5 ms·

>Wouldn't the bill be closer to effectiveness if it banned corporations from selling to any government and not only the US government? Why stop there? If this

by slg 6y ago

>Wouldn't the bill be closer to effectiveness if it banned corporations from selling to any government and not only the US government? Why stop there? If this data is dangerous for governments to have it, why is it safe for corporations to have it? Why not have a bill banning the collection of this data or these specific use cases of already collected data? I don't understand why we should inherently trust corporations more than governments.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 6y ago
Mainly because 'the government' has all these people with guns and flak jackets that are perfectly happy to come after people proactively. If McDonalds maintained a SWAT team and was run by people known to bomb weddings in the pursuit of regional stability, I'd be worried about them having my location data too. But they're not going to so that, they're going to come up with a crooked scheme to feed me more burgers. The quality of the outcome is arguable, but the level of risk is much lower.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  And if Amazon buys location data on union organizers and their contacts? If farming conglomerates buy environmentalists locations? If General Electric, or other military-industrial giants, buy anti-war activist locations? It won't stop at burgers.
- austincheney 6y ago
  If I had to add up the number of times everybody I know offline (in the real world) has run into SWAT teams that massive number is still 0. So to me the risk of danger by SWAT teams is low.
  - smeej 6y ago
    I've had 3 and I consider my life really boring, from a risk perspective. I wonder if you know these people's lives as well as you think you do.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Are you pulling my leg? The number of people a government imprisons, de-homes, kills or otherwise causes trouble for is orders of magnitude higher than any corporation. Said government is working on blanket principles and regularly makes mistakes. Them knowing where I am is orders of magnitude more concerning than some dude trying to hawk me stuff based on my location. Last century, if someone was killed by human intervention it was probably at the behest of a government. It'll be same again this century. It will be the same again pretty much every century. I'd rather nobody was tracking where I am, but it is going to be a government that actually abuses the information. How a body can look at the US government go Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden and think "yeah, I'd trust these people to keep tabs on where I am" is beyond me.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    That's pretty poor statistical reasoning about risk.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      I have met people who have won the lottery and been struck by lightening but I have never met anybody who has had a run-in with a SWAT team.
      - thatcat 6y ago
        that's anecdotal evidence and has nothing to do with your risk of encountering a swat team
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Risk is low if you're a CIS white male, not if you're a young black male in a poverty stricken urban area (or even just getting caught driving while black and pulled over anywhere). Also the danger level is off the charts. So not the same.
eli 6y ago
Indeed. But this seems like a good place to start.
babypuncher 6y ago
I agree. Frankly, I rank corporations even higher than governments on my list of entities I absolutely do not trust with my location data.
suifbwish 6y ago
Not a bad idea, pass some laws that makes holding onto other peoples location data for more than a week or knowingly collecting large troves of location data a criminal offense. Just because you can make money from something doesn’t mean it should be allowed
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Because you have to start somewhere. Also, because unless it's dreadfully obvious (like choking you out for 9 minutes until you're dead while said person is begging you to stop with multiple witnesses in a nonchalant manner) then you will never be able to convict police misconduct where they can basically say "I thought they were pulling a weapon". thus the police/government are a lot more dangerous than google knowing where you are.

by slg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 6y ago

Mainly because 'the government' has all these people with guns and flak jackets that are perfectly happy to come after people proactively. If McDonalds maintained a SWAT team and was run by people known to bomb weddings in the pursuit of regional stability, I'd be worried about them having my location data too. But they're not going to so that, they're going to come up with a crooked scheme to feed me more burgers. The quality of the outcome is arguable, but the level of risk is much lower.

MikeUt 6y ago
And if Amazon buys location data on union organizers and their contacts? If farming conglomerates buy environmentalists locations? If General Electric, or other military-industrial giants, buy anti-war activist locations? It won't stop at burgers.
austincheney 6y ago
If I had to add up the number of times everybody I know offline (in the real world) has run into SWAT teams that massive number is still 0. So to me the risk of danger by SWAT teams is low.
- smeej 6y ago
  I've had 3 and I consider my life really boring, from a risk perspective. I wonder if you know these people's lives as well as you think you do.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Are you pulling my leg? The number of people a government imprisons, de-homes, kills or otherwise causes trouble for is orders of magnitude higher than any corporation. Said government is working on blanket principles and regularly makes mistakes. Them knowing where I am is orders of magnitude more concerning than some dude trying to hawk me stuff based on my location. Last century, if someone was killed by human intervention it was probably at the behest of a government. It'll be same again this century. It will be the same again pretty much every century. I'd rather nobody was tracking where I am, but it is going to be a government that actually abuses the information. How a body can look at the US government go Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden and think "yeah, I'd trust these people to keep tabs on where I am" is beyond me.
- thatcat 6y ago
  That's pretty poor statistical reasoning about risk.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    I have met people who have won the lottery and been struck by lightening but I have never met anybody who has had a run-in with a SWAT team.
    - thatcat 6y ago
      that's anecdotal evidence and has nothing to do with your risk of encountering a swat team
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Risk is low if you're a CIS white male, not if you're a young black male in a poverty stricken urban area (or even just getting caught driving while black and pulled over anywhere). Also the danger level is off the charts. So not the same.

eli 6y ago

Indeed. But this seems like a good place to start.

babypuncher 6y ago

I agree. Frankly, I rank corporations even higher than governments on my list of entities I absolutely do not trust with my location data.

suifbwish 6y ago

Not a bad idea, pass some laws that makes holding onto other peoples location data for more than a week or knowingly collecting large troves of location data a criminal offense. Just because you can make money from something doesn’t mean it should be allowed

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Because you have to start somewhere. Also, because unless it's dreadfully obvious (like choking you out for 9 minutes until you're dead while said person is begging you to stop with multiple witnesses in a nonchalant manner) then you will never be able to convict police misconduct where they can basically say "I thought they were pulling a weapon". thus the police/government are a lot more dangerous than google knowing where you are.