4 ms·

This is what is extremely strange to me (by principle). When the government does it, it seems to make many more headlines and people are outraged, but when a c

by chaxor 4y ago

This is what is extremely strange to me (by principle). When the government does it, it seems to make many more headlines and people are outraged, but when a company does it, there is far more acceptance. In principle, it should be far more concerning to see private entities getting access to personal data - because they operate without any opportunity for the public to be involved (their pure tyrannies in a sense) and are completely opaque, but the government is far more transparent and the one institution which you can change by democratic involvement. Of course, this type of data gathering is concerning in any case, but the government is the last on the list of entities we should be worried about having it.

neckardt 4y ago
Historically, there are several instances of governments accumulating more and more power until they turn into a totalitarian state and remove freedoms from their citizens. I don't know of any companies who have abused their power to that extent.
- altacc 4y ago
  Historically (and currently) there are many companies that directly or indirectly working to limit freedoms, either alone or complicit with governments. Corporations are powerful and in many places have as much power over people as governments. It can be as varied as surveillance (Cisco in China) to murdering opponents (Shell in Nigeria), to industry lobbying. Look around and you'll find many more. The solution to the problem is to go down the EU route of reducing the rights of anyone to collect all this information and make it harder to access that which is collected. It's by no means perfect but it is the right direction.
- nightowl1995 4y ago
  Ever heard of East India company ?
- Jochim 4y ago
  Does the Ludlow Massacre count? > taking testimony from all the principals, including Rockefeller Sr., who testified that, even after knowing that guards in his pay had committed atrocities against the strikers, he "would have taken no action" to prevent his hirelings from attacking them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 4y ago
Well, private industries don’t have a “monopoly on violence”. The number of things that a private company can do to me pale in comparison to what the government can do
- krapp 4y ago
  On the other hand, the US is essentially an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic, and the relationship between Big Tech (particularly the big social media silos) and three-letter agencies/the military industrial complex is disturbingly incestuous. Government having the monopoly on violence doesn't imply corporate power is benign when people are killed over their metadata.
- yunwal 4y ago
  Private industries routinely buy government officials with a monopoly on violence, and regular citizens have no recourse to remove those officials so the distinction is meaningless.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
Government surveillance is supposed to require a warrant. Efforts to bypass that requirement are scandalous because the warrant requirement is there to protect against tyranny of the majority. It's a known failure mode of democratic governments and the check on government power is important. Corporate surveillance is a different beast because people can choose which corporations they do business with, absent market consolidation. We are not absent market consolidation, but it's that which is the scandal, not what would otherwise be voluntary associations between private parties.
- echevil 4y ago
  "supposed" to. That's how the "democratic" governments market themselves to be
- piva00 4y ago
  > We are not absent market consolidation, but it's that which is the scandal, not what would otherwise be voluntary associations between private parties. This is the crux of it, it's not voluntary association to be a participant in the surveillance economy. If I didn't live in the EU this would be my train of thought: I didn't choose it, I just accessed a website that had trackers and eventually that data is sold, I wasn't willing to do it and the contract for it is buried somewhere and simply by accessing it I've implicitly given the system tacit agreement to get my data scooped up. That's why I believe GDPR was a major advancement for data privacy, I can actually choose to block trackers or to not access a website if they make it hard to not be tracked.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    You realize that EU is also trying to weaken encryption and give governments more power right?
    - piva00 4y ago
      As an EU citizen, yes, I'm very aware. In here though I talked explicitly about GDPR and data privacy in the surveillance economy sense. I'm not discussing encryption or government overreach on privacy matters in the EU in general, unsure why it is brought up in this thread, care to expand?
squarefoot 4y ago
> This is what is extremely strange to me (by principle). When the government does it, it seems to make many more headlines and people are outraged, but when a company does it, there is far more acceptance. Exactly, and all it needs to keep people calm is to create a puppet advertising company that does its job and covertly pass the data to govt organizations, or infiltrate an established one. Problem is that personal data mining has become vital for our modern toxic economy, so I don't see how the practice could go away anytime soon, especially when those making the laws and those taking advantage from it are essentially the same entities.
HardlyCurious 4y ago
Go through history and tally up the human rights violations done by companies and govts and see who the leader is. The govt has an army, police, and jails. The govt has legal means to use violence against people and deny them their freedoms. Any company that could do that would be doing it with the blessing of the govt first, which kinda just makes them a govt contractor. Govt having information is not the same as a company who just wants to pre-approve you for a loan or show you a YouTube ad.

