look at what has actually been accomplished then I think it's a pretty big gamble to bet that "further research" will all make things work out.
The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.
Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive.
Further research in clean energy is all very nice, but that's what I've been hearing for 25 years, and if we look at what has actually been accomplished then I think it's a pretty big gamble to bet that "further research" will all make things work out.
The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.
Once we exsuahst all options to reduce climate change with limited impact on the customer, things like renewable energy(people don't care where their energy comes from), replacing unnecessary plastics with paper, etc, we can then talk about things like limiting meat consumption.
But affecting peoples lifes without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid and basically serves Oil companies targets, they created the "carbon footprint" just to distract people from focusing on them.
But affecting peoples lifes without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid and basically serves Oil companies targets, they created the "carbon footprint" just to distract people from focusing on them.
>>Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive.
>without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid
I think you're missing the parent poster's point, which is that consumers ultimately pay for everything. "tackling industries and corporation" ultimately means affecting consumer's lifestyles.
>without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid
I think you're missing the parent poster's point, which is that consumers ultimately pay for everything. "tackling industries and corporation" ultimately means affecting consumer's lifestyles.
There is a difference between affecting the consumers life to change to renewable energy and affecting the consumers life to virtue signal by banning meat while ignoring corporations.
Are consumers social planners?
Did consumers plan the massive road infrastructure in America? Did consumers make public transportation a fifth-rate form of transportation? Did consumers plan American Suburbia post-WWII? Did consumers decide that housing in central locations should be so expensive that they have to live a driving-distance from work (see: bad public transportation)? Did consumers decide that the goods that they consume have to take multiple trips around the world?
Why blame the output sink for so much?
Did consumers plan the massive road infrastructure in America? Did consumers make public transportation a fifth-rate form of transportation? Did consumers plan American Suburbia post-WWII? Did consumers decide that housing in central locations should be so expensive that they have to live a driving-distance from work (see: bad public transportation)? Did consumers decide that the goods that they consume have to take multiple trips around the world?
Why blame the output sink for so much?
>> The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.
Whether or not this is true (it very well could be although we won’t know for a while) I think the idea that younger generations will just accept that is unrealistic.
Whether or not this is true (it very well could be although we won’t know for a while) I think the idea that younger generations will just accept that is unrealistic.
You're probably right there! But the alternative ("keep doing our thing like 10 years from now doesn't exist") will be worse, so ... yeah. It's a bad situation :-(
>
The answer is no for stupid solutions like tracking everybody’s meat consumption and a government limiting it.
When the era of plenty that we currently live in ends, I feel that a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening.
When the era of plenty that we currently live in ends, I feel that a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening.
You would be correct if the governments consisted of smart, very technical people, who weren't brainwashed by colleges into implicitly believing the current "feel good" narrative.
But in reality, the people in charge are a complete opposite of that.
But in reality, the people in charge are a complete opposite of that.
It’s not a question of us inconveniencing ourselves today. It’s a question of us and all of our descendants inconveniencing themselves in perpetuity.
Which seems unlikely. The future is long.
Which seems unlikely. The future is long.
This kind of comment is one I only see from people who haven't actually read the IPCC's reports and don't actually have a feel for how bad it's going to be by 2100. Am I wrong?
Given that since 2020 we observed that (at least in the US) many were not even prepared to accept minor inconvenience to protect the _current_ generations, I’d say the answer is emphatically “hell no” rather than just looking like it.
I have the opposite take. The lesson from COVID is like the lesson from the war on terror imo, the majority of people largely DID accept massive curtailing of individual freedom due to fear, and will do it again the next crisis that comes along. The climate change crisis is slow moving and 100% of the people don't accept it as happening but if it produces an actual short term crisis like a famine then the statists will be ready to use it to propose (or possibly just enforce without passing laws) massive intrusions on individual rights again and continue to search for similar crises to keep doing it.
People seem to suddenly forget that these transactions are already tracked and individually linked to you. Should we allow anyone to collect that data except democratically elected governments? What's the logic behind this?
If you're talking about the tracking done by reward systems then that's a voluntary agreement that people enter into. You can choose not to use a rewards program. As far as I know, if you use a credit card they only know the total of how much you spent and once again you can choose not to use a credit card or bank card and pay with cash if you wish. This proposed data collection has no opt out option.
It's kind of exasperating how little people think about the difference between voluntary participation and forced participation when it makes a world of difference. Maybe we have just lived in good times too long and we have become soft, weak and amnesiac about what happens when the other aspects of human nature gain dominance in society.
It's kind of exasperating how little people think about the difference between voluntary participation and forced participation when it makes a world of difference. Maybe we have just lived in good times too long and we have become soft, weak and amnesiac about what happens when the other aspects of human nature gain dominance in society.
> It's kind of exasperating how little people think about the difference between voluntary participation and forced participation
It is totally exasperating when folks excuse corporation tracking you as 'voluntary agreement' when the only alternstive to tracking is forgoonf essential services like mobile phones and living like a hermit
It is totally exasperating when folks excuse corporation tracking you as 'voluntary agreement' when the only alternstive to tracking is forgoonf essential services like mobile phones and living like a hermit
Its not difficult to pay with cash and to not enter your phone-number at the register. Paying with cash is a helpful way to budget.
Until they go cashless :(
It's also exasperating to those who think that unless you pay cash you're not being fingerprinted regardless of any choice you did/not make. And with RFIDs picked up in your basket, cash likely not going to help either. What does it take, a combination of 5-6 purchases in one area, perhaps repeated in part a handful of times to make a profile that almost certainly you? It's the buisiness of groceries to fingerprint you, even before anything digital came along, how else do they optimize what they sell?
[deleted]
Mobile phones an essential service?
> If you're talking about the tracking done by reward systems then that's a voluntary agreement that people enter into. You can choose not to use a rewards program. As far as I know, if you use a credit card they only know the total of how much you spent and once again you can choose not to use a credit card or bank card and pay with cash if you wish.
I'm not in Norway, but my local cafe has a rewards program that is automatic. It's linked to my credit card number; so long as I pay with that card, it happens. I get a decent discount on a sandwich every now and then.
Even if they didn't offer the reward thing, though, I would still assume that my purchases were being linked to my CC#. I'd assume it's being done so across merchants, too, where merchants use the same payments processor.
(And I'm not fond of this. To me, it's a good example of why privacy regulation matters: I shouldn't need to give up privacy for the sake of being able to have the convenience of a CC; the processor's fees are there to pay for the convenience. One shouldn't be forced to go through cash, and even then, there are places — and government places, too — that don't accept cash.)
I'm not in Norway, but my local cafe has a rewards program that is automatic. It's linked to my credit card number; so long as I pay with that card, it happens. I get a decent discount on a sandwich every now and then.
Even if they didn't offer the reward thing, though, I would still assume that my purchases were being linked to my CC#. I'd assume it's being done so across merchants, too, where merchants use the same payments processor.
(And I'm not fond of this. To me, it's a good example of why privacy regulation matters: I shouldn't need to give up privacy for the sake of being able to have the convenience of a CC; the processor's fees are there to pay for the convenience. One shouldn't be forced to go through cash, and even then, there are places — and government places, too — that don't accept cash.)
> As far as I know, if you use a credit card they only know the total of how much you spent
Oh, no, no. They report so much more:
Oh, no, no. They report so much more:
Merchant name
Purchase amount
Date
Billing zip code
Sales tax amount
Tax indicator
Merchant postal code
Merchant tax ID
Invoice number
Order number
Customer code (if purchasing cards)
Item commodity code(s)
Item description(s) (SKU)
Unit price(s)
Quantity
Unit of measure
Extended price
Discount per line item and line item total
Debit or credit indicator
Discount amount
Shipping amount
Duty amount
The information you linked doesn't seem to indicate that a grocery store would do this.
