3 ms·

>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 t

>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.

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.