4 ms·

I think the point about Google vs. government and who should have our private information is one of the crucial points. Google is a company and there's very li

by nanairo 16y ago

I think the point about Google vs. government and who should have our private information is one of the crucial points. Google is a company and there's very little that we (the citizens) can do against it. Every citizen holds a vote for the government, but only the shareholders have any vote about Google.

sosuke 16y ago
I spoke about this just the other night, supposedly a company wants to implement a city wide retina scan system for criminals and for opt-in people it would act as a payment gateway. We both agreed that a company that isn't controlled in some way by the people should not have that information because they can't properly be held accountable through due process. The government having that information isn't much better at all but if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils I'd pick the government.
moultano 16y ago
You can't escape from the government. You _can_ abstain from google's products.
- tswicegood 16y ago
  I don't think this is a fair point as most people who are engaged in anything online don't have the technical wherewithal to correctly abstain. How many people do you know who are not directly involved in tech that would even begin to fathom what you meant if you told them to "add a 127.0.0.1 alias to your /etc/hosts file"? Breaking it down further, how many would know what "127.0.0.1" meant, or even what "/etc/hosts" was?
  - moultano 16y ago
    They don't have to. If enough people wanted it, anyone one of us on this forum could build a "Google blocker" that would effectively remove google from the user's life and give it away or sell it.
- nanairo 16y ago
  And what if yahoo does it too (as I imagine they would), and so does Microsoft, and Facebook, and Foursquare... at which point you can't abstain any more? I also can abstain from using the pensions, or public doctors, etc... Sure the government _can_ know some information, but I would imagine there's a lot that's optional there too. It's just that the alternative is so bad that it's not really an option. So would a future controlled by corporations.
- willwagner 16y ago
  You mean abstain from any website that doesn't block google from crawling it and that might have your personal information, either directly from your participation or by aggregating your information from other sources.
pchristensen 16y ago
"only the shareholders have any vote about Google." Although not really, because of the special stock that Larry and Sergei have. They own ~30% of the stock but their shares have 10 votes apiece, so they have complete control of the company, even though they share the financial gains of the company.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Ah, this is VERY interesting piece of information. Thanks a lot. Yep, that does make a lot of difference.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Any idea what happens if they sell their shares and/or die? Do the shares revert to ordinary shares as soon as someone else gets 'em, or is it a special class of stock?
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    "Do the shares revert to ordinary shares as soon as someone else gets 'em" Yep.
byrneseyeview 16y ago
Google is a company and there's very little that we (the citizens) can do against it. duckduckgo.com That was easy! Now, please let me know how I can select a different set of tax laws, drug laws, civil liberties, tort laws, and foreign policies. (And no, moving to a different country is not as easy as typing in a different URL.)
- nanairo 16y ago
  You vote for it. Sorry, it may not be much but that's how democracy works. I'd love to hear of a better system but as someone a lot wiser than me said, they haven't found it yet. At the same time these are laws that will affect you AND other people: if everyone thought about themselves we'd get nowhere. We could start a political philosophy discussion but I think it's OT. As for changing URL, first you may very well lose much in doing so (isn't it getting harder and harder to avoid using Google?). That's the whole point of monopolies, and the USA has many laws to prevent abuse of monopoly powers. Why should we not have laws to prevent abuse of information power?
  - byrneseyeview 16y ago
    I don't understand. My vote is meaningless; I've never decided an election. If an election is close enough for one vote to make a difference, you can bet that it will go to the courts. So it sounds like what you're saying is that if I don't like the government, my options are expensive and/or ineffectual, whereas if I don't like Google, I can spend a fraction of a second switching to another search engine. Of course it's getting harder to avoid Google! But it's still possible, if you feel that it's net beneficial. I think another way to phrase your argument is "By using my personal information to target ads and create more valuable search results, Google can subsidize some amazing products that I love. I would prefer to live in a reality in which such products exist, but can be paid for through some alternative means. Give me that reality, please." Or you mean "It's not worth it for me to use Google products, so I don't." This isn't like participating in politics; you can actually make a difference. Is Google worth it?
- philwelch 16y ago
  Right you are. The OP breaks out this old chestnut: ...but at least our government answers to its citizens through elections. but frankly, corporations are a lot more responsive than governments--I can choose which corporations effect me more easily than I can choose which governments effect me, and while one marginal vote has literally no effect, one marginal sale has at least a marginal effect. So while one political party can happily ignore maybe 1% of the population entirely (polyamorous people trying to get polymarried, perhaps) in favor of an antagonistic 55%, in a business situation any old fringe group can get some business to cater to them (http://www.utilikilts.com/ http://www.utilikilts.com/).
Ratufa 16y ago
The public can do something about it --- people can make it clear that they support (additional) legislation to restrict what information companies can collect and what they can do with it. But, it's not clear that the public is willing to make this an issue that influences their vote enough to overcome resistance to such laws by companies that benefit from collecting and selling personal data. As for the government vs private company distinction: It seems pretty likely to me that most information that a company collects about a person will, eventually, become available to the government (Gruber touched on this). It may take a warrant, national security letter, or additional legislation for the government to be able to obtain it, but the usefulness of this data for various government functions (e.g. anti-terrorism, tracking fugitives, mining the data for tax cheats, etc) is too high.

