4 ms·

There are 2 issues in this: 1) Governments have law and warrants allowing them to get those data. 2) Companies with a lot of data are complying with those war

There are 2 issues in this: 1) Governments have law and warrants allowing them to get those data. 2) Companies with a lot of data are complying with those warrants. The question is: can we fix #2 without fixing #1?

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
Well, Federal government is acting in unaccountable ways. I would suggest that State powers that be can be used in large enough numbers to leverage the Federal to do the right thing. That is assuming you have greater trust in state power.
Kalium 7y ago
If you have data, or have any way to collect data, you can be compelled to hand it over. The only real way to address #2 is by finding a way for companies to get all the value that comes from having this data without having to store or even process it.
- salawat 7y ago
  Why should these companies be entitled to the value of this data in the first place? The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is nobody understood what they were doing. If you catch a child doing something they aren't supposed to... Say sneaking chocolate you hid in your closet, when you aren't looking, and you don't catch them doing it until a week later; are we seriously going to entertain that the right action on catching these misbehaving children is to let them keep/continue to reap the benefits of their ill-gotten gains? That's what allowing the continuation of this metadata collection sounds like it amounts to to me. This pervasive invasion of privacy is not normal, never has been; nor should it ever be. Not breaking the capability for companies to engage in surveillance capitalism represents an implicit acceptance of the nullity of Constitutional protections through indirections facilitated by Third Party Doctrine. That is not okay.
  - thanhhaimai 7y ago
    You're not only catching a child sneaking chocolate. You're catching a child who are legally told by the police to go get the chocolate and hand it over, or else the child will be expelled from school. Again, the question becomes: can you fix the child's behavior without fixing the fact that they are legally required to follow the police's words with no recourse?
    - NieDzejkob 7y ago
      Whether the chocolate is handed over doesn't really affect the sneaking itself being wrong.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    > Why should these companies be entitled to the value of this data in the first place? The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is nobody understood what they were doing. In many cases, they're using it to do things users like. Such as estimating commute times. Or do demand modeling and understand where they should upgrade cell networks. You can offer services without these things - and please do! - but expect users to notice.
breerly 7y ago
The real question is: is there a market for privacy-respecting tech services (think Apple's new stance on E2E privacy or laptops like Purism), such that consumers themselves can vote with their own dollars? The best way to protect and re-establish the right to personal privacy is through market demand, not legislation.
- Kalium 7y ago
  There is! It's just so far proven to not be as large as one might hope. Consumers, when faced with services that don't offer them the features they want and higher prices, often think twice about preferring privacy. There's a lot of money to be made by someone who finds a way to deliver the full-fat experience consumers want at the prices consumers are used to while also respecting privacy. Until then, I expect things like Purism and Protonmail to stay fairly niche concerns.
OrgNet 7y ago
you need to fix the laws no matter what.

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago

Well, Federal government is acting in unaccountable ways. I would suggest that State powers that be can be used in large enough numbers to leverage the Federal to do the right thing. That is assuming you have greater trust in state power.

Kalium 7y ago

If you have data, or have any way to collect data, you can be compelled to hand it over. The only real way to address #2 is by finding a way for companies to get all the value that comes from having this data without having to store or even process it.

salawat 7y ago
Why should these companies be entitled to the value of this data in the first place? The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is nobody understood what they were doing. If you catch a child doing something they aren't supposed to... Say sneaking chocolate you hid in your closet, when you aren't looking, and you don't catch them doing it until a week later; are we seriously going to entertain that the right action on catching these misbehaving children is to let them keep/continue to reap the benefits of their ill-gotten gains? That's what allowing the continuation of this metadata collection sounds like it amounts to to me. This pervasive invasion of privacy is not normal, never has been; nor should it ever be. Not breaking the capability for companies to engage in surveillance capitalism represents an implicit acceptance of the nullity of Constitutional protections through indirections facilitated by Third Party Doctrine. That is not okay.
- thanhhaimai 7y ago
  You're not only catching a child sneaking chocolate. You're catching a child who are legally told by the police to go get the chocolate and hand it over, or else the child will be expelled from school. Again, the question becomes: can you fix the child's behavior without fixing the fact that they are legally required to follow the police's words with no recourse?
  - NieDzejkob 7y ago
    Whether the chocolate is handed over doesn't really affect the sneaking itself being wrong.
- Kalium 7y ago
  > Why should these companies be entitled to the value of this data in the first place? The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is nobody understood what they were doing. In many cases, they're using it to do things users like. Such as estimating commute times. Or do demand modeling and understand where they should upgrade cell networks. You can offer services without these things - and please do! - but expect users to notice.

breerly 7y ago

The real question is: is there a market for privacy-respecting tech services (think Apple's new stance on E2E privacy or laptops like Purism), such that consumers themselves can vote with their own dollars? The best way to protect and re-establish the right to personal privacy is through market demand, not legislation.

Kalium 7y ago
There is! It's just so far proven to not be as large as one might hope. Consumers, when faced with services that don't offer them the features they want and higher prices, often think twice about preferring privacy. There's a lot of money to be made by someone who finds a way to deliver the full-fat experience consumers want at the prices consumers are used to while also respecting privacy. Until then, I expect things like Purism and Protonmail to stay fairly niche concerns.

OrgNet 7y ago

you need to fix the laws no matter what.