> Level 3 credit card data involves large transactions that take place primarily with B2B or business-to-government (B2G). These transactions take place using corporate purchasing cards, which allow the companies or government agencies to monitor purchases and have access to detailed spending reports.
Instead, it seems that level 1 would be what most businesses that sell to consumers would use
> Level 1 data primarily refers to small business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions. This level only requires the following information for credit card transactions:
Merchant name Purchase amount Date Billing zip code
> Level 3 credit card data involves large transactions that take place primarily with B2B or business-to-government (B2G). These transactions take place using corporate purchasing cards, which allow the companies or government agencies to monitor purchases and have access to detailed spending reports.
Instead, it seems that level 1 would be what most businesses that sell to consumers would use
> Level 1 data primarily refers to small business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions. This level only requires the following information for credit card transactions:
Merchant name Purchase amount Date Billing zip code
Right you are. I skimmed and misinterpreted.
What if the government said it was optional, but those who sign up get a 2% discount on their taxes? Would you find that more acceptable?
But this is not what is happening in Norway, isn't it? There's no alternative offer on the table, there's not even an invitation to propose an alternative, there's no opt out, only govt wanting to get deeper into private people's business.
I didn't dig into it but I assume you're correct for this Norwegian case.
I guess I was more curious if the main point of contention was the mandatory part of it or whether it was more about the fact it was coming from the government. I think some people distrust government so much that even if it were offered as opt-in, using a similar approach as a private company, some people would still trust a private company more than their government.
I guess I was more curious if the main point of contention was the mandatory part of it or whether it was more about the fact it was coming from the government. I think some people distrust government so much that even if it were offered as opt-in, using a similar approach as a private company, some people would still trust a private company more than their government.
This must exist in some places now. I once got a discount in Sales Tax in Honduras (about 1%) for paying with my credit card instead of cash in a restaurant.
The idea behind the separation is that the government has the ability to make you do something with the threat of force. Not to say we shouldn't put protections from private corporations in place, but they can't legally imprison you.
There isn't necessarily a strong separation, though. Here in the US, governments (at every level) can easily purchase this kind of data from private entities when they need to.
You're just describing laws. Is the worry here that they could more effectively enforce laws because of this tracking? Is that a bad thing?
It is when you don't trust the lawmaking process is acting in your best interests. And distrust of that process is extremely high atm (I believe trust in politicians is below 50% in the US).
Well we don't really have a functional democracy in the US. That's really the core problem to fix before you can start trusting the government more.
> Well we don't really have a functional democracy in the US.
The United States isn’t a democracy, it’s a democratic republic. Unfortunately, most of that was thrown out with the 17th amendment, and we’re paying for it now with increased federal control.
The United States isn’t a democracy, it’s a democratic republic. Unfortunately, most of that was thrown out with the 17th amendment, and we’re paying for it now with increased federal control.
Yes! This is not a novel idea - it's how the US got its 4th amendment, prohibiting unreasonable search. Government power should not be unlimited, because it risks slipping into tyranny.
Don't turn your country into a prison on the hope that the warden will remain benevolent. There's no shortage of past and present examples of that suddenly changing.
Don't turn your country into a prison on the hope that the warden will remain benevolent. There's no shortage of past and present examples of that suddenly changing.
I'll take a prison like Norway over the lawless hellhole that the US is becoming.
In most countries, paying in cash is a thing. And I try to avoid paying with cards or e-payment as much as I can
I guess you haven't spent a lot of time in the Nordics.
some random articles: https://sweden.se/life/society/a-cashless-society https://interestingengineering.com/sweden-how-to-live-in-the...
some random articles: https://sweden.se/life/society/a-cashless-society https://interestingengineering.com/sweden-how-to-live-in-the...
Nope. Their cashless culture is one of the reasons I hope I never do go to Scandinavia.
What are the other reasons?
I knew a (great) artist who spent almost her whole life in Norway and Sweeden. Shes in her nineties, speaks a half dozen languages, worked for Norwegian public TV. That is to say she's walked in the highest echelons on Nordic society.
Talking to her, she'd often bemoan that the prejudice that Nordic societies are very conformist is true.
Which is in line with what Ive experienced with Nordics
Talking to her, she'd often bemoan that the prejudice that Nordic societies are very conformist is true.
Which is in line with what Ive experienced with Nordics
If I were to look for it, I don't think there's a single country on Earth where I couldn't find a smorgasbord of social conformism that I strongly dislike.
It's a social glue that holds every culture together, and it never has to make much sense.
It's a social glue that holds every culture together, and it never has to make much sense.
But there are different amounts and different quality of conformism. The Nordic (as in Germany northward) one is particularly insistent on crushing deviations from the zeitgeist (German word).
Disagree. There is just nonsense conformism that you like, and nonsense conformism that you dislike. Every culture, including various subsets of American/Canadian/British/French has enough sacred cows that you will be in a world of crap for transgressing over.
What differs between them is not how much crap you'll be in, but the shape of the cow. You like it, I dislike it, and you'll feel like you aren't pressured to conform, while I'll feel like the world around me is utterly insane.
What differs between them is not how much crap you'll be in, but the shape of the cow. You like it, I dislike it, and you'll feel like you aren't pressured to conform, while I'll feel like the world around me is utterly insane.
Having lived in the UK, US, Sweden, and worked extensively in the Netherlands and India, I can comfortably say that conformism exists everywhere. It doesn’t take the same shape everywhere, but it certainly colours the place and the culture. Scandinavia is not a bad place to live by any measure. I can list a host of reasons why either place would be uncomfortable to live in. But one of my key takeaways from my experience is that different places are culturally different, but different isn’t necessarily bad, just different. Don’t dismiss a place until you have been there.
Of course there is some degree of conformity everywhere, but having lived in many different places myself, there are stark differences.
The woman I mentioned speaks six languages because shes lived in as many countries, including the African and the European Mediterranean coast. Her's was a comparison.
Also, all of the countries you listed are Nordic except for India. India, of course, is an extremely rich country, three times the size of Europe with lots different sub-groups. Who were you with in India? The ruling class Brahmins? The English educated children and grandchildren of the mandarin class? Or amongst the day to day laborer?
The woman I mentioned speaks six languages because shes lived in as many countries, including the African and the European Mediterranean coast. Her's was a comparison.
Also, all of the countries you listed are Nordic except for India. India, of course, is an extremely rich country, three times the size of Europe with lots different sub-groups. Who were you with in India? The ruling class Brahmins? The English educated children and grandchildren of the mandarin class? Or amongst the day to day laborer?
For India, all of them listed.
Norway is also really not a fan of cash, so they’re doing all they can to phase it out, especially during the pandemic.
SWIM also carefully avoids electronically paying for tobacco because that info, despite the theoretical separation, may be golden to insurance corps..
You must have hella change laying around.
If you always carry your change with you and spend it whenever possible, your coin quantity will remain pocketable.
You gotta be committed enough to hand over a twenty dollar bill alongside a quarter, when paying a $19.17 bill for example. Rather than take in 83 cents you take in 8 (and score a dollar.)
You gotta be committed enough to hand over a twenty dollar bill alongside a quarter, when paying a $19.17 bill for example. Rather than take in 83 cents you take in 8 (and score a dollar.)
I don't know about him, but my Safeway has a change machine up front. You can either get the total in cash, minus commission, or store credit for the whole amount.
My bank in germany has a machine, where I can put them in to be transfered to my account.
(but I think I only ever did that once)
In euroland bills start at 5 euro, below it is all coins. So when paying cash you get a lot of 1 or 2 euro coins as change.
I change those coins into 5 euro bills whenever possible, stores always want change. Small coins go into a big jar that we use to tip people like the pizza delivery guy.
If the jar gets too full I simply donate the jar as is to a charity I know.
