9 ms·

Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. I think it would be interesting to know how people really fe

by efitz 5y ago

Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. I think it would be interesting to know how people really feel about this. I would love to see a survey that actually truly explained the trade-offs and see how people felt about it, eg avoiding the “ should government be able to subpoena records from private business” but actually ask questions like “is it OK with you that with a subpoena that the government can get a list every website that you have visited?” And then present the trade offs and abuse cases. I really think that we’ve allowed the surveillance state to form without actually having a meaningful public debate about it.

DeathArrow 5y ago
>Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. How long until the government finish outsourcing of all its attributions to private entities and corporations take ownership of governance? Then instead of voting, the citizens can manifest their interests through buying shares.
- bjarneh 5y ago
  > the citizens can manifest their interests through buying shares. Isn't this sort of how it already works? Although only a few (very rich) citizens hold enough shares to actually have any clout.
datavirtue 5y ago
I like how ATT skirted around the question and lied. Well, not answering the question is...nevermind, they lied.
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
I have hope that we here in the U.S. will be able to get out in front of this one. Despite all the complaining the justice system still mostly works and we have a libertarian streak a mile wide. Perhaps the thing to do is show those in power that they haven't escaped the dragnet...
- novaRom 5y ago
  All politicians, high rank officials, and tech leaders are basically owned by foreign intelligence. This data can be analised carefully to build profiles and strategies to influence.
  - a0zU 5y ago
    Source on that first claim?
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      The US had a wiretap on Merkel. Do you think Russia, China, Germany, Israel, Iran and North Korea don't have the same on every other major political figure? Let's face the truth: none of us is safe. Everything we do, even if we are just oedinary 9-5 office workers and not politicians or activists, is ending up recorded somewhere. The only way out would be a nation-state effort of open source: everything from the VHDL of the chips over firmware to the OS, and enough money to fund audits of all components. At least, users could then somewhat trust at least their clients, and treat the network as a dumb leaky network of pipes.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >. Do you think Russia, China, Germany, Israel, Iran and North Korea don't have the same on every other major political figure? Do you think US intelligence don't also have the same? We've already seen a sitting US president hire intelligence agents to bug his enemies and political rivals, it's not like there's any reason to suspect that was a one time occurrence.
        pessimizer 5y ago
        Leaders under more authoritarian governments don't have to answer to rando voters. They only have to answer to their country's elites, who support what they're doing.
sircastor 5y ago
This feels like classic Americanism. We’re so obsessed with freedom from the government and ensuring capitalism marches on that we never bothered to think our government might just buy it’s way into what it wants. We kept the concepts separated, and weren’t paying attention.
- ozymandias12 5y ago
  The ones that did are rich nowadays, MURICA
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  >We’re so obsessed with freedom from the government and ensuring capitalism marches on Then why is capitalism being killed and replaced with corporatism? Why is everything industry consolidating having one or few very big players and no medium and small businesses?
gary_0 5y ago
> Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. This has been going on for a long time. A decade ago, Microsoft purchased Skype and converted it from secure peer-to-peer[0][1] to sending all user data unencrypted through their servers while giving the government access to everything. "The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures revealed that Microsoft had granted intelligence agencies unfettered access to supernodes and Skype communication content."[2] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0412017 https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0412017 (2004) [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-internet-germany/skype-encryption-stumps-german-police-idUSL21173920071122 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-internet-germany... (2007) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype&oldid=1031469079 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype&oldid=10314... (2021)
- ozymandias12 5y ago
  But have they stopped terror and corruption? Does the benefit outweigh the costs?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    There are so few actual terror attacks that the FBI has resorted to goading innocent buffoons into making incriminating statements so they can claim to have foiled something. There was never a real problem for law enforcement to solve. All we ever needed were reinforced cockpit doors.
    - pempem 5y ago
      but the rest of the cost has created jobs! it's the great jobs program of our lifetimes. /s
      - hef19898 5y ago
        I think it made some people incredibly rich, jobs are an unplanned side effect.
      - 5y ago
ren_engineer 5y ago
