3 ms·

>I think most people don't care much about privacy for themselves ("I have nothing to hide") and are happy to let military intelligence daddy read their emails,

>I think most people don't care much about privacy for themselves ("I have nothing to hide") and are happy to let military intelligence daddy read their emails, as long as it doesn't affect their life. I'd point out that the DoD is purchasing this data from private entities, not collecting it themselves. As such, I'd say that it's less about government surveillance specifically, and more about surveillance in general. Corporate surveillance is nothing new (Equifax/Experian/etc. have been doing that for at least half a century) and those folks collect, store and correlate enormously more data than does the US government. There is a massive effort by corporations to hide this sort of data collection, which has been mostly successful. Complaining about the government dipping into all that tasty, tasty data is like blaming the child who was sickened by stealing a cookie from a batch that was poisoned, then making sure that the rest of the batch is fed to the intended target. That most folks are just complaining about big, bad government (which isn't wrong, but just a tiny portion of the larger issue), rather than the folks who are collecting, correlating and using such data to their own advantage (of which selling it to governments is just chump change) seems rather silly and short-sighted.

sneak 6y ago
Corporate data collection doesn’t generally send the police or military to your house when you sufficiently challenge the status quo. Corporations don’t generally have guns or handcuffs that they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which is why there’s such a danger associated with them being able to access the data. Experian doesn’t have a torture chamber. The Chicago PD and the CIA do.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Corporations don’t generally have guns or handcuffs that they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which is why there’s such a danger associated with them being able to access the data. And that makes it perfectly fine for corporations to do so? Because they can't rough you up or arrest you? Please. As I said: ...complaining about big, bad government (which isn't wrong, but just a tiny portion of the larger issue) My point (apparently, I wasn't explicit enough) was that it's not just governments that are the issue. What's more, if there were appropriate restrictions on collecting and monetizing peoples' data, in this case the DoD would have nothing to buy. It's much easier (at least in the US) to restrain the Federal government than hundreds (thousands?) of corporations, regardless of their monopoly on the use of force. Railing against the government for compromising the privacy of its citizens is absolutely appropriate. That said, there is the much, much more widespread issue of corporate surveillance that should also be addressed.
  - sneak 6y ago
    There’s a big difference between being under surveillance because people want to manipulate you into giving them money, and being under surveillance so that you can be kidnapped at gunpoint to stop you from whatever it was you were doing (even if it is all legal). Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when maximally bad, it doesn’t pose that grave a threat to a society’s correct functioning. When the state gets to use it for what is called “law enforcement” (qualified because, for example, the aforementioned CIA torture prisons, and MLK Jr was targeted thus by the FBI, and sent threatening letters by them as a result) the maximum danger from misuse is a grave risk to a free society.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when maximally bad, it doesn’t pose that grave a threat to a society’s correct functioning. Except it does. Especially in this case, since the government purchased the data collected via corporate surveillance. Or did you miss that part? If the data hadn't been collected via corporate surveillance,the DoD would have nothing to buy, would they? We can vote out of government those who would allow violations of our privacy (whether or not we do so is a different, but equally important discussion). We cannot do so with corporations. Given the circumstance in this case (the DoD purchasing this data from private corporations rather than collecting it independently), including corporate surveillance in the discussion is critically important. When one's paycheck depends on a not understanding certain things, it's often difficult to get that person to understand those things. Some food for thought, friend.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > We can vote out of government those who would allow violations of our privacy (whether or not we do so is a different, but equally important discussion). I think this is an illusion. There is ~no one to vote for that supports rolling back US government bulk surveillance.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I don't like it but it really is just the govt adapting to the new connected landscape.

sneak 6y ago

Corporate data collection doesn’t generally send the police or military to your house when you sufficiently challenge the status quo. Corporations don’t generally have guns or handcuffs that they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which is why there’s such a danger associated with them being able to access the data. Experian doesn’t have a torture chamber. The Chicago PD and the CIA do.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Corporations don’t generally have guns or handcuffs that they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which is why there’s such a danger associated with them being able to access the data. And that makes it perfectly fine for corporations to do so? Because they can't rough you up or arrest you? Please. As I said: ...complaining about big, bad government (which isn't wrong, but just a tiny portion of the larger issue) My point (apparently, I wasn't explicit enough) was that it's not just governments that are the issue. What's more, if there were appropriate restrictions on collecting and monetizing peoples' data, in this case the DoD would have nothing to buy. It's much easier (at least in the US) to restrain the Federal government than hundreds (thousands?) of corporations, regardless of their monopoly on the use of force. Railing against the government for compromising the privacy of its citizens is absolutely appropriate. That said, there is the much, much more widespread issue of corporate surveillance that should also be addressed.
- sneak 6y ago
  There’s a big difference between being under surveillance because people want to manipulate you into giving them money, and being under surveillance so that you can be kidnapped at gunpoint to stop you from whatever it was you were doing (even if it is all legal). Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when maximally bad, it doesn’t pose that grave a threat to a society’s correct functioning. When the state gets to use it for what is called “law enforcement” (qualified because, for example, the aforementioned CIA torture prisons, and MLK Jr was targeted thus by the FBI, and sent threatening letters by them as a result) the maximum danger from misuse is a grave risk to a free society.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when maximally bad, it doesn’t pose that grave a threat to a society’s correct functioning. Except it does. Especially in this case, since the government purchased the data collected via corporate surveillance. Or did you miss that part? If the data hadn't been collected via corporate surveillance,the DoD would have nothing to buy, would they? We can vote out of government those who would allow violations of our privacy (whether or not we do so is a different, but equally important discussion). We cannot do so with corporations. Given the circumstance in this case (the DoD purchasing this data from private corporations rather than collecting it independently), including corporate surveillance in the discussion is critically important. When one's paycheck depends on a not understanding certain things, it's often difficult to get that person to understand those things. Some food for thought, friend.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > We can vote out of government those who would allow violations of our privacy (whether or not we do so is a different, but equally important discussion). I think this is an illusion. There is ~no one to vote for that supports rolling back US government bulk surveillance.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I don't like it but it really is just the govt adapting to the new connected landscape.