I change those coins into 5 euro bills whenever possible, stores always want change. Small coins go into a big jar that we use to tip people like the pizza delivery guy.
If the jar gets too full I simply donate the jar as is to a charity I know.
Not much, because I also pay in coins in exact amounts.
[deleted]
I should have the possibility to opt out of the data collection, no matter who does it.
As long as I don't break the law, it's no one's business what I do.
As long as I don't break the law, it's no one's business what I do.
People seem to suddenly forget that these transactions are already tracked and individually linked to you. Should we allow anyone to collect that data except democratically elected governments?
Both are bad.
People don't like governments tracking their every move because, governments have sometimes done bad things with that information, both historically and even today.
People allow tech companies to track their every move because they're offered something in return: Free access to an app, automatic coupons at the supermarket, etc.
I don't envision the government lowering people's taxes in exchange for more information. Even though this program could help the government craft health policy and save millions on medical care for its people.
Both are bad.
People don't like governments tracking their every move because, governments have sometimes done bad things with that information, both historically and even today.
People allow tech companies to track their every move because they're offered something in return: Free access to an app, automatic coupons at the supermarket, etc.
I don't envision the government lowering people's taxes in exchange for more information. Even though this program could help the government craft health policy and save millions on medical care for its people.
What's the worst a store can do to you, what's the worst a government can do to you?
Don't make me confirm Godwin's law about democratically elected government.
Don't make me confirm Godwin's law about democratically elected government.
“Government” isn’t a single entity. What’s the worst thing the state’s statistics department can do to you? Is it really that more dangerous than, say, Amazon?
Like you said, it's not a single entity. One collects the data, best, the ones that are harmless because they can't do much but others take that data to justify their actions.
A store can sell its data to authoritarian governments that can jail people, to insurance companies that in some countries can prevent you from getting a credit card, a loan or even a job.
Now another question: what the best a government is likely to do with this data? What is the best a private company is likely to do with it?
Now another question: what the best a government is likely to do with this data? What is the best a private company is likely to do with it?
>A store can sell its data to authoritarian governments that can jail people
I find it unlikely that my local supermarket is going to sell my purchasing habits to China or Iran. I'm far more worried about my local government getting their hands on it, but at that point I don't see the distinction.
>to insurance companies that in some countries can prevent you from getting a credit card, a loan or even a job.
In what country are insurance companies determining whether you can get a credit card/loan/job? Are you sure you don't mean credit bureaus?
I find it unlikely that my local supermarket is going to sell my purchasing habits to China or Iran. I'm far more worried about my local government getting their hands on it, but at that point I don't see the distinction.
>to insurance companies that in some countries can prevent you from getting a credit card, a loan or even a job.
In what country are insurance companies determining whether you can get a credit card/loan/job? Are you sure you don't mean credit bureaus?
> I find it unlikely that my local supermarket is going to sell my purchasing habits to China or Iran.
Oh really? Do you think they run an ethical check on people who propose to buy their data? I a sure China is home to a lot of cheap backend services and their clients don't think twice about it.
> Are you sure you don't mean credit bureaus?
Probably yeah, I am not used to that American thing. People think the CCP invented the reputation score but US' private system predates that.
Oh really? Do you think they run an ethical check on people who propose to buy their data? I a sure China is home to a lot of cheap backend services and their clients don't think twice about it.
> Are you sure you don't mean credit bureaus?
Probably yeah, I am not used to that American thing. People think the CCP invented the reputation score but US' private system predates that.
Grocery stores can ban me for life - which means I starve.
We should allow neither.
> People seem to suddenly forget that these transactions are already tracked and individually linked to you.
Is this true? I thought only if you joined a rewards program.
Is this true? I thought only if you joined a rewards program.
You're absolutely right. Therefore, we should prohibit this tracking by anyone. We definitely shouldn't expand it!
Thankfully, you're wrong - cash still exists.
For now, but not much longer in Norway, if the various governmental players get their way.
Because giving this power to the only entity that has monopoly of coercion/violence is a terrible idea. See history.
[deleted]
I guarantee the NSA is slurping up this data in the US.
Open to abuse & certainly not privacy friendly, but in a hypothetical world where governments can be trusted on that it seems very plausible that it could be a social plus.
i.e. You can probably spot trends like person X spends a huge amount of their pay on nappies and babyfood...probably could do with some additional social help.
Nordic countries probably come closest to said hypothetical but still seems kinda dicey
i.e. You can probably spot trends like person X spends a huge amount of their pay on nappies and babyfood...probably could do with some additional social help.
Nordic countries probably come closest to said hypothetical but still seems kinda dicey
Well, it depends on what you call "Privacy". See, the Europeans (as a whole) take a completely different attitude towards Government and Private Organizations than Americans do. To many Americans, the Government is the big, bad wolf, trying to take everything from us. In Europe (to a much larger degree) they take the opposite stance. To many EU citizens, they can control the Government and it's policies at the ballot box, but not so the Corporations. That's why the best Privacy regulations regarding Corporations are coming from Europe, and not the US.
I won't say one way is better than the other, but it's telling that almost every major IT Security standard that deals with Privacy (absent NIST of course) takes its guidance from the EU.
I won't say one way is better than the other, but it's telling that almost every major IT Security standard that deals with Privacy (absent NIST of course) takes its guidance from the EU.
Right, in a really, really ideal society, you wouldn't need to keep this kind of thing secret.
I understand salaries are already public in Norway. Why shouldn't they be? Unless you can't justify your earnings, for some reason.
I understand the 'big brother!' response to this kind of thing, I'm also squeamish about it. It does rely on a government that is trustworthy and accountable. But I don't think secrecy, paranoia, etc, is beneficial, compared to more openness.
I understand salaries are already public in Norway. Why shouldn't they be? Unless you can't justify your earnings, for some reason.
I understand the 'big brother!' response to this kind of thing, I'm also squeamish about it. It does rely on a government that is trustworthy and accountable. But I don't think secrecy, paranoia, etc, is beneficial, compared to more openness.
Governments can only be trusted when any given individual can be trusted. I understand that Norway’s current government is one of the most accountable and transparent in the world so the damage a given individual can do is limited, but that entails trusting all future governments.
Good luck arguing that a government can do good on a mostly American board.
Or people can just ask for help if they need it
The people in society who need help the most often have the least trust in government and don't have the means to understand and navigate programmes that could help them.
How does surveilling them and then coming to them with assistance increase their trust? Seems like it would decrease trust. I mean I distrust a lot of government functions, and would trust them less in that case.
This might be, because the programs are often not helpful.
Here in germany I know stories of how asking for help mainly resulted in the children taken away (and cared for badly).
It depends on the area and the people working on it, I also know of good institutions, but I can see, why the so called underclass is sceptical of the common state institutions.
Most help that comes, comes with hard obligations, that mainly keep them down. Give a struggeling person a bunch of paperwork to fill out and he or she will just struggle more. And only once they are down enough, they get a certain label and then they get a more or less competent government helper, putting them totally into dependent state. Most have accepted their state as retarded by then and rarely make it up again.
It depends on the area and the people working on it, I also know of good institutions, but I can see, why the so called underclass is sceptical of the common state institutions.
Most help that comes, comes with hard obligations, that mainly keep them down. Give a struggeling person a bunch of paperwork to fill out and he or she will just struggle more. And only once they are down enough, they get a certain label and then they get a more or less competent government helper, putting them totally into dependent state. Most have accepted their state as retarded by then and rarely make it up again.
I remember this one time when I had a hard time making ends meet so I got a housing subsidy which made me be able to afford rent at the time. This was more or less the first 6 months of that year. After that I got a job, and cancelled my subsidy the moment I started my employment. I got "back debt" and had to pay back a substantial amount of the subsidy I've gotten (remember: without it, I wouldn't have made rent routinely). Effectively, while paying back that debt, as a gainfully employed person - I had less money at the end of each month (after paying rent that is) than while on the subsidy (after paying rent).