by chaxor 4y ago

neckardt 4y ago

Historically, there are several instances of governments accumulating more and more power until they turn into a totalitarian state and remove freedoms from their citizens. I don't know of any companies who have abused their power to that extent.

altacc 4y ago
Historically (and currently) there are many companies that directly or indirectly working to limit freedoms, either alone or complicit with governments. Corporations are powerful and in many places have as much power over people as governments. It can be as varied as surveillance (Cisco in China) to murdering opponents (Shell in Nigeria), to industry lobbying. Look around and you'll find many more. The solution to the problem is to go down the EU route of reducing the rights of anyone to collect all this information and make it harder to access that which is collected. It's by no means perfect but it is the right direction.
nightowl1995 4y ago
Ever heard of East India company ?
Jochim 4y ago
Does the Ludlow Massacre count? > taking testimony from all the principals, including Rockefeller Sr., who testified that, even after knowing that guards in his pay had committed atrocities against the strikers, he "would have taken no action" to prevent his hirelings from attacking them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

scarface74 4y ago

Well, private industries don’t have a “monopoly on violence”. The number of things that a private company can do to me pale in comparison to what the government can do

krapp 4y ago
On the other hand, the US is essentially an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic, and the relationship between Big Tech (particularly the big social media silos) and three-letter agencies/the military industrial complex is disturbingly incestuous. Government having the monopoly on violence doesn't imply corporate power is benign when people are killed over their metadata.
yunwal 4y ago
Private industries routinely buy government officials with a monopoly on violence, and regular citizens have no recourse to remove those officials so the distinction is meaningless.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

Government surveillance is supposed to require a warrant. Efforts to bypass that requirement are scandalous because the warrant requirement is there to protect against tyranny of the majority. It's a known failure mode of democratic governments and the check on government power is important. Corporate surveillance is a different beast because people can choose which corporations they do business with, absent market consolidation. We are not absent market consolidation, but it's that which is the scandal, not what would otherwise be voluntary associations between private parties.

echevil 4y ago
"supposed" to. That's how the "democratic" governments market themselves to be
piva00 4y ago
> We are not absent market consolidation, but it's that which is the scandal, not what would otherwise be voluntary associations between private parties. This is the crux of it, it's not voluntary association to be a participant in the surveillance economy. If I didn't live in the EU this would be my train of thought: I didn't choose it, I just accessed a website that had trackers and eventually that data is sold, I wasn't willing to do it and the contract for it is buried somewhere and simply by accessing it I've implicitly given the system tacit agreement to get my data scooped up. That's why I believe GDPR was a major advancement for data privacy, I can actually choose to block trackers or to not access a website if they make it hard to not be tracked.
- scarface74 4y ago
  You realize that EU is also trying to weaken encryption and give governments more power right?
  - piva00 4y ago
    As an EU citizen, yes, I'm very aware. In here though I talked explicitly about GDPR and data privacy in the surveillance economy sense. I'm not discussing encryption or government overreach on privacy matters in the EU in general, unsure why it is brought up in this thread, care to expand?

squarefoot 4y ago

> This is what is extremely strange to me (by principle). When the government does it, it seems to make many more headlines and people are outraged, but when a company does it, there is far more acceptance. Exactly, and all it needs to keep people calm is to create a puppet advertising company that does its job and covertly pass the data to govt organizations, or infiltrate an established one. Problem is that personal data mining has become vital for our modern toxic economy, so I don't see how the practice could go away anytime soon, especially when those making the laws and those taking advantage from it are essentially the same entities.

HardlyCurious 4y ago

Go through history and tally up the human rights violations done by companies and govts and see who the leader is. The govt has an army, police, and jails. The govt has legal means to use violence against people and deny them their freedoms. Any company that could do that would be doing it with the blessing of the govt first, which kinda just makes them a govt contractor. Govt having information is not the same as a company who just wants to pre-approve you for a loan or show you a YouTube ad.