7 ms·

I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government.

by nickpp 5y ago

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
As a US analog, I'm more concerned with my own government collecting data on me than I am about the Chinese. One of those has an entire ocean to cross to cause me IRL problems.
vault 5y ago
The USA, of course. Don't forget you vote for your government, not for Google's CEO.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Google's CEO has pretty much ZERO powers over me. The USA government is (largely) democratic and (mostly) obeys laws. But my government... is not the one I voted for and I trust it 0%. Because I do not live in the West but in one of the great majority of countries with a corrupt, abusive government. The democratic governments of the West are the exception, not the rule.
  - einpoklum 5y ago
    > The USA government is (largely) democratic Well, if I may nitpick, it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... More to the point though, there was this study at Princeton U about the correlation between US government policy and popular opinion on a variety of subjects which found that public opinion correlates very poorly with government policy / legislation passed, but opinions among the very-rich correlate well. Can't remember the exact reference right now. > and (mostly) obeys laws. Oh, definitely not. It can well be argued that there is constant mass violation of the constitution. And regardless of this, the US is such a notorious outlaw on the international level that not only does it refuse to accept jurisdiction of the international criminal court, but has in fact threatened action against court staff if the court hears any case against it: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-internation...
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Still infinitely better than my government though, which was the whole point.
    - chaxor 5y ago
      The effect you mentioned (democratic deficit) is also inversely correlated with unionization (which positively correlates with public engagement with government). So it could be that the reduction in population median household income due to reduction in unionization (and increase in top earner profit / larger inequalities) causes an exacerbation of the effect, with the observation you mentioned.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Under communism unionisation was pretty much complete - but that did not make the dictatorship a democracy by any means.
    - eulenteufel 5y ago
      > it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... Germany is both a federal republic and a democracy and I would argue the the USA are too. Both countries ultimatively derive their legislation from the general populace and are representative democracies. I've seen the claim you made several times, but every time I try to look it up I fail to understand it. What is your reason to think a federal republic would exclude democracy?
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        Yes this seems to be a common distinction made in the US, which I also don't understand. What I learned in politics at school (and studying it for a short time) was that republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts (leds leave out the federal which seems to be even another dimension). A republic essentially means, the state doesn't have a king (head of state by inheritancel, but some sort of president which gets elected in some way (not necessary by the population). A democracy is a category of how decisions get made, i.e. by some vote of the people (demos). Is there some subtlety I'm missing or is this thing about "federal Republic not democracy" something just always repeated, without properly understanding it. .
- chaxor 5y ago
  "The government has a defect. It's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - They're pure tyrannies." - Noam Chomsky
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Still waiting for those "pure tyrannies". Meanwhile every damn thing I am using in my daily life, from my car, computer to the furnace heating my house - was made by a corporation. And I did live under communism, with absolutely zero corporations. Then I knew tyranny every day. And shortages. Did Noam Chomsky live under communism by any chance?
    - vault 5y ago
      The fact that you lived under a bad government, while sad, doesn't invalidate Noam's statement.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Maybe. But the fact that we haven't encountered those "pure tyrannies" anywhere sure does.
        vault 5y ago
        I won't dive into details, but please consider that maybe you're not recognizing them.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Considering I lived under a tyranny, I should be fairly qualified to recognize one if I see it. But I can always be wrong, so I am open to examples.
tokai 5y ago
Definitely USA. My government doesn't drone strike people based on communication patterns or disappear them to black sites without ever being put in front of a judge.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Are you afraid USA would drone strike or disappear you if they get to your private data? Do you think that is a valid concern for most people?
  - inetknght 5y ago
    I think it's a valid concern for everyone, yes.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Then you should get out more and talk to some real people.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        You are aware that there was a number of completely innocent people who were disappeared int US black sites, because of some name mismatch, something they said somewhere or because their neighbor didn't like them. Now you might be white and have an English name so chances of that happening to you might be slim. However if you do not believe that this is an issue that we have to work against i suggest you get out and develop some principles. You seem to only have issues with these things if done by communist governments.
        nickpp 5y ago
        I am aware. Those cases number in what - single digits?! Statistically speaking I am much more likely to die of the flu. However, communist governments have done that to millions. If you don't see the difference, I suggest you reexamine your principles.
einpoklum 5y ago
The french service should expose user information to the French government either. If the government has a public warrant for that information, then opinions might differ about whether or not it is legitimate for the website operators to oblige.
xdennis 5y ago
> I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government. The USA, because, at least in principle, every individual has some manner of influence over his own government.
- nickpp 5y ago
  But, reversely, every individual's own government has a much bigger influence on the individual than the US government has.

I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government.

by nickpp 5y ago

I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government.