I did feel kept down at that time.
I did feel kept down at that time.
That's on the government to fix, the solution is definitely not to track everyone in the country to spot who needs help.
Programs like the proposed one would require trust you day is missing though
I went and checked various online papers with comment sections, and the comments have been massively negative to this. This is apparently not something people will easily accept, so it remains to be seen what happens.
> I went and checked various online papers with comment sections, and the comments have been massively negative to this
Thank God.
Thank God.
Since when do governments care about what people think? Even with mass demonstrations they typically hardly move an inch.
Please check rank of https://www.statista.com/statistics/679796/democracy-index-m... :-)
That is a joke. Sweden is 4th on that list. Despite the fact that the vast majority voted for anti-NATO parties, they just refused to have a referendum or wait until the election (in 90 days) to make a decision and explicitly stated they will not consult us. (No, polls aren't elections. Don't even start.)
This isn't exactly unique either. They regularly do things people don't want and can't stop. On top of that, we have powerful lobbyists and shittons of propaganda too, just like everyone else.
I mean, Norway should be one of the most Democratic countries, so it should have an effect, but it will probably not since its protests against giving them more power.
One of the things I have long wanted in the USA:
An app/website/whatever-service which allows the scanning of a receipt/UPC code - which takes the scan data and the price for ITEM.'
Then allows me to track ITEM $ over time, and between vendors / stores.
Ideally I also want to be able to track ORIGIN, thus if I am tracking the cost of an ITEM which has an ORIGIN of non-US-country, I can track over time the cost of a product that was made over-seas.
The reason this is of interest to me - is I like to see where the inlfation of costs is occurring.
As an example, there is a juice that I like to buy which was $1.34 per half-gallon.
It quickly became $1.50 during the pandemic, pre-gas price hikes etc. It was a product that was standard stock forever, its made in the US, and I am convinced that this item was just price lifted, but not because of economies of delivery...
As compared to a product which , say, comes from Thailand - which is shipped over-the-sea, and there are no price hikes.
This can give you insight into where profits are being harvested.
Additionally, one would do well to know ImportYeti ; a service to examine the source ORIGIN of products that you find which are made in China, in order to get the actual mfr for a product - such that if you want to cut out all middle men, you can contact the factories directly.
An app/website/whatever-service which allows the scanning of a receipt/UPC code - which takes the scan data and the price for ITEM.'
Then allows me to track ITEM $ over time, and between vendors / stores.
Ideally I also want to be able to track ORIGIN, thus if I am tracking the cost of an ITEM which has an ORIGIN of non-US-country, I can track over time the cost of a product that was made over-seas.
The reason this is of interest to me - is I like to see where the inlfation of costs is occurring.
As an example, there is a juice that I like to buy which was $1.34 per half-gallon.
It quickly became $1.50 during the pandemic, pre-gas price hikes etc. It was a product that was standard stock forever, its made in the US, and I am convinced that this item was just price lifted, but not because of economies of delivery...
As compared to a product which , say, comes from Thailand - which is shipped over-the-sea, and there are no price hikes.
This can give you insight into where profits are being harvested.
Additionally, one would do well to know ImportYeti ; a service to examine the source ORIGIN of products that you find which are made in China, in order to get the actual mfr for a product - such that if you want to cut out all middle men, you can contact the factories directly.
In the same week we see one government (Canadian) fining a company for unnecessarily storing data on users, and another government obtaining masses of data just for the hell of it.
EDIT
> SSB claims they want a less time-consuming way of collecting and analysing household consumption statistics in order to inform tax policy, social assistance and child allowance.
That does seem plausible. Inflation statistics, for example, are notoriously vulnerable to arbitrary changes in the "basket of goods" economists define. If economists could access the entire shopping list, including volumes, then there'd be no need to try to guess what a representative basket looks like.
EDIT
> SSB claims they want a less time-consuming way of collecting and analysing household consumption statistics in order to inform tax policy, social assistance and child allowance.
That does seem plausible. Inflation statistics, for example, are notoriously vulnerable to arbitrary changes in the "basket of goods" economists define. If economists could access the entire shopping list, including volumes, then there'd be no need to try to guess what a representative basket looks like.
What is very scary, is the normalization of the surveillance society with crazy things like that being accepted/ignored by most citizens.
It is getting worse and worse all the time. Curiously, 20 or 30 years ago people would have being angry and governments would have had to resign as even suggesting such privacy killer things would be offensive. Now most people would not even care...
Just to let you imagine the future, in France, with the current 'ecological bullshit', some idiots suggested that households could have a quota of consumption of everything to save the planet: that much water, electricity, food...
That will be more easy with shops transmitting all your shopping info directly to the gov...
It is getting worse and worse all the time. Curiously, 20 or 30 years ago people would have being angry and governments would have had to resign as even suggesting such privacy killer things would be offensive. Now most people would not even care...
Just to let you imagine the future, in France, with the current 'ecological bullshit', some idiots suggested that households could have a quota of consumption of everything to save the planet: that much water, electricity, food...
That will be more easy with shops transmitting all your shopping info directly to the gov...
Worth remembering the whole reason this can even be suggested is that Scandies tend to have high trust. Not saying there won't be similar voices to what is in this comment section, but plenty of Norwegians will take this at face value, an honest attempt to gather socially useful information, part of a tradition that has historically functioned reasonably well.
Saying that it is just about trust can be misleading. The trust has to be rationally based. It’s not some kind of society-wide ex nihilo personality trait.
I think you can trust the government more in Scandinavia than in the US. Both dispositions are relatively rational.
I think you can trust the government more in Scandinavia than in the US. Both dispositions are relatively rational.
Then why explicitly link the data to people’s national ID numbers? If analyzing societal trends were the only purpose of this initiative, anonymized (or for some applications, aggregated) data would work equally well.
The article already answers this:
"When the purchases are linked to a household, it will be possible in the consumption statistics to analyze socio-economic and regional differences in consumption, and link it to variables such as income, education and place of residence."
"When the purchases are linked to a household, it will be possible in the consumption statistics to analyze socio-economic and regional differences in consumption, and link it to variables such as income, education and place of residence."
That can still be done with anonymized data. It is not necessary to associate purchasing habits with national ID numbers to perform the analyses you listed.
I fail to see how you can get this kind of data from anonymized supermarket receipts? Entirely different data collection methods: sure. But the entire point of this is that was too difficult ("time-consuming and error-prone", according to the SSB).
Issue national ID cards that contain a private key. For each citizen, the government would encrypt a mapping of their national ID number -> anonymized ID ("anonID") using their corresponding public key. The anonID could only be used to look up anonymized demographic data, updated when new IDs (and thus new encryption keys) get issued, once every few years. When checking out at the supermarket, your national ID number and private key would be used to generate your anonID on the spot, under which your purchases would be recorded. Demographers could thus freely query mappings from anonID -> demographic info/supermarket purchase history, without revealing anyone's actual identity. Without knowing one's private key (which is embedded only in their national ID card), it would impossible to freely map national ID -> anonID.
I get a feeling that this is a roundabout way of simply anonymizing the ID in the data when it is collected, as have been done a lot in studies. The problems with this is that our behavior is unique enough that is it often possible to find out who you are (or what demographic you are in for advertising purposes) from your actions, no unique identifier needed.
One example of this is when our national newspaper (NRK) did an investigation[1] on "anonymized" GPS data, and could easily find the identities of the persons they belonged to.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/xl/avslort-av-mobilen-1.14911685
One example of this is when our national newspaper (NRK) did an investigation[1] on "anonymized" GPS data, and could easily find the identities of the persons they belonged to.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/xl/avslort-av-mobilen-1.14911685
It's ok that the government wants this data, but the data protection agency needs to tell them no, that's not possible, and maybe work with them to make something similar possible - but that respects privacy. Due to the database leak effect, I hope they do a good job.
