5 ms·

So, you can't trust the government to oversee the tech companies. You can't trust companies to protect privacy. You can't trust voters/users to make good deci

So, you can't trust the government to oversee the tech companies. You can't trust companies to protect privacy. You can't trust voters/users to make good decisions on voting for the government or choosing the "right" companies to support. That doesn't leave a lot of options, unfortunately.

scarface74 7y ago
It’s called free will. You can logout of Facebook You can not use Google and use an ad ad blocker. You can buy online from some place besides Amazon You can not buy a mobile phone running an operating system written by an ad company. What you can’t easily do is change your government.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  You can't solve a collective action problem just with free will, though. You can choose not to use those services and still have your privacy invaded, through other people posting things about you, cameras in public spaces, phone tracking, etc. You can choose to live like a recluse to avoid this (no phones, stay out of public places, don't let friends take your picture, etc), but saying that is a reasonable choice is ridiculous. This is like people who say "well, if you don't like how the credit bureau's operate, just don't use credit! Sure, you can do that... but you won't be able to ever buy a house, get many jobs, fly on an airplane, etc. More and more restaurants and stores are even going 'cashless'. It might technically still be a choice, but it is not a reasonable one you can expect people to make.
- mindslight 7y ago
  I'm all for protecting oneself in the framework of anarcho-capitalism, as it the default state of nature. But most people agree it is the government's place to prevent aggression between members of society. And pervasive surveillance is aggression. Suggestions of individual actions are worthwhile, and it behooves everyone to take all of the personal steps they can to protect themselves. But the existence of individual actions culminating in a hypothetical path to opting out does not justify harm being done when people fail to live up to them.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So generically, who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power? Google to advertise to me better or the government who can take my stuff based on a vague suspicion via civil forfeiture and has the power to send me to jail? More personally, as a Black guy living in the mostly White burbs in the south - ie looking suspicious for living my life - who should I worry more about big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood) or the “justice system”?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      > who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power Wu. Constructing a "lesser evil" choice is simply a way of justifying evil. > Google to advertise to me better It's not mere "advertising". Google's surveillance trove will be exploited for economic gain in unenumerable ways. Sort individuals into classes, market a message of safety, and discriminate to keep the undesirables away - it's the age old playbook. The results of this paradigm will eventually be sold directly to the de jure government, as Experian et al currently do, making the distinction moot. > big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood) So you've chosen to align yourself with a more-distant oppressive power, hoping that doing so will buy you power to defend against a closer oppressor. Sure that may be prudent, but it is not morally right nor is it sustainable. And backfitting from "what is" to "what should be" is never a good idea. Less abstractly, yes the US government is corrupt and generally pushes garbage like this EARN act. But that isn't an intrinsic argument against anti-totalitarian regulation akin to the GDPR. Rather the lack of the action on the latter is better seen as further evidence of said corruption.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Constructing a "lesser evil" choice is simply a way of justifying evil. On the scale of “lesser evil” the government being able to arrest, harass, violate civil liberties and lock someone up is off the charts compared to what big tech can do. Sure that may be prudent, but it is not morally right nor is it sustainable. And backfitting from "what is" to "what should be" is never a good idea. So I should be more worried about what you consider is “morally right” instead of putting myself in a position where I can afford a competent lawyer - instead of an overworked public defender - to keep me or my family from being railroaded by the criminal justice system? But that isn't an intrinsic argument against anti-totalitarian regulation akin to the GDPR. Rather the lack of the action on the latter is better seen as further evidence of said corruption. You realize that you want to give the government more power that in my parents lifetime (who are still alive) has said that interracial marriage should be illegal, segregation should be legal and even as recently as the 80s has had laws making it crime punishable by jail time for adults of the same gender to have sex? As far as big tech vs the government, big tech has never discriminated against me when trying to get a job. I feel the same way about tech vs the government that Muhammad Ali felt about going to the Vietnam War. I’ll leave it for the readers to search for what he said.
everdrive 7y ago
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
zentiggr 7y ago
Before just responding with all the ways this could go wrong immediately, I'm making clear that this is a discussion point, not a call to action. I'm aware of a lot of the immediate problems this suggestion could cause, I'm not posting this lightly. So: As an expression of the extreme opposite end of all this, a talking point: what would happen if we simply stopped hiding information? Open up every server, make lists of name/add/SSN/credit info, medical, legal, everything under the sun open? Governments, too. And every company. Find every 'secured' server and remove all access restrictions, every machine, everywhere. No doubt there would be about a generation or two worth of chaos, as everyone learns everything about everyone and we figure out new ways to protect ourselves from the bad actors/stalkers/black ops people now in the open, etc etc etc. What would we look like as people and as a society? Could we learn to be honest and aboveboard and treat each other with respect, instead of taking advantage of each other because of all the secrets and perceived leverage? Remember, in this new world, all the corporate info is out there to see, all the personal details and dealings of the manipulators as well as us peons. How hard is it going to be to be Google, profiting off marketed secrets, when there aren't any? How hard is it going to be to peddle misinformation, when the actual history is there for anyone to look at?
refurb 7y ago
Trusting the government is solvable - simply don't give them any more power than you're willing to let them abuse.

