7 ms·

> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveilla

> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.

kaybe 11y ago
I wonder, in the future, might Google (or similar) be able to make a government use those guns? If we as the sovereign of democracies can be influenced massively, I can imagine that at least in tipping-point situations. There is a lot of money in wars too, so even without state-level actors paying, motivation is not unthinkable.
- nickik 11y ago
  The problem with corporation controlling the state is a old one and Google is not particularly scary in that regard. The point still stands, if you can create a state that does not have waste powers in the first place, then neither the state by itself, nor a cooperation can use that power.
clouddrover 11y ago
Force is only one form of influence. As recently posted on HN, search engines have a strong influence over their users' thinking and decision making. Article: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633
- themartorana 11y ago
  Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it. I can stop using Google products tomorrow without the need for a gun or explanation. The article is sowing some serious FUD. Everything is engaged in behavior modification. That's the basic point of products and services. Watch more/better/less/no TV. Exercise more. Eat healthier. Stand up at work. Reward yourself with a candy bar/bottle of wine/vacation. I don't know. I'm not sold on fearing Google. The government I do fear.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Optimization of consumer behavior through endless A/B testing optimizes behavior in favor of the corporations, not the society or the individual. So one of my bigger worries is that these optimization strategies will lead society into a dead end local maximum where everyone is perfectly conditioned to consume for the good of the corporation, when we could have taken a different path resulting in a more egalitarian outcome. Another worry is that through subtle manipulation of search result ordering, page load delays, news feed filtering, etc., Facebook, Google, et al. could influence politics and culture in counterproductive ways, even if only by algorithmic accident.
    - nickik 11y ago
      This is discussion that has happened in economics for a long time. I am still utterly inconvinced of the pure power of advertsing. Sure it has a big influence, but its not like google is so good that everybody is just a mindless zombi perfectly conditioned to buy whatever they show me. Even if that were the case, Im not clear why this would lead to less egalitarian outcome. Your second point is in conflict with the first. If they want me to consume as much as possible, they have to show me what I want. If they want to influence broad culture they have to show me what they want me to see. If it is by algorithmic accident, then its like all cultural devlopment. Its all accidents, nobody planes the evolution of culuture, google, facebook and reddit have already changed culture and will continue to do so. You points are a small worry, compared to something like the prospect of 1984.
  - clouddrover 11y ago
    > Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it Gandhi would disagree with you. The weakness of hard power is that it is expensive, blatant in application, and virtually guaranteed to create opposition. The strength of soft power is that it is indirect while being cheaper and less likely to create resentment. People are best manipulated through suggestion rather than coercion. Hard power is ugly but at least it's obvious. Soft power can be just as ugly by being insidious.
    - 11y ago
- sybhn 11y ago
  The ones having monopoly on violence are a much stronger force. There is indeed a constant balancing act between them and the masses, but at the end the sooner you accept that that is the real and ultimate power, the world and its inner working, across cultures, will become clear to you.
Jerry2 11y ago
>Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference. That's a misleading analogy. Problem is that Google/ebay/Microsoft/Silicon Valley cooperate closely with the law enforcement and employ a lot of former LEO people who still have close connections with law enforcement. Check out some of the Yasha Levine's articles. He's one of the best investigative journalists when it comes to SiliconValley and surveillance. For example, he's writing a book, Surveillance Valley, precisely on this topic. Check out this short blurb that debunks this notion about Google not policing people: http://pando.com/2015/02/23/support-yasha-levines-surveillance-valley-a-book-about-how-silicon-valley-created-the-worlds-most-effective-surviellance-apparatus/ http://pando.com/2015/02/23/support-yasha-levines-surveillan... >Reveal how Silicon Valley polices our lives: There is a common misconception that no matter how much Silicon Valley companies spy on us, at least they don’t have the power to arrest and jail us. Truth is, they can and do. This book will investigate how the most progressive Internet companies — including eBay, Facebook and Google — engage in pro-active policing. For example: eBay’s massive private police alone has overseen thousands of arrests and convictions around the globe, and hands over complete criminal cases to government prosecutors “on a silver platter.” Anyway, truth is a lot darker.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  >That's a misleading analogy. No. It's not misleading at all. And your example illustrates the important distinction the OP made. These companies that you mentioned almost have to cooperate with the government because the government has the ultimate power to fine or even jail them, not to mention harass them or put them out of business, if they refuse to cooperate. They can't just walk away from this issue. This is why government power and the use of the gun has to be strictly controlled by the constitution. This is what the FEDs, et. al. are trying to circumvent. Our basic liberties such as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. are empty words if the government attains the power to spy on all citizens en masse without out cause or warrant.
  - barcoder 11y ago
    According to the article our behavior and therefore Freedom of Speech is being manipulated by these companies that in turn brings us full circle to the point that surveillance companies control our behavior and therefore our voting decisions and thus weapons. Check out Eric Schmidt's ties with government: http://www.naturalnews.com/051687_Google_Eric_Schmidt_Hillary_Clinton.html# http://www.naturalnews.com/051687_Google_Eric_Schmidt_Hillar...
pdkl95 11y ago
> Google does not. That's simply not true; they use the government's guns every time they file a lawsuit. While the government is the ultimate controller of that power, the economic and legal powers available to corporations depend on the enforcement of the state.
- nickik 11y ago
  Yes but that is the hole point. Those of use who are primly concerned with government and not corporations want to create a government and a legal system were neither the state itself or somebody using the state has the wide ranging powers that a modern state has. If the state simply does not have the ability to attack a country on the other side of the world, then no amount of bribing politicians can make it happen. When the state does not have backdoors into everything, their is no amount of political pressure that can make the state misuse that power. I want to limit government power because they have the monopoly of force. Everything that Google is doing threw the government has to go threw the governments monopoly of force. We need to control the monopoly of force by the rule of law on the level of individual freedom. The wrong way to go about it is to have a super powerful state that can easily regulate every aspect of what Google and co are doing and can tell them what to do because that is essentially Fascism.