Given that this is Norway, the cynic in me thinks this is not about getting better demographic data as claimed, but rather to lay the groundwork for progressive sales taxes: your sales tax rate (potentially only for certain items) increases relative to your income and/or consumption habits. If this were just about demographics, it would be relatively straightforward to anonymize purchase records.
(Massive privacy implications aside, I don't necessarily disagree with progressive sales taxation.)
(Massive privacy implications aside, I don't necessarily disagree with progressive sales taxation.)
Although I understand and agree with what people are pointing to here, it's too easy to get carried away with the "welcome to 1984" fatalism. Life does not have a "last page", like in a book. In a story, the last page lasts forever, but in the real world it does not. In the real world we get to see things get really bad, and then we see them get better, then bad again, ad infinitum.
When people have nothing left to loose, that's where real change happens.
When people have nothing left to loose, that's where real change happens.
It's happening in China, it's happening in arguably the most 'well-mannered' 'Western' country - at this point it's naive to assume mass data collection won't be coming to your country (and they might not always be as well-mannered as Norway currently is).
Some might say 'I don't care' or 'only those who have something to hide have anything to worry about', but I respectfully disagree. For the same reason that I have curtains in my bedroom I want to have agency over my data.
What baffles me is that I'm fairly sure that similar views are shared by many in the HN community, yet the 'crypto/web3' communities receive almost undivided scorn. Yes, it's ridden with scams, but those are still the communities that do the most overall to push zero knowledge and similar privacy-preserving technologies (and contrary to the popular claim here that 'web3 doesn't do anything innovative', some of the zk stuff like STARK/SNARK/PLONK... they already put in production are pretty cutting edge).
Some might say 'I don't care' or 'only those who have something to hide have anything to worry about', but I respectfully disagree. For the same reason that I have curtains in my bedroom I want to have agency over my data.
What baffles me is that I'm fairly sure that similar views are shared by many in the HN community, yet the 'crypto/web3' communities receive almost undivided scorn. Yes, it's ridden with scams, but those are still the communities that do the most overall to push zero knowledge and similar privacy-preserving technologies (and contrary to the popular claim here that 'web3 doesn't do anything innovative', some of the zk stuff like STARK/SNARK/PLONK... they already put in production are pretty cutting edge).
Crypto/web3 as it is practiced offers absolutely zero protection against any of this. In fact, unless you use privacy chains (of which only few actually work) your Entire Transaction History is Public (!!). This is already a reality in most of cryptoland.
Even if you trade on exchanges your entire order flow is immediately sold to the highest bidder, or if you're unlucky the exchange itself is trading against you. It's pretty horrible for privacy.
Even if you trade on exchanges your entire order flow is immediately sold to the highest bidder, or if you're unlucky the exchange itself is trading against you. It's pretty horrible for privacy.
'of which few actually work' could also have been phrased as 'several are already working' - how many do you need?
Even if the current offering isn't enough for your needs, how can 'there's not enough of it yet' be an argument against building more of it?
Even if the current offering isn't enough for your needs, how can 'there's not enough of it yet' be an argument against building more of it?
The Stasi would be jealous.
Sure, they would have loved to have Norwegian levels of government trust, but that's antithetical to the way the Soviet Union was set up.
Stasi was the secret police in East Germany.
Yes I'm aware of that. Do you believe the GDR could have established meaningful trust with the populace independent of Soviet policy?
Russia does that already country-wise.
Every receipt is sent to federal taxes office instantly, every cash register is connected to the internet.
Every receipt is sent to federal taxes office instantly, every cash register is connected to the internet.
One of the big grocery stores in sweden (coop) closed all their shops for a week last year due to a ransomware attack. So yeah, all those cash registers were and are connected to the internet.
El Salvador does this too for business to business receipts. It doesn't include item descriptions though, only totals.
Some Arab gulf countries do this too
I'm still surprised that the major credit card companies and banks in the US have not started transitioning to digital receipts. Several retailers and smart POS systems link your credit card number to your email and send you receipts automatically.
It could be a dual edged sword for the banks, as a more informed consumer might budget more carefully and spend less, but the data collected would be quite valuable. It would not be a hard sell to consumers - "Shop with blank and you never need to worry about paper receipts again!".
On a separate note, thermal receipt paper is a terrible source of BPA/BPS plastics. There are alternatives that use vitamin C, but they are rare.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/green-chemistry/bpa-thermal-pape...
It could be a dual edged sword for the banks, as a more informed consumer might budget more carefully and spend less, but the data collected would be quite valuable. It would not be a hard sell to consumers - "Shop with blank and you never need to worry about paper receipts again!".
On a separate note, thermal receipt paper is a terrible source of BPA/BPS plastics. There are alternatives that use vitamin C, but they are rare.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/green-chemistry/bpa-thermal-pape...
Fuck it, not even Ceausescu was doing this (or something similar to this) in communist Romania, and I grew up under Ceausescu as a kid, I should know. The worst that was happening from this point of view was maybe an older neighbor lady stopping you on your way back from the grocery store and literally going through your purchases (yes, kids were sent to the grocery store to do small purchases), but nothing more than that (and, even then, we, as kids, knew that what those old ladies were doing was wrong)
Which begs the question: how come today’s Norwegians are ok with this? How is this normal in a liberal democracy? Is this what modern liberal democracy was all along? I.e. a dystopian State infringing more and more on one’s basic liberties, all in the name of the “greater good”? That’s nuts.
Which begs the question: how come today’s Norwegians are ok with this? How is this normal in a liberal democracy? Is this what modern liberal democracy was all along? I.e. a dystopian State infringing more and more on one’s basic liberties, all in the name of the “greater good”? That’s nuts.
There's a general reaction that big government is bad, more tracking is bad. Norway ranks highly in most metrics of development and quality of life. Perhaps in a high trust society this type of data collection is a positive.
What do you mean by “high trust society”? The people trust the government agencies?
I agree data collection can be positive. I think next they should start collecting any tweet, comment, or text file citizens write so they can see how good the public education system is doing. Actually the state should run an SSO service. Every computer, phone, tv and device must use the states SSO so that the person behind the device is tracked. State should also run an MDM solution. Every Smart watch should send all vitals to see how good nutrition is. Add microphones and camera everywhere to see if any crime is happening. (If you can’t tell by now I’m not being serious.)
I agree data collection can be positive. I think next they should start collecting any tweet, comment, or text file citizens write so they can see how good the public education system is doing. Actually the state should run an SSO service. Every computer, phone, tv and device must use the states SSO so that the person behind the device is tracked. State should also run an MDM solution. Every Smart watch should send all vitals to see how good nutrition is. Add microphones and camera everywhere to see if any crime is happening. (If you can’t tell by now I’m not being serious.)
High trust society, as in: there is a high degree of trust between any two random people that they are likely to act in each other’s benefit when it comes to societal issues. That is fundamentally how I view taxes. We’re contributing to a common fund for common good.
Future conversation with government bureaucrat:
“I see that you are made of approximately 23% cheese.
That is above the state limits for health reimbursement, so I am sorry we cannot support you at the moment until your diet fits within government guidelines.”
“I see that you are made of approximately 23% cheese.
That is above the state limits for health reimbursement, so I am sorry we cannot support you at the moment until your diet fits within government guidelines.”
Nonsense, healthcare already covers smokers, alcoholics, obese and all kinds of other things.
Depends on who _is_ the government.
Once you have the data exactly on how unhealthy someone’s choices are, you can lean their behavior towards better behavior(according to those that want government to help people behave better).
Once you have the data exactly on how unhealthy someone’s choices are, you can lean their behavior towards better behavior(according to those that want government to help people behave better).