at least China is transparent in what they are, US does the same shit but uses loopholes. Before anybody says it isn't bad yet or comparing it to China is unfair, think about the fact that all this infrastructure is already in place, all it takes is 1 bad person to start fully abusing it. People in China are at least aware they should be careful, the average American has no clue they are effectively being tracked at all times Sword of Damocles is hanging over our heads
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Noam Chomsky talks about this in Manufacturing Consent. Under authoritarian regimes they can tell you about the bad stuff they're doing because you have no choice. In an apparent democracy they have to trick the public in to going along with the bad stuff by hiding what is really happening.
- refurb 5y ago
  The US system isn't better because we don't have government officials who want to spy on us. The US system is set up assuming that's what all governments do eventually. The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights. The US system isn't perfect and it isn't always fast, but the point is there is a system of checks and balances that hopefully bring it back to what the people intend it to be.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    >The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights. 1) surveillance of citizens in China it is public, no need to uncover anything 2) in China their government already shared it with the citizens since it's official policy 3) since when the feedback started to matter? 4) that it's very naive to assume that the laws and the courts will always be free of abuse and will always protect the freedoms of the citizens, protect their interests and protect the innocent, we are far from living in a perfect world: the only way to make someone can't abuse his power is to not give him that power. And they have courts in China too, if that matters.
tempfs 5y ago
This is exactly how you get around those pesky laws that prevent you from doing it yourself as a governing body. You just let/encourage/look-the-other-way as private companies do it for you then you just buy access from them. All perfectly legal since those private companies are busy selling your private data to anyone and everyone else. The advent of smartphones, social media, search engines, pervasive online shopping are all absolute boons for surveillance entities. And the best part is that the users/public just gives all of this info up willingly and for free.
- resonious 5y ago
  I think many users, even if they do know that their information is being sold around, don't care. They don't know how it may effect them negatively. Especially since it's been happening for awhile now and nothing outright bad has happened to most individuals. They just enjoy using Instagram. They see a targeted ad and are like "oo scary... they know me" and then continue on.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > The advent of smartphones, social media, search engines, pervasive online shopping are all absolute boons for surveillance entities The only way to avoid this would have been to design the Internet as something Tor-like from the beginning, which would have been impractical from an efficiency standpoint.
  - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
    Yeah, today data is worth more than oil.
    - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
      I don't know why. How many different ways do companies have to look at me to understand I am broke?
      - dotancohen 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
> Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. Well, yes, that's essentially the whole point of silicon valley. The government and military fund the creation of startups that have tactical value. Those businesses become self-funding and improve the US economy, which also has military value since a robust economy is harder to attack. This has been explored in a few places, e.g. [0], [1]. But it's not like any of this was secret. The off-loading of government operations to private industry, combined with the lobbying for reduced regulations on private industry effectively gives the government carte blanche with the added bonus of plausible deniability. Whether or not these trends are good has been debated for half a century in the US. [0] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/ https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I remember in the 2016 election Hillary Clinton's VP mentioned in a debate that their administration would make it easier for tech companies to share data with the government for "cybersecurity" and its obvious that what they wanted to do was legalize transfer of surveillance materials from corporations to government. And it's so frustrating because nobody seemed to notice that line and it feels like the public hears that and thinks "cybersecurity good" and doesn't think about it at all. Like if the democrats had come out and said "we're going to expand government surveillance by paying Microsoft and others for your data" it would have been extremely unpopular. But by using obtuse language they can actually claim a win while saying basically the same thing.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I don't think there is any big conspiracy there because it is already legal (and always has been) for companies to give surveillance data to the government. The government can't take it by force without a warrant. But the company is free to give it to them if they ask nicely or otherwise.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    The point is that they proposed expanding these relationships and they billed it as “security”. But anyone who really understands security knows that collecting more data and sending it to one big third party is the opposite of security. They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us.
    - DaftDank 5y ago
