3 ms·

I in no shape form or fashion could be considered leaning right. But why the emphasis on Koch funding instead of being more concerned with giving more surveil

I in no shape form or fashion could be considered leaning right. But why the emphasis on Koch funding instead of being more concerned with giving more surveillance power to the state?

jfengel 4y ago
Because the Kochs have a habit of using their wealth to suppress their political enemies. It would not be beyond them to file a lawsuit of no merit to harass Google. Not saying that's what happened here. I don't know. But it's a relevant bit of context.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > using their wealth to suppress their political enemies You could say that about practically every Democrat. Usually they brag about it “we have the most donations under X amount.”
mindslight 4y ago
The state did not gain more surveillance power. The state asked a surveillance company for help, and the company saw a common goal and exercised the surveillance power that it's been building for the past two decades. Power inevitably coalesces, and the only way to opt out of our brave new surveillance society is to be running software that represents your own interests.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So if the state asks random people to break into your house to find out information about you should you move to another country?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I don't understand the analogy you're drawing? If the state asks an arbitrary person to break into your house, and that person breaks into your house, they should be prosecuted. Only if they are not prosecuted is there an argument to be made they're acting with de facto state authority. What Google did here was not illegal. It should be, but it's not.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      You said the answer is to use another phone to prevent surveillance. In that case is the solution to buy another house outside of US jurisdiction to prevent the government from breaking into your house and installing cameras?
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Well, the other half of your analogy would be that you live in a country where the government routinely breaks into houses and installs cameras, so yes? Of course there are other solutions besides the technical one of installing software that represents your interests. For example, effective privacy legislation would go a long way towards curtailing commercial surveillance, as well as giving users a way to distance themselves from companies that did objectionable things.

I in no shape form or fashion could be considered leaning right. But why the emphasis on Koch funding instead of being more concerned with giving more surveillance power to the state?

jfengel 4y ago

Because the Kochs have a habit of using their wealth to suppress their political enemies. It would not be beyond them to file a lawsuit of no merit to harass Google. Not saying that's what happened here. I don't know. But it's a relevant bit of context.

taolegal 4y ago
> using their wealth to suppress their political enemies You could say that about practically every Democrat. Usually they brag about it “we have the most donations under X amount.”

mindslight 4y ago

The state did not gain more surveillance power. The state asked a surveillance company for help, and the company saw a common goal and exercised the surveillance power that it's been building for the past two decades. Power inevitably coalesces, and the only way to opt out of our brave new surveillance society is to be running software that represents your own interests.

scarface74 4y ago
So if the state asks random people to break into your house to find out information about you should you move to another country?
- mindslight 4y ago
  I don't understand the analogy you're drawing? If the state asks an arbitrary person to break into your house, and that person breaks into your house, they should be prosecuted. Only if they are not prosecuted is there an argument to be made they're acting with de facto state authority. What Google did here was not illegal. It should be, but it's not.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    You said the answer is to use another phone to prevent surveillance. In that case is the solution to buy another house outside of US jurisdiction to prevent the government from breaking into your house and installing cameras?
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Well, the other half of your analogy would be that you live in a country where the government routinely breaks into houses and installs cameras, so yes? Of course there are other solutions besides the technical one of installing software that represents your interests. For example, effective privacy legislation would go a long way towards curtailing commercial surveillance, as well as giving users a way to distance themselves from companies that did objectionable things.