4 ms·

>And? How does that matter? What's dangerous in them collecting my location information? What's dangerous about them compiling your medical history? Who are yo

>And? How does that matter? What's dangerous in them collecting my location information? What's dangerous about them compiling your medical history? Who are you afraid of? Oh wait, that's a HIPAA violation. I wonder if they keep track of the location of every doctor's office you visit... and that abortion clinic... and that methadone clinic. Surely, nothing to lose there. The only information that isn't hackable, is information that's never gathered in the first place. The more valuable the information, the more likely someone will spend nation-state amounts of dollars to get it. I propose Donald Trump use the NSA (legally) to steal all of this information to track illegal immigrants who pass between Mexico and the USA border who don't have a passport on file. And then send SWAT officers to break into everyone's current location, throw them into vans, and send them back over to Mexico. Wow, that's really fucked up, huh? And Google made it possible.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cube2222 9y ago
I do think that people wanting to break into my medical history, could much easier just break into the system where my doctors hold my medical documentation, at least that's 100x easier than breaking into Google. The medical clinics have to check my ID anyways, so they have all the info about me. As for the second one: yes, if I'd be doing something inherently illegal, having a phone with Google on it could be kind of dangerous to me. As I'm not doing anything like that, I have no reason not to use it. Yes, with technology comes digitalization of information, and people can hack any of the places my information is, wherein Google is one of the most secure comparatively. You could argue that digitalization is bad, but before that, you could just find info on patients in the dumpster of the clinic.
- kerberos84 9y ago
  Well the problem is they don't need to hack in to google. Google is more than happy to sell your data to insurance companies for a reasonable $$$
  - katastic 9y ago
    And companies like Facebook can literally "correlate" you back to a real name / unique person. That's literally what they do for people who don't even have Facebook profiles.
- katastic 9y ago
  >having a phone with Google on it could be kind of dangerous to me. As I'm not doing anything like that, I have no reason not to use it. So those doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear? Isn't that a far-right argument? What about states where marijuana is legal but the ATF/feds still break down your house because it's not legal on a federal level? What if Trump decides to go after anyone he thinks is a "drug dealer"? He surely didn't focus his acts when he made the Muslim ban instead of a terrorist ban. And what about when the government started tracking and wire-tapping journalists under the last presidency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_inv... We like to pretend our country is "the good guys" but we track and suppress journalists and dissenters (and break and ban encryption) just like any other country and we should NOT be giving companies that ASSIST and ENABLE that draconian act any moral slack. This isn't a movie, this is real life and it's going on right now. People's lives are affected by data. What happens when some neo-con makes an app that correlates people's user ID's and finds anyone who went to a gay club, and outs them. Uber, for example, has all the required information. And now we know that Google does too. And the only protection we have is the "hope" or "trust" that Google is 1) unhackable, 2) unpersuadable by governments or financial interests and 3) infallible in implementation with no exploits. I keep saying it and I'll say it again: "The only unhackable data, is data that's never collected in the first place." The more valuable the data, the more incentive there is to get it through legal or illegal means. And nation-states are definitely watching and exploiting useful data. We see it in massive breaches every month.
khedoros1 9y ago
> I propose Donald Trump use the NSA (legally) to steal all of this information to track illegal immigrants who pass between Mexico and the USA border who don't have a passport on file. > Wow, that's really fucked up, huh? Well, fucked up that you're picking specifically on the Mexicans, sure (it's not right to ratchet up enforcement on just one nationality or race). And more than a little heavy-handed on enforcement. Other than the obvious hyperbole, it's enforcing the law. Selective enforcement and non-enforcement of laws that you disagree with isn't a good thing; it allows those laws to stay on the books past their usefulness.
- katastic 9y ago
  You're intentionally focusing on a piece of my argument that you can distort into racism so you don't have to debate the rest. I picked Mexican deportation because it's an issue WE all disagree with. It's using common ground to make an argument. You might as well be calling anyone who says "hitler was evil" a neo-Nazi. I'm arguing AGAINST giving Trump tools for deportation. Get off your moral high horse so you can realize we're all on the same plane.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > I'm arguing AGAINST giving Trump tools for deportation. I understand that. I picked that section of your argument to attack because I'm against targeting specific races or nationalities, but I'm not against enforcing our current laws against criminals. We should absolutely enforce our immigration laws. Just like we should enforce our laws governing medical privacy and such. I disagree with "Mexican deportation" because it's targeting the wrong thing. Anyone subject to deportation should be deported, not just some specific race or nationality. If that's not what the country wants anymore, cool, that'll generate the support to overhaul the laws. Loosen residency and citizenship requirements. Get it so those people don't have to hide in the shadows. This "sanctuary city/state" crap is just prolonging the pain. It's a net negative for the states and the country as a whole. As a whole, I'm against giving the government more information than it already has. But your argument made assumptions that don't hold, through much of the country. It was like reading "Civil forfeiture is unjust and should be outlawed. We should be allowed to transport our life savings in cash cross-country. And also the money from that chop shop we run in our spare time."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cube2222 9y ago

