3 ms·

"spying on people" is a really unfair way to describe what happens when you voluntarily share your information with a third party who is in turn subpoenaed. Yo

"spying on people" is a really unfair way to describe what happens when you voluntarily share your information with a third party who is in turn subpoenaed. You should be taking issue with the governments demanding the records rather than expecting these companies to break the law on your behalf.

mahmud 16y ago
Where do you draw the line? what governments is google allowed to hand over information to vs which ones it can deny?
- dschobel 16y ago
  The simple answer is wherever they have operations. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you are going to run ops within a country you implicitly have to follow the law of the land. That being said, thinking they shouldn't be in a particular country which obligates them to do these things is a much more sound position than just saying they shouldn't follow the law in a few particular cases. Ultimately, if you know they are operating in a country with a government which likes to do these sorts of things, caveat utilitor. (At least, try not to look so surprised when the police come knocking.)
  - mahmud 16y ago
    wherever they have operations And because of that I choose to use a 1-man search engine, without loss of quality, while gaining everything last bit of privacy. And because of this, his stunt of a billboard ad is actually truthful.
    - dschobel 16y ago
      Whether you place your trust in a multibillion dollar company, a one man shop, or just use an anonymizing proxy, the issues are the same. The billboard is just noise and you are technically sophisticated enough to know better.
awakeasleep 16y ago
Few spies self-identify as someone who hurts innocent people. They think of themselves as supporting their family while helping their government or something. Don't focus on what nouns different parts of the spying apparatus choose to label themselves with, or what other functions they serve. Instead, consider their effects in the context of being a spying apparatus.
- dschobel 16y ago
  But how is it spying if you use the service voluntarily, they tell you exactly that they collect and often (always?) let you opt out of the collection. That's a really diluted standard for "spying".
  - awakeasleep 16y ago
    Well, consider spies in WW2, specifically the "loose lips sink ships" variety. The spies that saying warns of were not crawling around in vents with night vision goggles, they were your friends, neighbors, and coworkers who would relay semi-public information to a processing center that used the info towards harmful ends. I see this situation as a direct analogue. We communicate naturally with a supposedly disinterested or trustworthy party, who then collects that information and distributes it to others, without our best interests in mind.
_delirium 16y ago
Do Google and Yahoo actually have a policy of only turning over information to governments when subpoenaed, or otherwise legally compelled, and promise not to voluntarily turn over such information in the absence of a court order? I can't find any solid statements on that from either company.

mahmud 16y ago

Where do you draw the line? what governments is google allowed to hand over information to vs which ones it can deny?

dschobel 16y ago
The simple answer is wherever they have operations. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you are going to run ops within a country you implicitly have to follow the law of the land. That being said, thinking they shouldn't be in a particular country which obligates them to do these things is a much more sound position than just saying they shouldn't follow the law in a few particular cases. Ultimately, if you know they are operating in a country with a government which likes to do these sorts of things, caveat utilitor. (At least, try not to look so surprised when the police come knocking.)
- mahmud 16y ago
  wherever they have operations And because of that I choose to use a 1-man search engine, without loss of quality, while gaining everything last bit of privacy. And because of this, his stunt of a billboard ad is actually truthful.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    Whether you place your trust in a multibillion dollar company, a one man shop, or just use an anonymizing proxy, the issues are the same. The billboard is just noise and you are technically sophisticated enough to know better.

awakeasleep 16y ago

Few spies self-identify as someone who hurts innocent people. They think of themselves as supporting their family while helping their government or something. Don't focus on what nouns different parts of the spying apparatus choose to label themselves with, or what other functions they serve. Instead, consider their effects in the context of being a spying apparatus.

dschobel 16y ago
But how is it spying if you use the service voluntarily, they tell you exactly that they collect and often (always?) let you opt out of the collection. That's a really diluted standard for "spying".
- awakeasleep 16y ago
  Well, consider spies in WW2, specifically the "loose lips sink ships" variety. The spies that saying warns of were not crawling around in vents with night vision goggles, they were your friends, neighbors, and coworkers who would relay semi-public information to a processing center that used the info towards harmful ends. I see this situation as a direct analogue. We communicate naturally with a supposedly disinterested or trustworthy party, who then collects that information and distributes it to others, without our best interests in mind.

_delirium 16y ago

Do Google and Yahoo actually have a policy of only turning over information to governments when subpoenaed, or otherwise legally compelled, and promise not to voluntarily turn over such information in the absence of a court order? I can't find any solid statements on that from either company.