3 ms·

> I'd prefer to see it as a non-government, not-for-profit service. Hard, because the government has authority, a random company does not. I'd still trust my

> I'd prefer to see it as a non-government, not-for-profit service. Hard, because the government has authority, a random company does not. I'd still trust my government more than a random non profit company, if my trust decreases, I'd vote for different people to manage the country - which is not possible with companies.

tantalor 3y ago
You could run it like the Fed, independent from govt but still official.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Why, so they can be shady and funnel profits to private hands?
- RGBCube 3y ago
  Ah, then that would be the best solution.
pas 3y ago
> I'd vote for different people to manage the country Also not possible in Turkey, but at least this service works.
gizmo686 3y ago
The legal framework for a private company doing it is already there. At least in the US, you can always cancel with a properly worded certified letter to the company. You would probably need to give the company limited power of attorney to send the letter on your behalf. This isn't as crazy as it sounds, its essentially the same thing as title companies. You give them power of attorney and they deal with the DMV for you for things like transfering title of your car. Having said that, I don't think the market for painless cancelling is big enough to do this given the legal overhead that would be needed.
- thinkmassive 3y ago
  DoNotPay.com has existed for a while
hayd 3y ago
Does the government really need to know every subscription that every person in the county has? This seems like massive overreach/invasion of privacy.
- lbschenkel 3y ago
  Even if that was the case: compared to the subscribing companies themselves selling not only that information, but also your personal data to the highest (and lowest) bidder?
- RGBCube 3y ago
  Well, the government can access your bank logs, so I don't think them seeing you have a TV and internet subscription is an issue. It's a great benefit of having an authoritarian government.
  - Etherlord87 3y ago
    The government can access the bank logs, but it doesn't have an automatic channel to do so for everyone at once. Making it easier for the government to spy on its citizens definitely is an issue.
    - dmonitor 3y ago
      I wouldn't mind such a service being opt-in for citizens but mandatory for companies to support.
  - hayd 3y ago
    Surely, in theory at least, they require a subpoena/warrant. Perhaps I am hopelessly naive.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      They don't need a subpoena/warrant for data that the company chooses to sell the government. It's not your data, but data about you owned by the company. The government can ask a bank or netflix for all their customers data or even for an online portal that gives them unlimited access to whatever they need in exchange for cash and plenty of companies welcome the new revenue stream. (see for example https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-data-americans-little-oversight-report-finds-rcna89035 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-dat...) This isn't limited to the government buying up data either. Things like access to real-time GPS location has been for sale from every major mobile carrier
superq 3y ago
With companies, it's even easier: just cancel. Even if (as with Netflix) it takes until the end of the month, at least I can just ditch them. Even if elections are fair and regularly scheduled, you're essentially firing and re-hiring an entirely new company administration every n years. This is incredibly inefficient and probably why most govt websites (in every democratic country?) are pretty bad compared to their private counterparts. And, there's no real incentive to improve, while with private companies, if you don't like them, you just stop paying for them. That profit motive (and threat of its loss) is very powerful - much more powerful than the "I'm helping my fellow citizen by engaging in civil service" (or, perhaps more likely, "I'm accruing power by running for public office"). That's why this "click to cancel" proposal is so important: it keeps companies from becoming embedded, like the incumbent govt that gets lazy and complacent, knowing that they'll never get voted out.

tantalor 3y ago

You could run it like the Fed, independent from govt but still official.

kelipso 3y ago
Why, so they can be shady and funnel profits to private hands?
RGBCube 3y ago
Ah, then that would be the best solution.

pas 3y ago

> I'd vote for different people to manage the country Also not possible in Turkey, but at least this service works.

gizmo686 3y ago

The legal framework for a private company doing it is already there. At least in the US, you can always cancel with a properly worded certified letter to the company. You would probably need to give the company limited power of attorney to send the letter on your behalf. This isn't as crazy as it sounds, its essentially the same thing as title companies. You give them power of attorney and they deal with the DMV for you for things like transfering title of your car. Having said that, I don't think the market for painless cancelling is big enough to do this given the legal overhead that would be needed.

thinkmassive 3y ago
DoNotPay.com has existed for a while

hayd 3y ago

Does the government really need to know every subscription that every person in the county has? This seems like massive overreach/invasion of privacy.

lbschenkel 3y ago
Even if that was the case: compared to the subscribing companies themselves selling not only that information, but also your personal data to the highest (and lowest) bidder?
RGBCube 3y ago
Well, the government can access your bank logs, so I don't think them seeing you have a TV and internet subscription is an issue. It's a great benefit of having an authoritarian government.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  The government can access the bank logs, but it doesn't have an automatic channel to do so for everyone at once. Making it easier for the government to spy on its citizens definitely is an issue.
  - dmonitor 3y ago
    I wouldn't mind such a service being opt-in for citizens but mandatory for companies to support.
- hayd 3y ago
  Surely, in theory at least, they require a subpoena/warrant. Perhaps I am hopelessly naive.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    They don't need a subpoena/warrant for data that the company chooses to sell the government. It's not your data, but data about you owned by the company. The government can ask a bank or netflix for all their customers data or even for an online portal that gives them unlimited access to whatever they need in exchange for cash and plenty of companies welcome the new revenue stream. (see for example https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-data-americans-little-oversight-report-finds-rcna89035 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-government-buys-dat...) This isn't limited to the government buying up data either. Things like access to real-time GPS location has been for sale from every major mobile carrier

superq 3y ago

With companies, it's even easier: just cancel. Even if (as with Netflix) it takes until the end of the month, at least I can just ditch them. Even if elections are fair and regularly scheduled, you're essentially firing and re-hiring an entirely new company administration every n years. This is incredibly inefficient and probably why most govt websites (in every democratic country?) are pretty bad compared to their private counterparts. And, there's no real incentive to improve, while with private companies, if you don't like them, you just stop paying for them. That profit motive (and threat of its loss) is very powerful - much more powerful than the "I'm helping my fellow citizen by engaging in civil service" (or, perhaps more likely, "I'm accruing power by running for public office"). That's why this "click to cancel" proposal is so important: it keeps companies from becoming embedded, like the incumbent govt that gets lazy and complacent, knowing that they'll never get voted out.