      "They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us." The issue is that they (i.e. government) have always done this. I'm only 35, but I remember this being very clear immediately after 9/11. You just say the boogeyman is terrorism, and that is used to justify end-runs around the constitution via the "PATRIOT" Act, etc. etc. Before terrorism, the excuse was communism. Maybe I'm just cynical now or read too much "1984" as a teenager, but I feel like there will always be a new boogeyman that they use to justify more authority, more powers, and all the while saying it's for our own good and to 'protect' us.
xmprt 5y ago
This may be a controversial opinion, but I think some level of surveillance can be good for people. If you are convicted for a crime, you should be able to use records to prove your innocence (eg. cell tower logs to show that you were nowhere near the murder and had an alibi). We already have this where traffic cameras can show who was responsible for car crashes. However, a lot of current surveillance is more about snooping. That's where it crosses the line for me. I guess it comes down to ownership. I should own the text messages and call logs because I have access to them. AT&T can own the cell tower logs because they own the cell towers.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It is certainly controversial, but also not very perspicacious. Towards whom do you need to prove your innocence? Against a encroaching state that convicts without evidence? Well, governments are guilty of that, sure. But then that is a problem in dire need of fixing, not tools that maybe provide you an alibi when stars align correctly. An alibi you shouldn't need in the first place.
- gzer0 5y ago
  It is particulary controversial for a reason. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithm-technology-police-crime-7e3345485aa668c97606d4b54f9b6220 https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithm... > Employees can and do modify the location or number of shots fired at the request of police, according to court records.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  Not really controversial but ignorant of how real life law enforcement works. You will never find yourself using tracking data to prove your innocence, that is TV/Hollywood fluff. You will find yourself on the short list of suspects because you were in the area of a crime. If you actually read some news you will also find that it is often because one of the law enforcement decided their "gut" feeling was you are most guilty loooking and now they have a solid starting piece of evidence to use against you.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>I really think that we’ve allowed the surveillance state to form without actually having a meaningful public debate about it. Isn't it for the "Greater Good™", as always? :D
DeathArrow 5y ago
It might be unpleasant for the US citizens. But US is conducting mass surveillance against foreign nationals and that is not cool.
csee 5y ago
The "outsourcing" metaphor is mostly true but misses something important which is compulsion. Outsourcing implies a voluntary relationship, whereas a court order combined with an implicit threat of trouble if they don't follow, isn't.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
It's optimistic to assume people feel anything at all. They'll just assume that the government won't actually target them with these powers. Just like violence seems like a distant reality until it happens to them.
sixdimensional 5y ago
"Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise." There's a rather innocuous sounding name for this - "public private partnership" [1]. If you've ever experienced this scenario first hand, you'd truly be surprised how much government is run in partnership with private enterprise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partner...
Cipater 5y ago
Meanwhile in China they're straight up mandating that companies transfer all data to state-owned storage platforms. >A ministry supervising state companies, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, is mapping plans to set up more government-controlled providers of cloud services for data storage, people familiar with the agency’s workings say. Such services have been dominated by private companies, including Alibaba and Tencent. >The city of Tianjin has ordered companies it supervises to migrate data from private-sector cloud platforms to state-owned ones within two months of the expiration of existing contracts, and by September 2022 at the latest, according to an official notice dated Aug. 12. More localities are expected to follow suit, the people say. >Government-controlled entities are acquiring stakes and filling board seats in more companies to make sure they fall in line with the state’s goals. ByteDance Ltd., owner of the video-sharing app TikTok, and Weibo Corp. , which runs Twitter-like microblogging platforms, recently have sold stakes to state-backed companies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chinese-capitalism-hew-to-maos-socialist-vision-11632150725 https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chin...
lootsauce 5y ago
Government Alphabet agencies (see what I did there) don't just outsource, they run shell companies and real companies. They also invest in startups. Along with the revolving doors of regulation and regulated industries, nepotism, insider dealing one wonders if the labels such as Government and Corporate are just a distraction? The extent of this is probably unknowable but sometimes I wonder how much we all know for certain, because it is so obvious, is not actually so.
tacocataco 5y ago
Why is consent important when both mainstream political parties support the police state? How would you vote to get to this meaningful debate in the first place?

