3 ms·

I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive le

I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive less public attention and scrutiny. FOSS and client-side encryption alone are not going to solve this problem. If governments can openly demand and enforce whatever they like, then users of these technologies can be threatened with draconian punishment and be prosecuted as terrorists and pedophiles. There needs to be counter pressure from consumers, consumer groups, experts and corporations in order for client-side technologies to remain a viable option for people outside the Ecuadorian embassies of the world. Corporations are not in the business of appeasing local governments. Corporations are in the business of pleasing consumers so that they make a profit. They appease local governments only to reach consumers and they can't do it in a way that causes consumers to distrust them as that would be self defeating. Also, what is in the economic interest of a corporation is not self evident. It's the people at the top of these companies who make these judgements. I'm sure many of them value their privacy more than the average person and their judgement is going to be influenced by that. The same goes for shareholders. It's always going to be a balancing act for global internet companies so let's make our weight felt!

a3n 11y ago
> I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive less public attention and scrutiny. You're describing a world where corporations represent you, the consumer. But you're not a constituent of the corporation, you're a resource. Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy, so they'll keep on producing money or milk. The constituents are shareholders. The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. Your comments on open source and consumer counter pressure describe something hopeful.
- oneweekwonder 11y ago
  > The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. a bit off-topic, but is there a country that is not laughable and the general public actually trust and believe the government have their needs in mind?
  - anon4 11y ago
    (Parts of) America, before it was run over by illegal immigrants from Europe and Britain.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  >You're describing a world where corporations represent you Not at all. I'm describing a world of partially shared mutual interest. >Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy No. I have a voluntary business relationship with some corporations. Cows do not have a voluntary business relationship with farmers. Corporations cannot milk me against my will or slaughter me when I stop giving milk. All they can do is try to trade with me. My relationship with the people of the country I am allowed to vote in is not voluntary. It's a result of the birth lottery. I don't even share many intersts with them as I don't live there and it's not a global superpower. That said, it's not my intention to deny one fundamental fact: The extent of my influence on corporations as a consumer and as a shareholder depends exclusively on my wealth. My influence on elected politicians is much more complex and there is at least some chance of my being human to count for something regardless of wealth. Fundamental rights to privacy cannot be based on wealth, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our shared interests with corporations where they exist.
sandworm101 11y ago
That isn't the US model. US corps report only to shareholders and governments who provide access to markets. What you describe is closer to German model whereby corps also report to employees who elect board members. But in no country does a corporation respond to the people at large. If they did, then we would probably call them a government agency rather than a corporation.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  >But in no country does a corporation respond to the people at large "respond to the people at large" is an awfully general characterisation. What corporations typically do is respond to wishes of their customers and prospective customers, provided they can make money from doing so. If one corporation does not, a competitor probably will. So there are potential alliances to be formed between consumers and specific corporations regarding specific political issues. Again, I'm not saying that the market or consumer power magically replaces democracy or that the interests of consumers and corporations are naturally aligned in general.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    > the interests of consumers and corporations are naturally aligned in general Maybe in the perfect magical world of highschool civics where consumers have total freedom to choose from amongst competitive products and corporations are perfectly open about privacy. The reality is much less idealized. Corporations lie to customers daily. Contracts bind customers to not adopt competitive products. And state-sanctioned monopolies in many counties (US/Canada/China) severely limit choice. Any publicly traded corporation, by definition, is only interested in money. Sometimes appeasing customers helps that bottom line, but often it doesn't. Sometimes screwing over you customers is the way, especially when those customers have nowhere else to go.
    - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
      My sentence that you are quoting starts with "I'm not saying that ...". It doesn't make sense to drop the negation from a sentence and then refute what's left.

a3n 11y ago

> I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive less public attention and scrutiny. You're describing a world where corporations represent you, the consumer. But you're not a constituent of the corporation, you're a resource. Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy, so they'll keep on producing money or milk. The constituents are shareholders. The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. Your comments on open source and consumer counter pressure describe something hopeful.

oneweekwonder 11y ago
> The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. a bit off-topic, but is there a country that is not laughable and the general public actually trust and believe the government have their needs in mind?
- anon4 11y ago
  (Parts of) America, before it was run over by illegal immigrants from Europe and Britain.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>You're describing a world where corporations represent you Not at all. I'm describing a world of partially shared mutual interest. >Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy No. I have a voluntary business relationship with some corporations. Cows do not have a voluntary business relationship with farmers. Corporations cannot milk me against my will or slaughter me when I stop giving milk. All they can do is try to trade with me. My relationship with the people of the country I am allowed to vote in is not voluntary. It's a result of the birth lottery. I don't even share many intersts with them as I don't live there and it's not a global superpower. That said, it's not my intention to deny one fundamental fact: The extent of my influence on corporations as a consumer and as a shareholder depends exclusively on my wealth. My influence on elected politicians is much more complex and there is at least some chance of my being human to count for something regardless of wealth. Fundamental rights to privacy cannot be based on wealth, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our shared interests with corporations where they exist.

sandworm101 11y ago

That isn't the US model. US corps report only to shareholders and governments who provide access to markets. What you describe is closer to German model whereby corps also report to employees who elect board members. But in no country does a corporation respond to the people at large. If they did, then we would probably call them a government agency rather than a corporation.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>But in no country does a corporation respond to the people at large "respond to the people at large" is an awfully general characterisation. What corporations typically do is respond to wishes of their customers and prospective customers, provided they can make money from doing so. If one corporation does not, a competitor probably will. So there are potential alliances to be formed between consumers and specific corporations regarding specific political issues. Again, I'm not saying that the market or consumer power magically replaces democracy or that the interests of consumers and corporations are naturally aligned in general.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  > the interests of consumers and corporations are naturally aligned in general Maybe in the perfect magical world of highschool civics where consumers have total freedom to choose from amongst competitive products and corporations are perfectly open about privacy. The reality is much less idealized. Corporations lie to customers daily. Contracts bind customers to not adopt competitive products. And state-sanctioned monopolies in many counties (US/Canada/China) severely limit choice. Any publicly traded corporation, by definition, is only interested in money. Sometimes appeasing customers helps that bottom line, but often it doesn't. Sometimes screwing over you customers is the way, especially when those customers have nowhere else to go.
  - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
    My sentence that you are quoting starts with "I'm not saying that ...". It doesn't make sense to drop the negation from a sentence and then refute what's left.