hifier 11y ago
The difference is not about who is more powerful. The difference is that I can choose to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. I cannot (barring extreme measures) choose to disobey the government.
- cronjobber 11y ago
  Yeah, you have the "choice"... of cutting off most of your friends, your employers and customers, and be "Google free".
  - paraxisi 11y ago
    Because using DDG and having friends are mutually exclusive.
    - cronjobber 11y ago
      Your friends are on google mail, maybe hidden behind their own domain. Your friends post stories and pictures involving you on G+. If you hang with them...and their android phones. You can get rid of them or you can accept being google data.
      - hifier 11y ago
        So?
wfo 11y ago
Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting the government does not have access to everything google has access to? And are you suggesting non-governmental agencies can't employ physical force? Like the groups of violent criminals used to destroy the pro-union movement many years ago or organized crime organizations to name a few examples? Are you suggesting if Google doesn't like someone it cannot outsource the violence to other organizations like the FBI by reporting appropriately? Are you suggesting all kinds of force are irrelevant compared to the most clumsy and inconsequential and most unimportant type of force used in our part of the world, physical force? Because any of those suggestions, all of which you seem to imply by your statement I would take issue with. The last being the most important. The platitudes suggesting anything a corporation does, no matter how powerful, is okay since it can't employ physical force, while anything the government does is wrong because it can are excellent fodder to trick children into accepting Libertarianism but are otherwise mostly ineffective.
- magicGLASSman 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    > Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.
    - magicGLASSman 11y ago
      I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.
mirimir 11y ago
Yes. More generally, governments monopolize the use of force. Against corporate surveillance, there's at least a chance of resisting. Against governments, you put your life on the line. Anyway, it's a thoughtful essay. But I'm a simple person, and I tend to prefer action to contemplation. Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. You block tracking and ads. You harden browsers against fingerprinting. You use operating systems that respect your privacy. You compartmentalize your online activity enough that surveillance won't hurt you, using multiple devices and VMs, that connect via VPN services and Tor. It's not simple, I admit. But it can be a fun game. For me, anyway. Most people still don't seem to care enough to bother. And I don't know what it would take to change that. So it goes.
- danieldk 11y ago
  Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. It's harder than you suggest, because all that you propose helps little with some big elephants in the room: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/facebook-privacy-phone-numbers-upload http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/faceb... http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ Basically, people have to start telling other people that they are jerks for letting big corporations mine their most private conversations just to save $1 or $2 dollars per month. Obviously, this won't happen.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Or at least, one only uses them for superficial stuff. And one has multiple personas, with non-overlapping social networks. Most of those are online-only. But some can be LARP, if you like. It may be possible to use iOS anonymously. I have an anonymous Apple online account, and could presumably use it with used devices purchased for cash. Anyone know if that's doable?
    - 11y ago
teekert 11y ago
Also, Google is opt-in (to a degree, perhaps using Tor/blockers/anti-tracker should be called opt-out), The government presents not options.
- ewYuck 11y ago
  This "opt-in" bullshit needs to take a dirt nap. Claims like: you asked for it, it's your own fault, and on and on. You know you're full of shit. You're part of that same group of people who say: America, love it or leave it. You have the option to speak English or get the fuck out. It's like hearing someone tell me that I can vote nuclear weapons out of existence. Oh really? I've opted into mandatory JavaScript support, and opaque, minified JS which is required for so many sites, and I can stop server side exchanges of behavioral data, and I can just walk away from everything happening, and live in a cave, and I can opt into being a luddite instead? I suppose I opted into the planes that fly overhead too. My omission of any actions against air traffic represent my token assent tons of aluminum circling overhead 24 hours a day. Right?
- actuallyNo 11y ago
  This "opt-in" bullshit needs to take a dirt nap. Claims like: you asked for it, it's your own fault, and on and on. You know you're full of shit. You're part of that same group of people who say: America, love it or leave it. You have the option to speak English or get the fuck out. It's like hearing someone tell me that I can vote nuclear weapons out of existence. Like I can solve all my problems with my own little boycott! Oh really? I've opted into mandatory JavaScript support, and opaque, minified JS which is required for so many sites to even work (cross-origin policies aside), and I can stop server-side exchanges of behavioral data, and I can just walk away from everything happening around me, and live in a cave, and I can opt into being a luddite instead? I suppose I opted into the planes that fly overhead too. My omission of any actions against air traffic represent my token assent to having tons of aluminum circling overhead 24 hours a day. Right?
- benevol 11y ago
  Google is NOT opt-in. You know very well that their analytics product tracks everybody all across the Web (and techies are the only ones who know about noscript). And what do you do when you are forced to reply to Gmail emails because others who have no clue use it? Joe the user has no clue about "all this technical stuff", how it works, what it is capable of, how it can be combined with data from other DBs, how it is really used by the corporate and governmental world and where all this is going, especially when AI will have advanced even more.
kushti 11y ago
Google is already punishing people physically: http://yashalevine.com/articles/we-got-geeks-inside-google-s-ugly-war-against-the-homeless-in-la http://yashalevine.com/articles/we-got-geeks-inside-google-s...
kartan 11y ago
> Governments have guns, Google does not. (Some) Governments are elected by their citizens. Google Chiefs aren't. The important part for me it is to create up to date laws - and enforce them - that protect citizens for mass surveillance, public or private, while allowing for useful use of data like for making easier to file taxes or to store your personal contacts.

> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.

kaybe 11y ago

I wonder, in the future, might Google (or similar) be able to make a government use those guns? If we as the sovereign of democracies can be influenced massively, I can imagine that at least in tipping-point situations. There is a lot of money in wars too, so even without state-level actors paying, motivation is not unthinkable.

nickik 11y ago
The problem with corporation controlling the state is a old one and Google is not particularly scary in that regard. The point still stands, if you can create a state that does not have waste powers in the first place, then neither the state by itself, nor a cooperation can use that power.

clouddrover 11y ago

Force is only one form of influence. As recently posted on HN, search engines have a strong influence over their users' thinking and decision making. Article: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633

themartorana 11y ago
Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it. I can stop using Google products tomorrow without the need for a gun or explanation. The article is sowing some serious FUD. Everything is engaged in behavior modification. That's the basic point of products and services. Watch more/better/less/no TV. Exercise more. Eat healthier. Stand up at work. Reward yourself with a candy bar/bottle of wine/vacation. I don't know. I'm not sold on fearing Google. The government I do fear.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Optimization of consumer behavior through endless A/B testing optimizes behavior in favor of the corporations, not the society or the individual. So one of my bigger worries is that these optimization strategies will lead society into a dead end local maximum where everyone is perfectly conditioned to consume for the good of the corporation, when we could have taken a different path resulting in a more egalitarian outcome. Another worry is that through subtle manipulation of search result ordering, page load delays, news feed filtering, etc., Facebook, Google, et al. could influence politics and culture in counterproductive ways, even if only by algorithmic accident.
  - nickik 11y ago
    This is discussion that has happened in economics for a long time. I am still utterly inconvinced of the pure power of advertsing. Sure it has a big influence, but its not like google is so good that everybody is just a mindless zombi perfectly conditioned to buy whatever they show me. Even if that were the case, Im not clear why this would lead to less egalitarian outcome. Your second point is in conflict with the first. If they want me to consume as much as possible, they have to show me what I want. If they want to influence broad culture they have to show me what they want me to see. If it is by algorithmic accident, then its like all cultural devlopment. Its all accidents, nobody planes the evolution of culuture, google, facebook and reddit have already changed culture and will continue to do so. You points are a small worry, compared to something like the prospect of 1984.
- clouddrover 11y ago
  > Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it Gandhi would disagree with you. The weakness of hard power is that it is expensive, blatant in application, and virtually guaranteed to create opposition. The strength of soft power is that it is indirect while being cheaper and less likely to create resentment. People are best manipulated through suggestion rather than coercion. Hard power is ugly but at least it's obvious. Soft power can be just as ugly by being insidious.
  - 11y ago
sybhn 11y ago
The ones having monopoly on violence are a much stronger force. There is indeed a constant balancing act between them and the masses, but at the end the sooner you accept that that is the real and ultimate power, the world and its inner working, across cultures, will become clear to you.

