4 ms·

Either you agree with Google collecting data in a way that facilitates enforcing the law, or you don't. You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws th

Either you agree with Google collecting data in a way that facilitates enforcing the law, or you don't. You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Why not? Why can managers at Google not make a decision to collect less of the data that could be used to prosecute under a law they don't think is just?
- hnfong 4y ago
  You guys still have a democracy and only have to follow your own country's laws. Don't just give that power away to some faceless megacorp just because you just happen to dislike a couple laws.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  The danger is that by calling upon Google to solve these issues, we concede more and more power to them. Google is a tech company with about 140k employees, about 1/5 the population of San Francisco. Do we want this tiny minority of people to have such a huge influence on which laws get enforced (eg Google giving police data about people selling weed over Gmail) and which laws don't (eg Google deleting data about visits to abortion clinics). Laws should be determined by lawmakers, not tech companies.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    The law against abortion still exists regardless of what Google does. There's no law that that says Google must collect data of who searches for abortion clinics (I presume/hope). It's not Google's responsibility to enforce or facilitate a law.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Because you vote for your politicians/laws. Having a company decide what law is just or not isn't a step in the right direction.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Companies make that decision all the time - they routinely break laws where they believe the cost/benefit analysis works in their favor. I see no issue with them actually taking a moral stand against an unjust law. All of us should be doing the same rather than just shrugging our shoulders and accepting that states are just allowed to legislate away basic human rights now because that's what the Founding Fathers would have preferred.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > All of us should be doing the same rather than just shrugging our shoulders Isn't that why we vote ? Americans have been shrugging their shoulders for a while, fix the root cause, don't ask google to protect you from your own government. idk, seems like a pretty basic train of thought.
      - krapp 4y ago
        No one voted for the repeal of Roe v. Wade - abortion rights are supported by the majority even in many states where abortion is now illegal. The same is and will be true for the pending repeal of gay rights under the same legal principle. The majority of voters didn't even vote for the President who stacked the court. So no, it's not. It's a reason some people vote, because only some votes actually matter. For everyone else it's a rigged system designed to cater to a specific political demographic minority at the expense of the majority, and they'll take Google "protecting them from their own government" over being forced to give birth in a state for which rape and incest aren't legal exceptions, sometimes even at the risk of the mother's life (as has already occurred in Texas.) We don't only have to accept a single solution, we can accept that activism is a legitimate form of political action in the face of unjust laws as well as pursue (unlikely) solutions through legislation. And besides, regardless of the context, less surveillance and less data retention by tech companies is a good thing. If Google doesn't need to collect and retain this data then they shouldn't. Either way, it isn't a case of corporations superseding government authority, but exercising their own freedoms to conduct business under their own terms, as well as allowing the end user more control over their data.
titzer 4y ago
I don't.
pjc50 4y ago
> You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not. This is silly, because there's nothing magic about it being law that makes it just, especially in a highly politicised environment. People argue about ignoring law they don't like all the time, especially in the future tense.
- the_omegist 4y ago
  Then the issue is the law, not Google's enforcement of that law. If you disagree with a law, change it. Don't ask a private company to decide to ignore the law...
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    What law is Google ignoring (in this instance)?

Either you agree with Google collecting data in a way that facilitates enforcing the law, or you don't. You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not.

madeofpalk 4y ago

Why not? Why can managers at Google not make a decision to collect less of the data that could be used to prosecute under a law they don't think is just?

hnfong 4y ago
You guys still have a democracy and only have to follow your own country's laws. Don't just give that power away to some faceless megacorp just because you just happen to dislike a couple laws.
woojoo666 4y ago
The danger is that by calling upon Google to solve these issues, we concede more and more power to them. Google is a tech company with about 140k employees, about 1/5 the population of San Francisco. Do we want this tiny minority of people to have such a huge influence on which laws get enforced (eg Google giving police data about people selling weed over Gmail) and which laws don't (eg Google deleting data about visits to abortion clinics). Laws should be determined by lawmakers, not tech companies.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  The law against abortion still exists regardless of what Google does. There's no law that that says Google must collect data of who searches for abortion clinics (I presume/hope). It's not Google's responsibility to enforce or facilitate a law.
lm28469 4y ago
Because you vote for your politicians/laws. Having a company decide what law is just or not isn't a step in the right direction.
- krapp 4y ago
  Companies make that decision all the time - they routinely break laws where they believe the cost/benefit analysis works in their favor. I see no issue with them actually taking a moral stand against an unjust law. All of us should be doing the same rather than just shrugging our shoulders and accepting that states are just allowed to legislate away basic human rights now because that's what the Founding Fathers would have preferred.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > All of us should be doing the same rather than just shrugging our shoulders Isn't that why we vote ? Americans have been shrugging their shoulders for a while, fix the root cause, don't ask google to protect you from your own government. idk, seems like a pretty basic train of thought.
    - krapp 4y ago
      No one voted for the repeal of Roe v. Wade - abortion rights are supported by the majority even in many states where abortion is now illegal. The same is and will be true for the pending repeal of gay rights under the same legal principle. The majority of voters didn't even vote for the President who stacked the court. So no, it's not. It's a reason some people vote, because only some votes actually matter. For everyone else it's a rigged system designed to cater to a specific political demographic minority at the expense of the majority, and they'll take Google "protecting them from their own government" over being forced to give birth in a state for which rape and incest aren't legal exceptions, sometimes even at the risk of the mother's life (as has already occurred in Texas.) We don't only have to accept a single solution, we can accept that activism is a legitimate form of political action in the face of unjust laws as well as pursue (unlikely) solutions through legislation. And besides, regardless of the context, less surveillance and less data retention by tech companies is a good thing. If Google doesn't need to collect and retain this data then they shouldn't. Either way, it isn't a case of corporations superseding government authority, but exercising their own freedoms to conduct business under their own terms, as well as allowing the end user more control over their data.

titzer 4y ago

I don't.

pjc50 4y ago

> You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not. This is silly, because there's nothing magic about it being law that makes it just, especially in a highly politicised environment. People argue about ignoring law they don't like all the time, especially in the future tense.

the_omegist 4y ago
Then the issue is the law, not Google's enforcement of that law. If you disagree with a law, change it. Don't ask a private company to decide to ignore the law...
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  What law is Google ignoring (in this instance)?