I'm saying it does now in Norway and Sweden and they already have all of our medical records.
We can’t predict how future humans will use this data, especially considering human’s desire to control the behavior of others.
Agree, for sure, but that's a different claim.
That’s why I keep using the word future :) cheers!
Can you pay cash?
Now you know why governments want you to move away from cash transactions. Cash is evil anyway because it can be used to evade taxes, finance terrorism and purchase drugs! Think about the children!
There is still a receipt even if you pay cash. It's just that in that case, _only_ the supermarket and the buyer know of the transaction.
There's no reason that the receipt/transaction wouldn't also be reported to the agency. Just because it can't be linked to any specific individual, doesn't mean the data is entirely useless for the kind of analyses they are looking to make.
...or, for the kind of analyses they say they are looking to make.
...or, for the kind of analyses they say they are looking to make.
Ostensibly... But if you ever pay with a card, it's quite likely those with the data will be able to correlate your cash purchases with the card purchase and thus identify you.
How? Unless you input a form of ID (like a telephone number in a loyalty program) I don't see how a cash transaction can be linked to you at all.
It's not like your cash purchase of 58.32kr has a match 578.32 kr withdrawal; that cash was taken from an ATM in a large, round-number bundle.
It's not like your cash purchase of 58.32kr has a match 578.32 kr withdrawal; that cash was taken from an ATM in a large, round-number bundle.
If there's a cash transaction every Wednesday between 7pm and 9pm, which always contains a specific type of bread, and a specific type of breakfast cereal, and a specific type of milk, and a specific type of sandwich filling, that's anonymous customer #5678.
If you ever misremember the amount cash in your wallet, and, rather than just abandoning your basket at the checkout when you discover this, you pay with a card just one time, for that exact basket, when there is no cash customer for that basket on that night, they can now be pretty certain about who customer #5678 is, and can then link you to 95% of your historic purchases too.
OpSec is hard, yo.
If you ever misremember the amount cash in your wallet, and, rather than just abandoning your basket at the checkout when you discover this, you pay with a card just one time, for that exact basket, when there is no cash customer for that basket on that night, they can now be pretty certain about who customer #5678 is, and can then link you to 95% of your historic purchases too.
OpSec is hard, yo.
That’s why you rotate your brands and buy stuff you don’t need only to discard it later. Just kidding not kidding.
You still can pay someone to buy your groceries. :)
The point isn't explicitly connecting the cash purchase directly to you. The point is there are plenty of ways to attach payment methods directly to you and once that's happened anything else related to you can allow inference of further purchase data.
For example, store POS system tracks nearby MAC addresses (simplest to do, very archaic). You always have your phone on you. Game Over. Even if you pay cash, if you've ever paid with a bank card connected to your identity next to that phone a logical inference can be made that the cash transaction XYZ is related to pseudonymous ID ABC if phone P's identifier was present at time of purchase.
That's what the entire point of things like Google Wallet/Pay is. Another means of directly attaching payment methods to your ID. Once that bank card is connected to you all transactions for that card from any source is also connected to you. From that every ID present at time of purchase is one step removed from you.
And so it goes...
For example, store POS system tracks nearby MAC addresses (simplest to do, very archaic). You always have your phone on you. Game Over. Even if you pay cash, if you've ever paid with a bank card connected to your identity next to that phone a logical inference can be made that the cash transaction XYZ is related to pseudonymous ID ABC if phone P's identifier was present at time of purchase.
That's what the entire point of things like Google Wallet/Pay is. Another means of directly attaching payment methods to your ID. Once that bank card is connected to you all transactions for that card from any source is also connected to you. From that every ID present at time of purchase is one step removed from you.
And so it goes...
I think they are more likely referring to being able to create a fingerprint of what you purchase. If you purchase via card enough times its not unreasonable that a model could be created to link your cash transactions back to you.
Yes that's exactly what I was referring to. Papers have been written on this subject. When you're buying quite a few items, it's quite hard not to be relatively unique.
I believe the reference is to utilizing pattern matching in the items and quantities purchased. We are creatures of habit and tend to repeat the same activities and purchases.
ATMs/self-service checkout machines can contain cameras to record the serial number of every note they dispense/accept.
Dont forget about face recognition.
Yeah you could haha I think the majority of the public wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked.
This assumes that the scope of tracking is somehow naturally limited to grocery, and can't extend. Also, the technically easiest way to track grocery purchases can be by tracking all purchases, and then filtering out the non-grocery.
Let's generalize the question: what makes you uncomfortable about the government tracking all your (non-cash) purchases? They already know your income for tax purposes, and much of your large purchases, also for tax purposes. And if you need a pinch of stuff that's illegal, you're not going to swipe your debit card anyway. I suppose a court order will show all your bank operations history, should the government need it for lawful purposes.
So, if there's still anything left to preserve, we need to clearly articulated first, what that is.
Let's generalize the question: what makes you uncomfortable about the government tracking all your (non-cash) purchases? They already know your income for tax purposes, and much of your large purchases, also for tax purposes. And if you need a pinch of stuff that's illegal, you're not going to swipe your debit card anyway. I suppose a court order will show all your bank operations history, should the government need it for lawful purposes.
So, if there's still anything left to preserve, we need to clearly articulated first, what that is.
Sarcasm? I think most people should care about this.
because I used the same credit card at Whole Foods as linked to my amazon account my last shopping trip there showed up in 'recently purchased' and 'suggestions'. are we upset because the Norwegian government is getting the same information that Amazon is clearly mining?
You don't pay taxes (yet?) to Amazon.
They pay profit instead. What's it matter though?
The ability to collect taxes was shorthand for "the right to use force to compel you to do things as they see fit".
Amazon can not compel you to buy from them, and Amazon can not throw you in jail if they don't like you as a customer.
Mining personal data and using it against the interests of the individual is bad in both cases, but it is far more dangerous when done by the State.
Amazon can not compel you to buy from them, and Amazon can not throw you in jail if they don't like you as a customer.
Mining personal data and using it against the interests of the individual is bad in both cases, but it is far more dangerous when done by the State.
> Amazon can not compel you to buy from them, and Amazon can not throw you in jail if they don't like you as a customer.
Of course they can, by becoming a monopoly and driving all other options for things you need out of business. Also by manipulating you with advertisements and propaganda. Coercion has many forms.
Of course they can, by becoming a monopoly and driving all other options for things you need out of business. Also by manipulating you with advertisements and propaganda. Coercion has many forms.
Last I checked, it is still illegal to have a monopoly and the government can break a company apart if it starts abusing its power.
Now, who can break the Government apart if it starts abusing its power?
Now, who can break the Government apart if it starts abusing its power?
If you had checked, you'd know monopolies are not illegal. It's discretionary regulation and impotent in many cases. Power comes in many forms.
States fall for many reasons, but primarily causes are war and revolution (which are sometimes the same thing.)
States fall for many reasons, but primarily causes are war and revolution (which are sometimes the same thing.)
Monopolies are illegal if established through improper conduct and anti-competitive practices. The exceptions would be for State-owned or State-granted monopolies... Amazon is neither of those.
> States fall for many reasons, but primarily causes are war and revolution
So, the way to get rid of Amazon would be to get the Government to simply start a judicial process against a company. The way to get rid of the Government would require bloodshed. Can we agree that that n corrupt and power-abusive Government is far more dangerous than Amazon (or any other corporation) could ever be?
> States fall for many reasons, but primarily causes are war and revolution
So, the way to get rid of Amazon would be to get the Government to simply start a judicial process against a company. The way to get rid of the Government would require bloodshed. Can we agree that that n corrupt and power-abusive Government is far more dangerous than Amazon (or any other corporation) could ever be?
> Monopolies are illegal if
You're moving the goalpost and still wrong [1]. I don't know why you want to talk about this so badly if you don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, as I said, it's discretionary regulation and power comes in many forms.
