The FDA was formed just years after the Jim the horse incident[0]. The issues from poor data practices has existed for a decade or more. It has more to do with the poor functioning of the political system these days.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_%28horse%29

Just after the Jim horse incident. Which was at a time when food and medicine adulteration was already old as the hills.

Heck, most people in government simply don’t even understand the issue, let alone figuring out how to solve it.

AFAIK only one US 2020 presidential candidate atm is even talking about data rights.

> AFAIK only one US 2020 presidential candidate atm is even talking about data rights.

Are you talking Yang [0]? I think he's taking it most seriously but even as a Yang Ganger I do see other politicians talking about it, but I would say that they aren't taking it seriously [1]. I can't find anything about data privacy rights on Warren's, Sanders's, or Biden's issue pages. I did find mentions on Buttigieg's[2], Klobuchar's[3], and Gabbard's[4] (which is more anti-NSA than anything else). But yeah, I would say that Yang is the only one that I'm aware of that is making a very clear statement on this issue (since he ties it to his UBI issue).

[0] https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/

[1] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/2020-democratic-candidates-i...

[2] https://peteforamerica.com/issues/#ConsumerProtections

[3] https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/consumer-p...

[4] https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-civil-libertie...

This is a good argument for term limits. The old timer's holding on to their power is not doing anyone any good.

Term limits don't seem to stop old timers from getting elected though, they just mean a variety of old timers get elected.

(Not that there aren't other good reasons to prefer a variety of politicians getting elected over a single one)

There are arguments for term limits, but this isn't one of them. No person can be an expert in everything the government can potentially regulate.

And yet Churchill saw how Turing's work on Enigma was promising and gave him a lot of support.

There are many other examples.

Politicians are perfectly capable of understanding the social impact of technology... when they need to.

Churchill was not an ordinary politician

The perceived impact is much less noticeable than deaths. When the bodies pile up you invest in seatbelt regulations, and may even create jobs making them. What if there's no bodies to count?

There will be bodies eventually. Just, you know, at scale.

> The perceived impact is much less noticeable

Especially after the data is laundered with machine learning and other opaque algorithms.