by efitz 5y ago

DeathArrow 5y ago

>Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. How long until the government finish outsourcing of all its attributions to private entities and corporations take ownership of governance? Then instead of voting, the citizens can manifest their interests through buying shares.

bjarneh 5y ago
> the citizens can manifest their interests through buying shares. Isn't this sort of how it already works? Although only a few (very rich) citizens hold enough shares to actually have any clout.

datavirtue 5y ago

I like how ATT skirted around the question and lied. Well, not answering the question is...nevermind, they lied.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

I have hope that we here in the U.S. will be able to get out in front of this one. Despite all the complaining the justice system still mostly works and we have a libertarian streak a mile wide. Perhaps the thing to do is show those in power that they haven't escaped the dragnet...

novaRom 5y ago
All politicians, high rank officials, and tech leaders are basically owned by foreign intelligence. This data can be analised carefully to build profiles and strategies to influence.
- a0zU 5y ago
  Source on that first claim?
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    The US had a wiretap on Merkel. Do you think Russia, China, Germany, Israel, Iran and North Korea don't have the same on every other major political figure? Let's face the truth: none of us is safe. Everything we do, even if we are just oedinary 9-5 office workers and not politicians or activists, is ending up recorded somewhere. The only way out would be a nation-state effort of open source: everything from the VHDL of the chips over firmware to the OS, and enough money to fund audits of all components. At least, users could then somewhat trust at least their clients, and treat the network as a dumb leaky network of pipes.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >. Do you think Russia, China, Germany, Israel, Iran and North Korea don't have the same on every other major political figure? Do you think US intelligence don't also have the same? We've already seen a sitting US president hire intelligence agents to bug his enemies and political rivals, it's not like there's any reason to suspect that was a one time occurrence.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        Leaders under more authoritarian governments don't have to answer to rando voters. They only have to answer to their country's elites, who support what they're doing.

sircastor 5y ago

This feels like classic Americanism. We’re so obsessed with freedom from the government and ensuring capitalism marches on that we never bothered to think our government might just buy it’s way into what it wants. We kept the concepts separated, and weren’t paying attention.

ozymandias12 5y ago
The ones that did are rich nowadays, MURICA
DeathArrow 5y ago
>We’re so obsessed with freedom from the government and ensuring capitalism marches on Then why is capitalism being killed and replaced with corporatism? Why is everything industry consolidating having one or few very big players and no medium and small businesses?

gary_0 5y ago

> Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. This has been going on for a long time. A decade ago, Microsoft purchased Skype and converted it from secure peer-to-peer[0][1] to sending all user data unencrypted through their servers while giving the government access to everything. "The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures revealed that Microsoft had granted intelligence agencies unfettered access to supernodes and Skype communication content."[2] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0412017 https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0412017 (2004) [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-internet-germany/skype-encryption-stumps-german-police-idUSL21173920071122 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-internet-germany... (2007) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype&oldid=1031469079 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype&oldid=10314... (2021)

ozymandias12 5y ago
But have they stopped terror and corruption? Does the benefit outweigh the costs?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  There are so few actual terror attacks that the FBI has resorted to goading innocent buffoons into making incriminating statements so they can claim to have foiled something. There was never a real problem for law enforcement to solve. All we ever needed were reinforced cockpit doors.
  - pempem 5y ago
    but the rest of the cost has created jobs! it's the great jobs program of our lifetimes. /s
    - hef19898 5y ago
      I think it made some people incredibly rich, jobs are an unplanned side effect.
    - 5y ago

ren_engineer 5y ago

at least China is transparent in what they are, US does the same shit but uses loopholes. Before anybody says it isn't bad yet or comparing it to China is unfair, think about the fact that all this infrastructure is already in place, all it takes is 1 bad person to start fully abusing it. People in China are at least aware they should be careful, the average American has no clue they are effectively being tracked at all times Sword of Damocles is hanging over our heads