As a US analog, I'm more concerned with my own government collecting data on me than I am about the Chinese. One of those has an entire ocean to cross to cause me IRL problems.

vault 5y ago

The USA, of course. Don't forget you vote for your government, not for Google's CEO.

nickpp 5y ago
Google's CEO has pretty much ZERO powers over me. The USA government is (largely) democratic and (mostly) obeys laws. But my government... is not the one I voted for and I trust it 0%. Because I do not live in the West but in one of the great majority of countries with a corrupt, abusive government. The democratic governments of the West are the exception, not the rule.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  > The USA government is (largely) democratic Well, if I may nitpick, it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... More to the point though, there was this study at Princeton U about the correlation between US government policy and popular opinion on a variety of subjects which found that public opinion correlates very poorly with government policy / legislation passed, but opinions among the very-rich correlate well. Can't remember the exact reference right now. > and (mostly) obeys laws. Oh, definitely not. It can well be argued that there is constant mass violation of the constitution. And regardless of this, the US is such a notorious outlaw on the international level that not only does it refuse to accept jurisdiction of the international criminal court, but has in fact threatened action against court staff if the court hears any case against it: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-internation...
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Still infinitely better than my government though, which was the whole point.
  - chaxor 5y ago
    The effect you mentioned (democratic deficit) is also inversely correlated with unionization (which positively correlates with public engagement with government). So it could be that the reduction in population median household income due to reduction in unionization (and increase in top earner profit / larger inequalities) causes an exacerbation of the effect, with the observation you mentioned.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Under communism unionisation was pretty much complete - but that did not make the dictatorship a democracy by any means.
  - eulenteufel 5y ago
    > it's a federal republic rather than a democracy... Germany is both a federal republic and a democracy and I would argue the the USA are too. Both countries ultimatively derive their legislation from the general populace and are representative democracies. I've seen the claim you made several times, but every time I try to look it up I fail to understand it. What is your reason to think a federal republic would exclude democracy?
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Yes this seems to be a common distinction made in the US, which I also don't understand. What I learned in politics at school (and studying it for a short time) was that republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts (leds leave out the federal which seems to be even another dimension). A republic essentially means, the state doesn't have a king (head of state by inheritancel, but some sort of president which gets elected in some way (not necessary by the population). A democracy is a category of how decisions get made, i.e. by some vote of the people (demos). Is there some subtlety I'm missing or is this thing about "federal Republic not democracy" something just always repeated, without properly understanding it. .
chaxor 5y ago
"The government has a defect. It's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - They're pure tyrannies." - Noam Chomsky
- nickpp 5y ago
  Still waiting for those "pure tyrannies". Meanwhile every damn thing I am using in my daily life, from my car, computer to the furnace heating my house - was made by a corporation. And I did live under communism, with absolutely zero corporations. Then I knew tyranny every day. And shortages. Did Noam Chomsky live under communism by any chance?
  - vault 5y ago
    The fact that you lived under a bad government, while sad, doesn't invalidate Noam's statement.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Maybe. But the fact that we haven't encountered those "pure tyrannies" anywhere sure does.
      - vault 5y ago
        I won't dive into details, but please consider that maybe you're not recognizing them.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Considering I lived under a tyranny, I should be fairly qualified to recognize one if I see it. But I can always be wrong, so I am open to examples.

tokai 5y ago

Definitely USA. My government doesn't drone strike people based on communication patterns or disappear them to black sites without ever being put in front of a judge.

nickpp 5y ago
Are you afraid USA would drone strike or disappear you if they get to your private data? Do you think that is a valid concern for most people?
- inetknght 5y ago
  I think it's a valid concern for everyone, yes.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Then you should get out more and talk to some real people.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      You are aware that there was a number of completely innocent people who were disappeared int US black sites, because of some name mismatch, something they said somewhere or because their neighbor didn't like them. Now you might be white and have an English name so chances of that happening to you might be slim. However if you do not believe that this is an issue that we have to work against i suggest you get out and develop some principles. You seem to only have issues with these things if done by communist governments.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        I am aware. Those cases number in what - single digits?! Statistically speaking I am much more likely to die of the flu. However, communist governments have done that to millions. If you don't see the difference, I suggest you reexamine your principles.

einpoklum 5y ago

The french service should expose user information to the French government either. If the government has a public warrant for that information, then opinions might differ about whether or not it is legitimate for the website operators to oblige.

xdennis 5y ago

> I wonder who are people more afraid of exposing their private information to: the USA or their own government. The USA, because, at least in principle, every individual has some manner of influence over his own government.

nickpp 5y ago
But, reversely, every individual's own government has a much bigger influence on the individual than the US government has.