> The way to get rid of the Government would require bloodshed.
You don't need to get rid of "the government" if you control the state and everyone's minds via lobbying, corruption, propaganda and other means.
> Can we agree that that n corrupt and power-abusive Government is far more dangerous than Amazon (or any other corporation) could ever be?
Absolutely not. "The government" is the puppet, the owners of companies like Amazon are the puppeteers. Power comes in many forms. Coercion comes in many forms.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
You're moving the goalpost and still wrong [1]. I don't know why you want to talk about this so badly if you don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, as I said, it's discretionary regulation and power comes in many forms.
> The way to get rid of the Government would require bloodshed.
You don't need to get rid of "the government" if you control the state and everyone's minds via lobbying, corruption, propaganda and other means.
> Can we agree that that n corrupt and power-abusive Government is far more dangerous than Amazon (or any other corporation) could ever be?
Absolutely not. "The government" is the puppet, the owners of companies like Amazon are the puppeteers. Power comes in many forms. Coercion comes in many forms.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Yes. They start with food and then god knows what else they will track. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
What do you think happens to online food delivery orders? That all gets sold to data brokers.
I feel it's similar to people "not caring" about corporate tracking (e.g. browser tracking, or cell phone companies selling location data) - i.e. by turning a blind eye to it as long as their services work and so on. They accept it as the norm and do not push back against these measures.
They know that it's happening and don't like it, like how they won't like the Norweigan government's decision. But they'll likely put up little resistance and move on to other things.
They know that it's happening and don't like it, like how they won't like the Norweigan government's decision. But they'll likely put up little resistance and move on to other things.
Really? What if it includes alcohol sales? Do you want the state to know how much alcohol you consume?
In case you were unaware, all liquor stores in Norway are run by the government — “vinmonopolet” as they are called.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet
That misses the point.
You can’t buy alcohol at the supermarket in Norway.
You can buy alcohol at the supermarket in Norway, it's just that it's limited to alcohol of 4.5%vol. or lower (i.e. the supermarkets sell beer and alcohol cider and the like).
4.5%, no thanks. Easier to get water intoxication than feel anything about alcohol.
"How many villages does a Man need to Pillage to get a drink in this place?!"
[deleted]
Yes, you can. But only drinks with up to 4.7% abv
The state owns the only alcohol store.
Sounds like Virginia. A lot of states have a similar system in place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_sta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_sta...
See my comment above - you can buy beer elsewhere, unless it's stronger than the typical lager.
And what will stop them from monitoring the alcohol sales?
I replied to the statement "The state owns the only alcohol store." - the only text in the comment I replied to. And as it's factually wrong, I replied with a comment stating just that. There was nothing about monitoring in the comment I replied to, nor in my reply.
As for monitoring - as said elsewhere, if monitoring of supermarket sales will happen or not depends not only on what that particular office wants (SSB - central statistics bureau), but what politicians decide on. And, despite many comments here believing otherwise, it is actually quite common for Norwegian politicians to listen to massive resistance from the people, particularly when the reasoning behind the whole suggestion is quite questionable, as in this case. In any case, whether alcohol is sold here or there it wouldn't make any difference to the monitoring. And cash is still legal tender in Norway, even if there are some that don't like that fact. As for myself I believe only Mastercard really know how much money I use on wine. I don't think they know my preferences though (Italian, as it were)
As for monitoring - as said elsewhere, if monitoring of supermarket sales will happen or not depends not only on what that particular office wants (SSB - central statistics bureau), but what politicians decide on. And, despite many comments here believing otherwise, it is actually quite common for Norwegian politicians to listen to massive resistance from the people, particularly when the reasoning behind the whole suggestion is quite questionable, as in this case. In any case, whether alcohol is sold here or there it wouldn't make any difference to the monitoring. And cash is still legal tender in Norway, even if there are some that don't like that fact. As for myself I believe only Mastercard really know how much money I use on wine. I don't think they know my preferences though (Italian, as it were)
> The state owns the only alcohol store.
How do they feel about being responsible of delivering poison to people then? Somehow I can rationalize it if it's a transaction between private parties, but if the government acts as the drug dealer it's no better than a cartel.
How do they feel about being responsible of delivering poison to people then? Somehow I can rationalize it if it's a transaction between private parties, but if the government acts as the drug dealer it's no better than a cartel.
Given that the alternatives to legal alcohol are well known, I’d imagine they feel fine about it.
the majority of the public wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked.
Citizen #83238201: You have exceeded your yearly purchasing quota for condoms and thrush medication. Please report to your nearest moral re-education camp.
Citizen #83238201: You have exceeded your yearly purchasing quota for condoms and thrush medication. Please report to your nearest moral re-education camp.
> wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked
You dont buy only food in supermarkets these days.
You dont buy only food in supermarkets these days.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
I hope the people in Norway are smart enough to fight this tooth and nail. This is how everything you purchase or ever will purchase will be scrutinized by bureaucrats to be used against you. Sure the initial version might be anonymized but you can be sure some government official will say "well we have the data anyway and they don't seem to really care..."
Wow. That seems to be a succession / resurrection of 2015-2016 projekt I was involved with Norwegian Consumer Council forbrukerrådet and some of major groceries chains(Coop, Rema, NG..)
The moment I left we were receiving soft real-time Pos log data (anonymized) and we’re building some consumer groceries basket stats.
The moment I left we were receiving soft real-time Pos log data (anonymized) and we’re building some consumer groceries basket stats.
The ideological left push us more and more towards a dystopic future. Which doesn't seem very distant.
Collectivist authoritarians will always cause totalitarianism as a “step toward Utopia”.
The logical conclusion of their beliefs is to enslave people “for their own good”.
The logical conclusion of their beliefs is to enslave people “for their own good”.
Yeah, fuck the leftist ideology that gave us the PATRIOT act, the legalization of torture, that wages wars on lies with no long term plans, who made the Echelon network a mass surveillance network. Fuck these neocon hippies.
Ah yes, mass surveillance is well known to be only supported by left-wing ideologues, such as Viktor Orbán:
https://www.connectontech.com/2016-2-19-hungary-condemned-fo...
https://www.connectontech.com/2016-2-19-hungary-condemned-fo...
The ideological left of neoliberalism, which has only been gaining ground everywhere since the 70's :)
It isn't the left that keeps pushing authoritarianism around the world, see Orban, Putin, Trump, DeSantis, Abbott and the likes.
Touch some grass.
Touch some grass.
More the reason to not feed your guests
Tell me again how we're not moving into technocracy, with everything micromanaged, every purchase accounted for (by the government).
'Its perfectly fine for governments to know this info'.
The end of banks, and central bank digital currency and social credit systems are just around the corner.
'Its perfectly fine for governments to know this info'.
The end of banks, and central bank digital currency and social credit systems are just around the corner.
All of what you have just said is totally correct. Will be made worse if not is already worse with closed-source software, zero privacy, internet-of-things, artificial intelligence and blockchains as I said before. [0]
Anyone standing in the way of this have failed to stop it entirely and we will end up co-existing with these things in a few years or so.
So it is not a surprise at all to see Norway do this. A new world order of CBDCs, IoT and more invasive tracking, etc led by members of the World Government Summit.
Oh dear.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31617042
Anyone standing in the way of this have failed to stop it entirely and we will end up co-existing with these things in a few years or so.
So it is not a surprise at all to see Norway do this. A new world order of CBDCs, IoT and more invasive tracking, etc led by members of the World Government Summit.
Oh dear.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31617042
Blockchains ?
If anything, blockchains mighg be the things that end government control over finance. And not all cryptocurrencies are public, monero and zcash exist.
If anything, blockchains mighg be the things that end government control over finance. And not all cryptocurrencies are public, monero and zcash exist.
