3 ms·

I am surprised that this is considered a secret anymore. If you travel anywhere and board a flight, stay a hotel or rent a car, you should assume that the gover

I am surprised that this is considered a secret anymore. If you travel anywhere and board a flight, stay a hotel or rent a car, you should assume that the government already knows about this. All companies have data sharing agreements with the government and judges are known to sign very broad data warrants that force companies to give data to governments for any suspicion of crime . Basically today, everybody should assume that the government knows everything about you - where you live, where you work, what car you drive, where you travel, What property you own, lease , whom you call etc. Privacy exists in name only.

SkyBelow 6y ago
>Privacy exists in name only. Given that this information is the companies own info, voluntarily shared as a private business, I wonder if we can make a comparison to free speech and the notion that free speech still exists despite most avenues of communication now being privatized and having control over what speech is allowed. Conceptually, if free speech can still be considered to exist in such a realm, cannot privacy? Yes, you may have to choose to note engage in companies that share their data if you want to keep your privacy, but that is much like what happens if you want to be able to speak without having to follow the limits those companies have in place. This is not to say the arguments are identical, but that there does seem to be similarity in their structure. If one can takes the argument that you can keep your privacy by just refusing to use airlines, credit cards, hotels, etc. and says that being forced to give up so much to maintain privacy means that privacy is dead (or exists in name only), then shouldn't it also be possible to make the argument that you can keep your free speech as long as you avoid the growing list of companies who refuse to business with individuals who engage in certain forms of speech (especially who do so loudly) mean that free speech is also dead? If instead the 'private businesses doing what they want' argument wins, then shouldn't it also apply in the case of privacy? That the company sharing whom they are offering a service to doesn't violate privacy because it is information you willingly gave them that they can then give others. (The case where the information is gathered through overly broad warrants stands out as an exception, being that it is forced by the government.)

SkyBelow 6y ago

>Privacy exists in name only. Given that this information is the companies own info, voluntarily shared as a private business, I wonder if we can make a comparison to free speech and the notion that free speech still exists despite most avenues of communication now being privatized and having control over what speech is allowed. Conceptually, if free speech can still be considered to exist in such a realm, cannot privacy? Yes, you may have to choose to note engage in companies that share their data if you want to keep your privacy, but that is much like what happens if you want to be able to speak without having to follow the limits those companies have in place. This is not to say the arguments are identical, but that there does seem to be similarity in their structure. If one can takes the argument that you can keep your privacy by just refusing to use airlines, credit cards, hotels, etc. and says that being forced to give up so much to maintain privacy means that privacy is dead (or exists in name only), then shouldn't it also be possible to make the argument that you can keep your free speech as long as you avoid the growing list of companies who refuse to business with individuals who engage in certain forms of speech (especially who do so loudly) mean that free speech is also dead? If instead the 'private businesses doing what they want' argument wins, then shouldn't it also apply in the case of privacy? That the company sharing whom they are offering a service to doesn't violate privacy because it is information you willingly gave them that they can then give others. (The case where the information is gathered through overly broad warrants stands out as an exception, being that it is forced by the government.)