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Noam Chomsky talks about this in Manufacturing Consent. Under authoritarian regimes they can tell you about the bad stuff they're doing because you have no choice. In an apparent democracy they have to trick the public in to going along with the bad stuff by hiding what is really happening.
refurb 5y ago
The US system isn't better because we don't have government officials who want to spy on us. The US system is set up assuming that's what all governments do eventually. The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights. The US system isn't perfect and it isn't always fast, but the point is there is a system of checks and balances that hopefully bring it back to what the people intend it to be.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  >The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights. 1) surveillance of citizens in China it is public, no need to uncover anything 2) in China their government already shared it with the citizens since it's official policy 3) since when the feedback started to matter? 4) that it's very naive to assume that the laws and the courts will always be free of abuse and will always protect the freedoms of the citizens, protect their interests and protect the innocent, we are far from living in a perfect world: the only way to make someone can't abuse his power is to not give him that power. And they have courts in China too, if that matters.

tempfs 5y ago

This is exactly how you get around those pesky laws that prevent you from doing it yourself as a governing body. You just let/encourage/look-the-other-way as private companies do it for you then you just buy access from them. All perfectly legal since those private companies are busy selling your private data to anyone and everyone else. The advent of smartphones, social media, search engines, pervasive online shopping are all absolute boons for surveillance entities. And the best part is that the users/public just gives all of this info up willingly and for free.

resonious 5y ago
I think many users, even if they do know that their information is being sold around, don't care. They don't know how it may effect them negatively. Especially since it's been happening for awhile now and nothing outright bad has happened to most individuals. They just enjoy using Instagram. They see a targeted ad and are like "oo scary... they know me" and then continue on.
ethbr0 5y ago
> The advent of smartphones, social media, search engines, pervasive online shopping are all absolute boons for surveillance entities The only way to avoid this would have been to design the Internet as something Tor-like from the beginning, which would have been impractical from an efficiency standpoint.
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  Yeah, today data is worth more than oil.
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    I don't know why. How many different ways do companies have to look at me to understand I am broke?
    - dotancohen 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

> Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise. Well, yes, that's essentially the whole point of silicon valley. The government and military fund the creation of startups that have tactical value. Those businesses become self-funding and improve the US economy, which also has military value since a robust economy is harder to attack. This has been explored in a few places, e.g. [0], [1]. But it's not like any of this was secret. The off-loading of government operations to private industry, combined with the lobbying for reduced regulations on private industry effectively gives the government carte blanche with the added bonus of plausible deniability. Whether or not these trends are good has been debated for half a century in the US. [0] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/ https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I remember in the 2016 election Hillary Clinton's VP mentioned in a debate that their administration would make it easier for tech companies to share data with the government for "cybersecurity" and its obvious that what they wanted to do was legalize transfer of surveillance materials from corporations to government. And it's so frustrating because nobody seemed to notice that line and it feels like the public hears that and thinks "cybersecurity good" and doesn't think about it at all. Like if the democrats had come out and said "we're going to expand government surveillance by paying Microsoft and others for your data" it would have been extremely unpopular. But by using obtuse language they can actually claim a win while saying basically the same thing.

jjeaff 5y ago
I don't think there is any big conspiracy there because it is already legal (and always has been) for companies to give surveillance data to the government. The government can't take it by force without a warrant. But the company is free to give it to them if they ask nicely or otherwise.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  The point is that they proposed expanding these relationships and they billed it as “security”. But anyone who really understands security knows that collecting more data and sending it to one big third party is the opposite of security. They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us.
  - DaftDank 5y ago
    "They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us." The issue is that they (i.e. government) have always done this. I'm only 35, but I remember this being very clear immediately after 9/11. You just say the boogeyman is terrorism, and that is used to justify end-runs around the constitution via the "PATRIOT" Act, etc. etc. Before terrorism, the excuse was communism. Maybe I'm just cynical now or read too much "1984" as a teenager, but I feel like there will always be a new boogeyman that they use to justify more authority, more powers, and all the while saying it's for our own good and to 'protect' us.

