4 ms·
Most organizations, especially private ones are trying to invade your privacy. If you think it's only the NSA you are kidding yourself. She thinks corporate sur
by wfo 11y ago
Most organizations, especially private ones are trying to invade your privacy. If you think it's only the NSA you are kidding yourself. She thinks corporate surveillance and censorship is a bigger danger than government surveillance. Whether or not you agree with her (I tend to -- you can't vote Zuckerberg out of control of facebook, and he has no responsibility to be accountable or transparent to the citizenry. Facebook is run by orders given from the top, not laws and representatives of the people, it doesn't even pretend to be. Plus, even organizations like NSA have goals which are ostensibly good like 'protect citizens' not simply 'profit') it's a fairly reasonable stance that is not uncommon.
Also the government isn't one organization. It is as wide and varied as the corporate landscape. She may trust NPR which is nominally "the state" (barely) but not NSA or FBI, which is a very reasonable stance to take. The most stringent defenders of privacy I've ever heard of as a class are librarians, who are -- you guessed it -- part of the government. Even agencies themselves are not monoliths; there are many people even at NSA who work in a defensive capacity securing and protecting systems instead of subverting them.
So "More government! That's ludicrous" isn't really nuanced enough.
- jlarocco 11y ago> Most organizations, especially private ones are trying to invade your privacy. If you think it's only the NSA you are kidding yourself. She thinks corporate surveillance and censorship is a bigger danger than government surveillance. Whether or not you agree with her (I tend to -- you can't vote Zuckerberg out of control of facebook, and he has no responsibility to be accountable or transparent to the citizenry. Facebook is run by orders given from the top, not laws and representatives of the people, it doesn't even pretend to be. Plus, even organizations like NSA have goals which are ostensibly good like 'protect citizens' not simply 'profit') it's a fairly reasonable stance that is not uncommon. That's backwards. Individuals have more control when working with non-government entities because they can opt-out completely. If I don't want Facebook to invade my privacy, I don't have to use it. Problem solved. There's no opting out of the government and NSA invading my privacy.
- beagle3 11y agoNo, you can't opt out of being tracked by Facebook. By not using it, you stop seeing what Facebook knows about you, but they keep collecting the information through "like" buttons all over the web and through posts and pictures from your friends. Opting out of the Internet is still not enough to avoid the latter
- jlarocco 11y agoActually you can even opt-out of that with tools like AdBlock. I'm not saying it's a great solution, but it's a solution, and it's more options than exist for opting out of government surveillance.
- beagle3 11y agoFrom the "like" button tracking, yes. From other people posting your pictures and whereabouts? You have to quit civilization.
- jlarocco 11y agoWell you'll have that problem with Facebook or the government, so there's really no difference there. Doesn't change the fact that it's easier and legal to opt out of Facebook.
- wfo 11y agoIf you don't want the NSA to invade your privacy, it's easy. Just don't use the internet or email. That isn't a real solution, just like "opt out of google" or "opt out of facebook" isn't a real solution. When a corporation has a monopoly it's as powerful as a government in that area but with zero accountability or transparency. The concern here is power. The people in government choosing how to use their power are elected or responsible to someone elected. On the other hand the power structure of a corporation is a dictatorship. Pretending you can theoretically choose to not participate in society and avoid corporate control so their power isn't real power is naive.