Gestapo's dream. I think they did in fact track purchases--not very efficiently--to find who was hiding Jews in their basement.
Though maybe at least if it's government-tracked that's better than only being corporate-tracked.
And there have to be escape-hatches.
Though maybe at least if it's government-tracked that's better than only being corporate-tracked.
And there have to be escape-hatches.
NAV is an Extremely well run org.
I believe in the system and I believe Norwegian state will do the right thing
Case in point - look at the tech platform docs for NAVs tech teams - https://nais.io/
I believe in the system and I believe Norwegian state will do the right thing
Case in point - look at the tech platform docs for NAVs tech teams - https://nais.io/
That's a reasonable stance as long as you believe that no change will ever happen. Neither peaceful change from within, nor violent from outside.
The dynamics of such a system are rarely considered, which is why it's such an easy trap for societies to fall into, especially societies with high regard for their institutions.
It starts with the voices of reason ("Isn't there a danger this data could be abused?") being slowly pushed out, through lack of promotions or being transferred to other departments where they are a "better fit".
Then this government body starts to attract the naive zealots ("Just think of all the good we can do! How could anyone see a problem with us collecting more data?") which becomes self-reinforcing.
The final step is when the ambitious and malicious take notice ("This data must be worth a lot of money to the right people, and I could make sure my political party never loses another election") at which point the entire process is captured and corrupted from the top down.
Avoiding building these systems in the first place is good civic hygiene, and societies need to develop an instinct that if you allow data and power to accumulate in one place for too long, it will start to attract pests.
It starts with the voices of reason ("Isn't there a danger this data could be abused?") being slowly pushed out, through lack of promotions or being transferred to other departments where they are a "better fit".
Then this government body starts to attract the naive zealots ("Just think of all the good we can do! How could anyone see a problem with us collecting more data?") which becomes self-reinforcing.
The final step is when the ambitious and malicious take notice ("This data must be worth a lot of money to the right people, and I could make sure my political party never loses another election") at which point the entire process is captured and corrupted from the top down.
Avoiding building these systems in the first place is good civic hygiene, and societies need to develop an instinct that if you allow data and power to accumulate in one place for too long, it will start to attract pests.
No. Variations of the slippery slope argument fail to engage with the actual concrete issues, the actual social trajectory, and anything specific and contextual. Not engaging is not engaging. It is weak and solves nothing.
The Norweigian government has specific plans for this data. Engage those plans. Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
Generic narratives are not.
Cheers.
The Norweigian government has specific plans for this data. Engage those plans. Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
Generic narratives are not.
Cheers.
> Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
Right, and I'm saying that an agency which is tasked with gathering all this private data about innocent citizens, without a warrant, is going to attract people who will want to abuse it, just as other mass surveillance agencies have abused their powers in the past.
How much more concrete do I need to be? Do I need to give the names of actual Norwegian threat actors who I think might want to infiltrate this agency, and specify who they would sell the data to, or which of their ex-partners they would spy on, or which opposition politician's spending habits they would leak to which paper?
Right, and I'm saying that an agency which is tasked with gathering all this private data about innocent citizens, without a warrant, is going to attract people who will want to abuse it, just as other mass surveillance agencies have abused their powers in the past.
How much more concrete do I need to be? Do I need to give the names of actual Norwegian threat actors who I think might want to infiltrate this agency, and specify who they would sell the data to, or which of their ex-partners they would spy on, or which opposition politician's spending habits they would leak to which paper?
Coincidentally, the WEF's individual carbon footprint tracker initiative was recently announced. https://youtu.be/_j1d_2yTRRA
[deleted]
...and than there are People who wonder why Germany is so reluctant with their personal data, leaving cash behind, having a general ID, and so on.
Sometimes it is wise to look at the past and learn from it.
Datensparsamkeit ftw!
Sometimes it is wise to look at the past and learn from it.
Datensparsamkeit ftw!
This is insanity and will definitely lead to abuse.
I am confounded as to why I have not heard of this. I'd appreciate it if someone could link me the official statement.
I have been following the World Economic Forum articles and talks about smart money: a digital currency that knows how it is used and by whom, can be 'turned off' for some types of purchases, etc. What Norway may do is just a small precursor to what the WEF crowd wants.
Sadly, I think regular people have lost the class war. As a libertarian this should drive me nuts, but as a practical matter I tend to accept the world as it is, and plan my life accordingly. In other words, 'play the current position on the chessboard.'
Sadly, I think regular people have lost the class war. As a libertarian this should drive me nuts, but as a practical matter I tend to accept the world as it is, and plan my life accordingly. In other words, 'play the current position on the chessboard.'
Two years ago when they moved to cashless payments, question was what can go wrong.
Well now we know...
Can't you just pay in cash, without leaving digital trail?
Of course you can pay in cash. Most of us in Norway simply choose not to most of the time.
Hope they won't ban cash payment.
I’m not totally insensitive to libertarian arguments about a free society and limitations on government, but I also wonder given all the constraints on a government and societal pressures, what tools does a government really have if they want to offset climate change or reduce public health costs, or ration limited resources.
I guess I think most of us, if we were actually in that position and wanted to stay in that position would have to choose interventions that are less than ideal.
I guess I think most of us, if we were actually in that position and wanted to stay in that position would have to choose interventions that are less than ideal.
The comments objecting to this are bizarre.
In the predatory capitalist US, the number of private companies- not subject to any real regulation, or supervision, or action on the part of citizens- that have exactly this data and more numbers literally in the thousands.
And while a lot of attention is paid to government data collection, it is very hard for various parts of the government in the US to get this information for administrative purposes- as distinct from criminal investigations- and even if government could, it would serve no purpose because except for policing, education, highway maintenance, delivery of mail and healthcare for military veterans, US government entities perform virtually no services.
In Norway, which has extremely high quality of life and a very competent government that runs things like a sovereign wealth fund to the express and explicit benefit of citizens, where the goals of data collection are further improvement of quality of life, the intent and capacity of delivery for which by the government is proven over and over again-
IOW, to be concerned about data collection by an entity that over and over again has demonstrated its competence, especially in the context of alternatives like the US-
WTF are people thinking.
In the predatory capitalist US, the number of private companies- not subject to any real regulation, or supervision, or action on the part of citizens- that have exactly this data and more numbers literally in the thousands.
And while a lot of attention is paid to government data collection, it is very hard for various parts of the government in the US to get this information for administrative purposes- as distinct from criminal investigations- and even if government could, it would serve no purpose because except for policing, education, highway maintenance, delivery of mail and healthcare for military veterans, US government entities perform virtually no services.
In Norway, which has extremely high quality of life and a very competent government that runs things like a sovereign wealth fund to the express and explicit benefit of citizens, where the goals of data collection are further improvement of quality of life, the intent and capacity of delivery for which by the government is proven over and over again-
IOW, to be concerned about data collection by an entity that over and over again has demonstrated its competence, especially in the context of alternatives like the US-
WTF are people thinking.
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts, so what you're saying is "I don't mind giving the Norwegian government absolute power, because they aren't absolutely corrupt (yet)".
I just can't with the aphorisms. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. So there.
Make an actual argument.
Make an actual argument.
I'm sorry you don't like my simple-to-follow chain of aphorisms. My actual argument is expressed in more detail elsewhere on this page, specifically here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31622654
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31622654
I responded. It's not an argument. Specific goods- and there are all sorts of specific goods that can come out of this collection- have to met with specific bads- and there are all sorts of these as well- and considered in the context of actual history and trajectory, not fanciful imaginings.
For example, all health/hospital records of deceased Norwegians are digitalized ten years after death and added to a national register. No way to refuse. In my opinion, that is much more invasive, yet it hasn't been discussed at all by the public
https://helsedata.no/en/about-helsedata.no/
https://www.digitalarkivet.no/en/