Jerry2 11y ago

>Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference. That's a misleading analogy. Problem is that Google/ebay/Microsoft/Silicon Valley cooperate closely with the law enforcement and employ a lot of former LEO people who still have close connections with law enforcement. Check out some of the Yasha Levine's articles. He's one of the best investigative journalists when it comes to SiliconValley and surveillance. For example, he's writing a book, Surveillance Valley, precisely on this topic. Check out this short blurb that debunks this notion about Google not policing people: http://pando.com/2015/02/23/support-yasha-levines-surveillance-valley-a-book-about-how-silicon-valley-created-the-worlds-most-effective-surviellance-apparatus/ http://pando.com/2015/02/23/support-yasha-levines-surveillan... >Reveal how Silicon Valley polices our lives: There is a common misconception that no matter how much Silicon Valley companies spy on us, at least they don’t have the power to arrest and jail us. Truth is, they can and do. This book will investigate how the most progressive Internet companies — including eBay, Facebook and Google — engage in pro-active policing. For example: eBay’s massive private police alone has overseen thousands of arrests and convictions around the globe, and hands over complete criminal cases to government prosecutors “on a silver platter.” Anyway, truth is a lot darker.

dmfdmf 11y ago
>That's a misleading analogy. No. It's not misleading at all. And your example illustrates the important distinction the OP made. These companies that you mentioned almost have to cooperate with the government because the government has the ultimate power to fine or even jail them, not to mention harass them or put them out of business, if they refuse to cooperate. They can't just walk away from this issue. This is why government power and the use of the gun has to be strictly controlled by the constitution. This is what the FEDs, et. al. are trying to circumvent. Our basic liberties such as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. are empty words if the government attains the power to spy on all citizens en masse without out cause or warrant.
- barcoder 11y ago
  According to the article our behavior and therefore Freedom of Speech is being manipulated by these companies that in turn brings us full circle to the point that surveillance companies control our behavior and therefore our voting decisions and thus weapons. Check out Eric Schmidt's ties with government: http://www.naturalnews.com/051687_Google_Eric_Schmidt_Hillary_Clinton.html# http://www.naturalnews.com/051687_Google_Eric_Schmidt_Hillar...

pdkl95 11y ago

> Google does not. That's simply not true; they use the government's guns every time they file a lawsuit. While the government is the ultimate controller of that power, the economic and legal powers available to corporations depend on the enforcement of the state.

nickik 11y ago
Yes but that is the hole point. Those of use who are primly concerned with government and not corporations want to create a government and a legal system were neither the state itself or somebody using the state has the wide ranging powers that a modern state has. If the state simply does not have the ability to attack a country on the other side of the world, then no amount of bribing politicians can make it happen. When the state does not have backdoors into everything, their is no amount of political pressure that can make the state misuse that power. I want to limit government power because they have the monopoly of force. Everything that Google is doing threw the government has to go threw the governments monopoly of force. We need to control the monopoly of force by the rule of law on the level of individual freedom. The wrong way to go about it is to have a super powerful state that can easily regulate every aspect of what Google and co are doing and can tell them what to do because that is essentially Fascism.

hifier 11y ago

The difference is not about who is more powerful. The difference is that I can choose to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. I cannot (barring extreme measures) choose to disobey the government.

cronjobber 11y ago
Yeah, you have the "choice"... of cutting off most of your friends, your employers and customers, and be "Google free".
- paraxisi 11y ago
  Because using DDG and having friends are mutually exclusive.
  - cronjobber 11y ago
    Your friends are on google mail, maybe hidden behind their own domain. Your friends post stories and pictures involving you on G+. If you hang with them...and their android phones. You can get rid of them or you can accept being google data.
    - hifier 11y ago
      So?