scarface74 7y ago

It’s called free will. You can logout of Facebook You can not use Google and use an ad ad blocker. You can buy online from some place besides Amazon You can not buy a mobile phone running an operating system written by an ad company. What you can’t easily do is change your government.

cortesoft 7y ago
You can't solve a collective action problem just with free will, though. You can choose not to use those services and still have your privacy invaded, through other people posting things about you, cameras in public spaces, phone tracking, etc. You can choose to live like a recluse to avoid this (no phones, stay out of public places, don't let friends take your picture, etc), but saying that is a reasonable choice is ridiculous. This is like people who say "well, if you don't like how the credit bureau's operate, just don't use credit! Sure, you can do that... but you won't be able to ever buy a house, get many jobs, fly on an airplane, etc. More and more restaurants and stores are even going 'cashless'. It might technically still be a choice, but it is not a reasonable one you can expect people to make.
mindslight 7y ago
I'm all for protecting oneself in the framework of anarcho-capitalism, as it the default state of nature. But most people agree it is the government's place to prevent aggression between members of society. And pervasive surveillance is aggression. Suggestions of individual actions are worthwhile, and it behooves everyone to take all of the personal steps they can to protect themselves. But the existence of individual actions culminating in a hypothetical path to opting out does not justify harm being done when people fail to live up to them.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So generically, who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power? Google to advertise to me better or the government who can take my stuff based on a vague suspicion via civil forfeiture and has the power to send me to jail? More personally, as a Black guy living in the mostly White burbs in the south - ie looking suspicious for living my life - who should I worry more about big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood) or the “justice system”?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    > who should I be more worried about having my information and having more power Wu. Constructing a "lesser evil" choice is simply a way of justifying evil. > Google to advertise to me better It's not mere "advertising". Google's surveillance trove will be exploited for economic gain in unenumerable ways. Sort individuals into classes, market a message of safety, and discriminate to keep the undesirables away - it's the age old playbook. The results of this paradigm will eventually be sold directly to the de jure government, as Experian et al currently do, making the distinction moot. > big tech (that indirectly provides for my livelihood) So you've chosen to align yourself with a more-distant oppressive power, hoping that doing so will buy you power to defend against a closer oppressor. Sure that may be prudent, but it is not morally right nor is it sustainable. And backfitting from "what is" to "what should be" is never a good idea. Less abstractly, yes the US government is corrupt and generally pushes garbage like this EARN act. But that isn't an intrinsic argument against anti-totalitarian regulation akin to the GDPR. Rather the lack of the action on the latter is better seen as further evidence of said corruption.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Constructing a "lesser evil" choice is simply a way of justifying evil. On the scale of “lesser evil” the government being able to arrest, harass, violate civil liberties and lock someone up is off the charts compared to what big tech can do. Sure that may be prudent, but it is not morally right nor is it sustainable. And backfitting from "what is" to "what should be" is never a good idea. So I should be more worried about what you consider is “morally right” instead of putting myself in a position where I can afford a competent lawyer - instead of an overworked public defender - to keep me or my family from being railroaded by the criminal justice system? But that isn't an intrinsic argument against anti-totalitarian regulation akin to the GDPR. Rather the lack of the action on the latter is better seen as further evidence of said corruption. You realize that you want to give the government more power that in my parents lifetime (who are still alive) has said that interracial marriage should be illegal, segregation should be legal and even as recently as the 80s has had laws making it crime punishable by jail time for adults of the same gender to have sex? As far as big tech vs the government, big tech has never discriminated against me when trying to get a job. I feel the same way about tech vs the government that Muhammad Ali felt about going to the Vietnam War. I’ll leave it for the readers to search for what he said.

everdrive 7y ago

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

zentiggr 7y ago

Before just responding with all the ways this could go wrong immediately, I'm making clear that this is a discussion point, not a call to action. I'm aware of a lot of the immediate problems this suggestion could cause, I'm not posting this lightly. So: As an expression of the extreme opposite end of all this, a talking point: what would happen if we simply stopped hiding information? Open up every server, make lists of name/add/SSN/credit info, medical, legal, everything under the sun open? Governments, too. And every company. Find every 'secured' server and remove all access restrictions, every machine, everywhere. No doubt there would be about a generation or two worth of chaos, as everyone learns everything about everyone and we figure out new ways to protect ourselves from the bad actors/stalkers/black ops people now in the open, etc etc etc. What would we look like as people and as a society? Could we learn to be honest and aboveboard and treat each other with respect, instead of taking advantage of each other because of all the secrets and perceived leverage? Remember, in this new world, all the corporate info is out there to see, all the personal details and dealings of the manipulators as well as us peons. How hard is it going to be to be Google, profiting off marketed secrets, when there aren't any? How hard is it going to be to peddle misinformation, when the actual history is there for anyone to look at?

refurb 7y ago

Trusting the government is solvable - simply don't give them any more power than you're willing to let them abuse.