3 ms·

Not really sure why any of that matters. It’s pretty simple, I would rather have my data stored somewhere I have some level of recourse for privacy violations.

Not really sure why any of that matters. It’s pretty simple, I would rather have my data stored somewhere I have some level of recourse for privacy violations. Even if that recourse is long drawn out and difficult, than somewhere I have no recourse, and never will have any recourse. I really don’t understand why you’re struggling to understand that. Talking about the relative merits of different governments is completely meaningless, if I can only elect and influence one of them. Based on your arguments I should just lie down and let every world government and company trample all over my rights, because it’s all hopeless anyway.

bonoboTP 6y ago
Just don't overestimate the effect of the data location. You have other tools as well, including controlling more tightly what information you share on platforms like Facebook. Now surely, they do track us regardless, shadow profiles, like buttons etc. Also on the other side of things, does it harm me more if a foreign government holds information on me, random Joe, or if my own government holds the same info? Which one cares more about the info and might have incentives to abuse it? What if China has a profile on me? I'll most likely never enter China anyway. I don't live and work in the US, why would them mining my data be so dangerous?
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > Also on the other side of things, does it harm me more if a foreign government holds information on me, random Joe, or if my own government holds the same info? Might be a good question for Kim Dotcom. Regardless of your views on his various business, it hard to explain how the US arresting a non-US citizen outside of the US isn’t a huge and worrying overstep by the US. Now I probably don’t need to worry about a Kim Dotcom style raid on my home, but I see no reason why I should make it easy for the US to do that if they wanted too. And regardless of hypothetical harms by the US government. Privacy is my right, and I’ll defend it. Why on earth should I be comfortable with my data being taken by governments around the world that don’t share my world view? (And the US government certainly doesn’t share my world views). Once again, at least I can hold my government accountable. I notionally understand U.K. law, and the U.K. legal system, and thus what abuses I might be subject too. I see no reason why I should have to learn about US law and the US legal system, just to use the internet from my computer in the U.K.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Let me understand you better. Would you say the following? - If FB is to operate under US law with US data centers you prefer to be geo-blocked by them based on IP and feel you need to be protected against your own will and you can't trust yourself to just not use the service - You are concerned about shadow profiles and the like, i.e. the unavoidability of FB even if you want to avoid it. But otherwise you'd be okay with FB offering its services to those who accept it on the foreign terms. - You are concerned for your fellow citizens who may be less informed and may accept conditions they don't understand and are harmful for them. Therefore rather geo-block foreign FB from them for their own good.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      No, I’m saying if FB wish to operate their product in the U.K. they should follow U.K. law, and respect the rights that U.K. law provides to its citizens. If FB don’t want to do that, then, yes, they should geo-block the U.K. to avoid the liability. Being an American company doesn’t give them the right to just ignore local laws and customs of other countries, and it would be hypocritical to think otherwise. The US certainly doesn’t allow counterfeit products to enter from China, despite the fact those products would be mostly considered legal in China. So why the hell should American company’s have the right to ignore laws in other countries, just because somethings not illegal in the US? Whether I trust myself to use a service is irrelevant. I should be able to use almost any service made readily available to me in the U.K. under the assumption they follow U.K. law. The onus should be on FB to operate legally and ethical, not on me audit every service I use for legal and ethical violations.
      - bonoboTP 6y ago
        I see. I think it boils down to how we understand the Internet, what analogies we can reach to. What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. You are sending information about yourself to the US and get back a response. Is getting IP packets through a wire the same as getting Chinese products through the mail even though no money changes hands? Or is it more like sending letters?

bonoboTP 6y ago

Just don't overestimate the effect of the data location. You have other tools as well, including controlling more tightly what information you share on platforms like Facebook. Now surely, they do track us regardless, shadow profiles, like buttons etc. Also on the other side of things, does it harm me more if a foreign government holds information on me, random Joe, or if my own government holds the same info? Which one cares more about the info and might have incentives to abuse it? What if China has a profile on me? I'll most likely never enter China anyway. I don't live and work in the US, why would them mining my data be so dangerous?

avianlyric 6y ago
> Also on the other side of things, does it harm me more if a foreign government holds information on me, random Joe, or if my own government holds the same info? Might be a good question for Kim Dotcom. Regardless of your views on his various business, it hard to explain how the US arresting a non-US citizen outside of the US isn’t a huge and worrying overstep by the US. Now I probably don’t need to worry about a Kim Dotcom style raid on my home, but I see no reason why I should make it easy for the US to do that if they wanted too. And regardless of hypothetical harms by the US government. Privacy is my right, and I’ll defend it. Why on earth should I be comfortable with my data being taken by governments around the world that don’t share my world view? (And the US government certainly doesn’t share my world views). Once again, at least I can hold my government accountable. I notionally understand U.K. law, and the U.K. legal system, and thus what abuses I might be subject too. I see no reason why I should have to learn about US law and the US legal system, just to use the internet from my computer in the U.K.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Let me understand you better. Would you say the following? - If FB is to operate under US law with US data centers you prefer to be geo-blocked by them based on IP and feel you need to be protected against your own will and you can't trust yourself to just not use the service - You are concerned about shadow profiles and the like, i.e. the unavoidability of FB even if you want to avoid it. But otherwise you'd be okay with FB offering its services to those who accept it on the foreign terms. - You are concerned for your fellow citizens who may be less informed and may accept conditions they don't understand and are harmful for them. Therefore rather geo-block foreign FB from them for their own good.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    No, I’m saying if FB wish to operate their product in the U.K. they should follow U.K. law, and respect the rights that U.K. law provides to its citizens. If FB don’t want to do that, then, yes, they should geo-block the U.K. to avoid the liability. Being an American company doesn’t give them the right to just ignore local laws and customs of other countries, and it would be hypocritical to think otherwise. The US certainly doesn’t allow counterfeit products to enter from China, despite the fact those products would be mostly considered legal in China. So why the hell should American company’s have the right to ignore laws in other countries, just because somethings not illegal in the US? Whether I trust myself to use a service is irrelevant. I should be able to use almost any service made readily available to me in the U.K. under the assumption they follow U.K. law. The onus should be on FB to operate legally and ethical, not on me audit every service I use for legal and ethical violations.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      I see. I think it boils down to how we understand the Internet, what analogies we can reach to. What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. You are sending information about yourself to the US and get back a response. Is getting IP packets through a wire the same as getting Chinese products through the mail even though no money changes hands? Or is it more like sending letters?