xmprt 5y ago

This may be a controversial opinion, but I think some level of surveillance can be good for people. If you are convicted for a crime, you should be able to use records to prove your innocence (eg. cell tower logs to show that you were nowhere near the murder and had an alibi). We already have this where traffic cameras can show who was responsible for car crashes. However, a lot of current surveillance is more about snooping. That's where it crosses the line for me. I guess it comes down to ownership. I should own the text messages and call logs because I have access to them. AT&T can own the cell tower logs because they own the cell towers.

raxxorrax 5y ago
It is certainly controversial, but also not very perspicacious. Towards whom do you need to prove your innocence? Against a encroaching state that convicts without evidence? Well, governments are guilty of that, sure. But then that is a problem in dire need of fixing, not tools that maybe provide you an alibi when stars align correctly. An alibi you shouldn't need in the first place.
gzer0 5y ago
It is particulary controversial for a reason. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithm-technology-police-crime-7e3345485aa668c97606d4b54f9b6220 https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithm... > Employees can and do modify the location or number of shots fired at the request of police, according to court records.
citizenpaul 5y ago
Not really controversial but ignorant of how real life law enforcement works. You will never find yourself using tracking data to prove your innocence, that is TV/Hollywood fluff. You will find yourself on the short list of suspects because you were in the area of a crime. If you actually read some news you will also find that it is often because one of the law enforcement decided their "gut" feeling was you are most guilty loooking and now they have a solid starting piece of evidence to use against you.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>I really think that we’ve allowed the surveillance state to form without actually having a meaningful public debate about it. Isn't it for the "Greater Good™", as always? :D

DeathArrow 5y ago

It might be unpleasant for the US citizens. But US is conducting mass surveillance against foreign nationals and that is not cool.

csee 5y ago

The "outsourcing" metaphor is mostly true but misses something important which is compulsion. Outsourcing implies a voluntary relationship, whereas a court order combined with an implicit threat of trouble if they don't follow, isn't.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

It's optimistic to assume people feel anything at all. They'll just assume that the government won't actually target them with these powers. Just like violence seems like a distant reality until it happens to them.

sixdimensional 5y ago

"Essentially the government has built a surveillance state by outsourcing it to private enterprise." There's a rather innocuous sounding name for this - "public private partnership" [1]. If you've ever experienced this scenario first hand, you'd truly be surprised how much government is run in partnership with private enterprise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partner...

Cipater 5y ago

Meanwhile in China they're straight up mandating that companies transfer all data to state-owned storage platforms. >A ministry supervising state companies, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, is mapping plans to set up more government-controlled providers of cloud services for data storage, people familiar with the agency’s workings say. Such services have been dominated by private companies, including Alibaba and Tencent. >The city of Tianjin has ordered companies it supervises to migrate data from private-sector cloud platforms to state-owned ones within two months of the expiration of existing contracts, and by September 2022 at the latest, according to an official notice dated Aug. 12. More localities are expected to follow suit, the people say. >Government-controlled entities are acquiring stakes and filling board seats in more companies to make sure they fall in line with the state’s goals. ByteDance Ltd., owner of the video-sharing app TikTok, and Weibo Corp. , which runs Twitter-like microblogging platforms, recently have sold stakes to state-backed companies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chinese-capitalism-hew-to-maos-socialist-vision-11632150725 https://www.wsj.com/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-chin...

lootsauce 5y ago

Government Alphabet agencies (see what I did there) don't just outsource, they run shell companies and real companies. They also invest in startups. Along with the revolving doors of regulation and regulated industries, nepotism, insider dealing one wonders if the labels such as Government and Corporate are just a distraction? The extent of this is probably unknowable but sometimes I wonder how much we all know for certain, because it is so obvious, is not actually so.

tacocataco 5y ago

Why is consent important when both mainstream political parties support the police state? How would you vote to get to this meaningful debate in the first place?