wfo 11y ago

Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting the government does not have access to everything google has access to? And are you suggesting non-governmental agencies can't employ physical force? Like the groups of violent criminals used to destroy the pro-union movement many years ago or organized crime organizations to name a few examples? Are you suggesting if Google doesn't like someone it cannot outsource the violence to other organizations like the FBI by reporting appropriately? Are you suggesting all kinds of force are irrelevant compared to the most clumsy and inconsequential and most unimportant type of force used in our part of the world, physical force? Because any of those suggestions, all of which you seem to imply by your statement I would take issue with. The last being the most important. The platitudes suggesting anything a corporation does, no matter how powerful, is okay since it can't employ physical force, while anything the government does is wrong because it can are excellent fodder to trick children into accepting Libertarianism but are otherwise mostly ineffective.

magicGLASSman 11y ago
Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  > Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.
  - magicGLASSman 11y ago
    I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.

mirimir 11y ago

Yes. More generally, governments monopolize the use of force. Against corporate surveillance, there's at least a chance of resisting. Against governments, you put your life on the line. Anyway, it's a thoughtful essay. But I'm a simple person, and I tend to prefer action to contemplation. Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. You block tracking and ads. You harden browsers against fingerprinting. You use operating systems that respect your privacy. You compartmentalize your online activity enough that surveillance won't hurt you, using multiple devices and VMs, that connect via VPN services and Tor. It's not simple, I admit. But it can be a fun game. For me, anyway. Most people still don't seem to care enough to bother. And I don't know what it would take to change that. So it goes.

danieldk 11y ago
Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. It's harder than you suggest, because all that you propose helps little with some big elephants in the room: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-all-of-yours https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/facebook-privacy-phone-numbers-upload http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/faceb... http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ Basically, people have to start telling other people that they are jerks for letting big corporations mine their most private conversations just to save $1 or $2 dollars per month. Obviously, this won't happen.
- mirimir 11y ago
  I forgot to mention that one obviously doesn't use Gmail or Facebook. Or at least, one only uses them for superficial stuff. And one has multiple personas, with non-overlapping social networks. Most of those are online-only. But some can be LARP, if you like. It may be possible to use iOS anonymously. I have an anonymous Apple online account, and could presumably use it with used devices purchased for cash. Anyone know if that's doable?
  - 11y ago

teekert 11y ago

Also, Google is opt-in (to a degree, perhaps using Tor/blockers/anti-tracker should be called opt-out), The government presents not options.

ewYuck 11y ago
This "opt-in" bullshit needs to take a dirt nap. Claims like: you asked for it, it's your own fault, and on and on. You know you're full of shit. You're part of that same group of people who say: America, love it or leave it. You have the option to speak English or get the fuck out. It's like hearing someone tell me that I can vote nuclear weapons out of existence. Oh really? I've opted into mandatory JavaScript support, and opaque, minified JS which is required for so many sites, and I can stop server side exchanges of behavioral data, and I can just walk away from everything happening, and live in a cave, and I can opt into being a luddite instead? I suppose I opted into the planes that fly overhead too. My omission of any actions against air traffic represent my token assent tons of aluminum circling overhead 24 hours a day. Right?
actuallyNo 11y ago
This "opt-in" bullshit needs to take a dirt nap. Claims like: you asked for it, it's your own fault, and on and on. You know you're full of shit. You're part of that same group of people who say: America, love it or leave it. You have the option to speak English or get the fuck out. It's like hearing someone tell me that I can vote nuclear weapons out of existence. Like I can solve all my problems with my own little boycott! Oh really? I've opted into mandatory JavaScript support, and opaque, minified JS which is required for so many sites to even work (cross-origin policies aside), and I can stop server-side exchanges of behavioral data, and I can just walk away from everything happening around me, and live in a cave, and I can opt into being a luddite instead? I suppose I opted into the planes that fly overhead too. My omission of any actions against air traffic represent my token assent to having tons of aluminum circling overhead 24 hours a day. Right?
benevol 11y ago
Google is NOT opt-in. You know very well that their analytics product tracks everybody all across the Web (and techies are the only ones who know about noscript). And what do you do when you are forced to reply to Gmail emails because others who have no clue use it? Joe the user has no clue about "all this technical stuff", how it works, what it is capable of, how it can be combined with data from other DBs, how it is really used by the corporate and governmental world and where all this is going, especially when AI will have advanced even more.

kushti 11y ago

Google is already punishing people physically: http://yashalevine.com/articles/we-got-geeks-inside-google-s-ugly-war-against-the-homeless-in-la http://yashalevine.com/articles/we-got-geeks-inside-google-s...

kartan 11y ago

> Governments have guns, Google does not. (Some) Governments are elected by their citizens. Google Chiefs aren't. The important part for me it is to create up to date laws - and enforce them - that protect citizens for mass surveillance, public or private, while allowing for useful use of data like for making easier to file taxes or to store your personal contacts.