I do think that people wanting to break into my medical history, could much easier just break into the system where my doctors hold my medical documentation, at least that's 100x easier than breaking into Google. The medical clinics have to check my ID anyways, so they have all the info about me. As for the second one: yes, if I'd be doing something inherently illegal, having a phone with Google on it could be kind of dangerous to me. As I'm not doing anything like that, I have no reason not to use it. Yes, with technology comes digitalization of information, and people can hack any of the places my information is, wherein Google is one of the most secure comparatively. You could argue that digitalization is bad, but before that, you could just find info on patients in the dumpster of the clinic.

kerberos84 9y ago
Well the problem is they don't need to hack in to google. Google is more than happy to sell your data to insurance companies for a reasonable $$$
- katastic 9y ago
  And companies like Facebook can literally "correlate" you back to a real name / unique person. That's literally what they do for people who don't even have Facebook profiles.
katastic 9y ago
>having a phone with Google on it could be kind of dangerous to me. As I'm not doing anything like that, I have no reason not to use it. So those doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear? Isn't that a far-right argument? What about states where marijuana is legal but the ATF/feds still break down your house because it's not legal on a federal level? What if Trump decides to go after anyone he thinks is a "drug dealer"? He surely didn't focus his acts when he made the Muslim ban instead of a terrorist ban. And what about when the government started tracking and wire-tapping journalists under the last presidency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_inv... We like to pretend our country is "the good guys" but we track and suppress journalists and dissenters (and break and ban encryption) just like any other country and we should NOT be giving companies that ASSIST and ENABLE that draconian act any moral slack. This isn't a movie, this is real life and it's going on right now. People's lives are affected by data. What happens when some neo-con makes an app that correlates people's user ID's and finds anyone who went to a gay club, and outs them. Uber, for example, has all the required information. And now we know that Google does too. And the only protection we have is the "hope" or "trust" that Google is 1) unhackable, 2) unpersuadable by governments or financial interests and 3) infallible in implementation with no exploits. I keep saying it and I'll say it again: "The only unhackable data, is data that's never collected in the first place." The more valuable the data, the more incentive there is to get it through legal or illegal means. And nation-states are definitely watching and exploiting useful data. We see it in massive breaches every month.

khedoros1 9y ago

> I propose Donald Trump use the NSA (legally) to steal all of this information to track illegal immigrants who pass between Mexico and the USA border who don't have a passport on file. > Wow, that's really fucked up, huh? Well, fucked up that you're picking specifically on the Mexicans, sure (it's not right to ratchet up enforcement on just one nationality or race). And more than a little heavy-handed on enforcement. Other than the obvious hyperbole, it's enforcing the law. Selective enforcement and non-enforcement of laws that you disagree with isn't a good thing; it allows those laws to stay on the books past their usefulness.

katastic 9y ago
You're intentionally focusing on a piece of my argument that you can distort into racism so you don't have to debate the rest. I picked Mexican deportation because it's an issue WE all disagree with. It's using common ground to make an argument. You might as well be calling anyone who says "hitler was evil" a neo-Nazi. I'm arguing AGAINST giving Trump tools for deportation. Get off your moral high horse so you can realize we're all on the same plane.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > I'm arguing AGAINST giving Trump tools for deportation. I understand that. I picked that section of your argument to attack because I'm against targeting specific races or nationalities, but I'm not against enforcing our current laws against criminals. We should absolutely enforce our immigration laws. Just like we should enforce our laws governing medical privacy and such. I disagree with "Mexican deportation" because it's targeting the wrong thing. Anyone subject to deportation should be deported, not just some specific race or nationality. If that's not what the country wants anymore, cool, that'll generate the support to overhaul the laws. Loosen residency and citizenship requirements. Get it so those people don't have to hide in the shadows. This "sanctuary city/state" crap is just prolonging the pain. It's a net negative for the states and the country as a whole. As a whole, I'm against giving the government more information than it already has. But your argument made assumptions that don't hold, through much of the country. It was like reading "Civil forfeiture is unjust and should be outlawed. We should be allowed to transport our life savings in cash cross-country. And also the money from that chop shop we run in our spare time."