by nanairo 16y ago

sosuke 16y ago

I spoke about this just the other night, supposedly a company wants to implement a city wide retina scan system for criminals and for opt-in people it would act as a payment gateway. We both agreed that a company that isn't controlled in some way by the people should not have that information because they can't properly be held accountable through due process. The government having that information isn't much better at all but if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils I'd pick the government.

moultano 16y ago

You can't escape from the government. You _can_ abstain from google's products.

tswicegood 16y ago
I don't think this is a fair point as most people who are engaged in anything online don't have the technical wherewithal to correctly abstain. How many people do you know who are not directly involved in tech that would even begin to fathom what you meant if you told them to "add a 127.0.0.1 alias to your /etc/hosts file"? Breaking it down further, how many would know what "127.0.0.1" meant, or even what "/etc/hosts" was?
- moultano 16y ago
  They don't have to. If enough people wanted it, anyone one of us on this forum could build a "Google blocker" that would effectively remove google from the user's life and give it away or sell it.
nanairo 16y ago
And what if yahoo does it too (as I imagine they would), and so does Microsoft, and Facebook, and Foursquare... at which point you can't abstain any more? I also can abstain from using the pensions, or public doctors, etc... Sure the government _can_ know some information, but I would imagine there's a lot that's optional there too. It's just that the alternative is so bad that it's not really an option. So would a future controlled by corporations.
willwagner 16y ago
You mean abstain from any website that doesn't block google from crawling it and that might have your personal information, either directly from your participation or by aggregating your information from other sources.

pchristensen 16y ago

"only the shareholders have any vote about Google." Although not really, because of the special stock that Larry and Sergei have. They own ~30% of the stock but their shares have 10 votes apiece, so they have complete control of the company, even though they share the financial gains of the company.

nanairo 16y ago
Ah, this is VERY interesting piece of information. Thanks a lot. Yep, that does make a lot of difference.
hugh3 16y ago
Any idea what happens if they sell their shares and/or die? Do the shares revert to ordinary shares as soon as someone else gets 'em, or is it a special class of stock?
- pchristensen 16y ago
  "Do the shares revert to ordinary shares as soon as someone else gets 'em" Yep.

byrneseyeview 16y ago

Google is a company and there's very little that we (the citizens) can do against it. duckduckgo.com That was easy! Now, please let me know how I can select a different set of tax laws, drug laws, civil liberties, tort laws, and foreign policies. (And no, moving to a different country is not as easy as typing in a different URL.)

nanairo 16y ago
You vote for it. Sorry, it may not be much but that's how democracy works. I'd love to hear of a better system but as someone a lot wiser than me said, they haven't found it yet. At the same time these are laws that will affect you AND other people: if everyone thought about themselves we'd get nowhere. We could start a political philosophy discussion but I think it's OT. As for changing URL, first you may very well lose much in doing so (isn't it getting harder and harder to avoid using Google?). That's the whole point of monopolies, and the USA has many laws to prevent abuse of monopoly powers. Why should we not have laws to prevent abuse of information power?
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
  I don't understand. My vote is meaningless; I've never decided an election. If an election is close enough for one vote to make a difference, you can bet that it will go to the courts. So it sounds like what you're saying is that if I don't like the government, my options are expensive and/or ineffectual, whereas if I don't like Google, I can spend a fraction of a second switching to another search engine. Of course it's getting harder to avoid Google! But it's still possible, if you feel that it's net beneficial. I think another way to phrase your argument is "By using my personal information to target ads and create more valuable search results, Google can subsidize some amazing products that I love. I would prefer to live in a reality in which such products exist, but can be paid for through some alternative means. Give me that reality, please." Or you mean "It's not worth it for me to use Google products, so I don't." This isn't like participating in politics; you can actually make a difference. Is Google worth it?
philwelch 16y ago
Right you are. The OP breaks out this old chestnut: ...but at least our government answers to its citizens through elections. but frankly, corporations are a lot more responsive than governments--I can choose which corporations effect me more easily than I can choose which governments effect me, and while one marginal vote has literally no effect, one marginal sale has at least a marginal effect. So while one political party can happily ignore maybe 1% of the population entirely (polyamorous people trying to get polymarried, perhaps) in favor of an antagonistic 55%, in a business situation any old fringe group can get some business to cater to them (http://www.utilikilts.com/ http://www.utilikilts.com/).

Ratufa 16y ago

The public can do something about it --- people can make it clear that they support (additional) legislation to restrict what information companies can collect and what they can do with it. But, it's not clear that the public is willing to make this an issue that influences their vote enough to overcome resistance to such laws by companies that benefit from collecting and selling personal data. As for the government vs private company distinction: It seems pretty likely to me that most information that a company collects about a person will, eventually, become available to the government (Gruber touched on this). It may take a warrant, national security letter, or additional legislation for the government to be able to obtain it, but the usefulness of this data for various government functions (e.g. anti-terrorism, tracking fugitives, mining the data for tax cheats, etc) is too high.