3 ms·

Why do you make this "private" distinction? If you give your info to ANY third party, public or private, the surveillance machine will have its hands on it. Sp

Why do you make this "private" distinction? If you give your info to ANY third party, public or private, the surveillance machine will have its hands on it. Specifically, you mention the post office. You do realize that your postal letters and packages are opened, scanned, and otherwise viewed in transit, don't you? I think you have way more faith in the public infrastructure, when it pertains to privacy, than it would merit.

williamcotton 11y ago
Can we please curb the use of such loaded terms like "the surveillance machine"? Briefly, the counter to your "they know everything and will do bad things to us" is "transparency in public infrastructure gives us contemporary civilization". Here's what I know about the legal infrastructure in the United States. Anything that leaves your house is considered "published". You are entitled to privacy within the confines of the physical property that you own. Hence, people can't put a GPS tracker on your vehicle without a warrant but they can dig through your trash without permission. As the Fourth Amendment clearly states, the government is entitled to search and seizure with a warrant. They don't need a warrant to look up phone records because you literally broadcast that information. If you use a phone, you're clearly transmitting information "to somewhere else". The same goes for the postal service, however, you have additional rights that services like Facebook do not offer. The Post Office can't take your photos or letters and use them to sell advertisements. To use any social media or 3rd party website you have to give up your rights to sue for copyright infringement, amongst many other things. How else could they sell your "private" information to marketers? I think it is really unhelpful to expect private companies to protect our individual rights. That's the goal of government. Arguing that government is ineffective is unhelpful. Figuring out how to make government effective is helpful. There are undoubtedly issues with the current legal infrastructure related to digital telecommunications but the proper course of action is going to be in following the existing procedures to make the necessary changes, be it via legislation or amendments to the constitution.

williamcotton 11y ago

Can we please curb the use of such loaded terms like "the surveillance machine"? Briefly, the counter to your "they know everything and will do bad things to us" is "transparency in public infrastructure gives us contemporary civilization". Here's what I know about the legal infrastructure in the United States. Anything that leaves your house is considered "published". You are entitled to privacy within the confines of the physical property that you own. Hence, people can't put a GPS tracker on your vehicle without a warrant but they can dig through your trash without permission. As the Fourth Amendment clearly states, the government is entitled to search and seizure with a warrant. They don't need a warrant to look up phone records because you literally broadcast that information. If you use a phone, you're clearly transmitting information "to somewhere else". The same goes for the postal service, however, you have additional rights that services like Facebook do not offer. The Post Office can't take your photos or letters and use them to sell advertisements. To use any social media or 3rd party website you have to give up your rights to sue for copyright infringement, amongst many other things. How else could they sell your "private" information to marketers? I think it is really unhelpful to expect private companies to protect our individual rights. That's the goal of government. Arguing that government is ineffective is unhelpful. Figuring out how to make government effective is helpful. There are undoubtedly issues with the current legal infrastructure related to digital telecommunications but the proper course of action is going to be in following the existing procedures to make the necessary changes, be it via legislation or amendments to the constitution.