5 ms·

I think where we go wrong is to allow the conversation to revolve around what evil corporations are doing with our information, rather than what the evil govern

I think where we go wrong is to allow the conversation to revolve around what evil corporations are doing with our information, rather than what the evil government is doing with it. I believe the risk to our freedom is much greater from the latter. Of course governments can extract the information from corporations that have it, but let's keep the spotlight on the government itself, and use THAT as a reason to give corps less information about us. Corporations showing me better-targeted ads is the least of my troubles.

tbrockman 3y ago
“Better-targeted advertisements” is not the most nefarious way this information is used. That’s just one of the selling points to entice advertisers. It’s also been used extensively to determine content that you will find the most engaging, regardless of whether it’s to your benefit or not, so that ad-driven marketplaces may harvest and sell your attention. If you have any contemporary examples of the way the government has used the same information, in a way that’s been more widely destructive, I would be curious to know more.
wharvle 3y ago
> Of course governments can extract the information from corporations that have it, but let's keep the spotlight on the government itself, and use THAT as a reason to give corps less information about us. Yep. Treating the two as distinct makes no sense. Corporate dragnet surveillance collecting forever-datasets isn't meaningfully different from the government doing the same thing, directly. People who fear government power ought to support outlawing corporate collection of the same types of things they don't want government collecting. Granted that's relying on the government to prevent corporations from doing things in order to limit... the government (and, incidentally and IMO beneficially, also the corporations themselves). However, that's the only effective mechanism we've got—and the basis of all the other mechanisms we have available, ultimately, short of violence and strikes and such—and I think it's implausible that, even assuming a great deal of bad-faith behavior, such a move wouldn't significantly curb this activity.
mitchitized 3y ago
Wouldn't the exact opposite focus have a better effect? Going after the "evil corporations" would mean nobody was collecting the data in the first place, which would also take away the "evil government" as they have nobody to buy that data from. Right now they just write fat checks to Google, Apple, Amazon and the telcos and badda bing, badda boom it's done.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  A government can (in some cases) force a company to collect information they otherwise wouldn't have. The reverse is not true. So I do think the bigger danger here is the legal framework that not only permits this but keeps it secret, rather than the mere fact of information collection.
- digging 3y ago
  I suppose if government orgs weren't allowed to buy that data, the value might drop. Significantly? Unclear.
pphysch 3y ago
This is such a strange position for me. Do we not agree that corporate America and other special interest groups essentially control Washington via lobbying and corruption? Do we not agree that a US citizen has (nominally) more leverage over their government than over an unaccountable private collective? I mean, we are half a century deep into this Reaganite "your government is your enemy" experiment.
- colordrops 3y ago
  https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
  - eks391 3y ago
    I'm getting a blank page from your link
    - colordrops 3y ago
      It's a PDF download.
  - rangerelf 3y ago
    You already mentioned this higher in the thread, no need to repeat yourself. For the record I agree with the grandparent post's question: at least, gov is _supposed_ to be controlled by the citizenry through elections, corporations are not. I can have ("should have") visibility into what the government is doing, corporations can hide (and do hide) as much real information as they can and there's no way for me to get to it. Whether it's naive of me to think so or not is not what is being discussed here.
riversflow 3y ago
> I believe the risk to our freedom is much greater from the latter. I’ll take power being consolidated in a democratically elected government over a privately controlled corporation any day of the week. Let’s put the spotlight on the stuff that isn’t democratically controlled, and subject to much more limited oversight.
- colordrops 3y ago
  The US government isn't really democratically controlled, which is obvious to anyone paying attention, and this Princeton paper proves it: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
  - wildrhythms 3y ago
    The person you're replying to is making a statement about democratically accountable consolidation of power; not necessarily today's current (and broken) implementations of such things.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      No non-broken implementation of such things is known to exist. Democracy itself is the tyranny of the majority even when majority rule is what is actually happening. Concentration of power has to be prevented because of this, not in spite of it.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    You know what does control the government? Corporations. Seems like that's where our focus needs to be regardless.
krunck 3y ago
Corporations use the government to get around regulation. Goverment uses corporations to get around the constitution. It takes two to tango.
autoexec 3y ago
> I think where we go wrong is to allow the conversation to revolve around what evil corporations are doing with our information, rather than what the evil government is doing with it. I think it would be wrong to ignore either. Especially since most of the data the government gets is from corporations. > Corporations showing me better-targeted ads is the least of my troubles. You're right about that. That data sure isn't only used for ads. Companies use it to decide what services you're allowed to get and under what terms. The policies a company tells you they have are different from the polices they tell others they have. Companies use it to set prices so that what you pay can be different from what your neighbor does for the same goods/services. Companies even use that data to determine how long to keep you on hold when you call them. Employers use it to make hiring decisions. Landlords use it to decide who to rent to. It's sold to universities who use it to decide which students to accept or reject. It's sold to scammers who use it to select their victims. Extremists use it to target and harass their enemies. Lawyers use it in courtrooms as evidence in criminal cases and custody battles. Insurance companies use it to raise rates and deny claims. The data companies are collecting about will cost you again and again in more and more aspects of your life. Ads are absolutely the least of your troubles.
aaroninsf 3y ago
Now do, "declining to hire, insure, or loan to you" and "declining to admit your kids into school|sports program|internship"

tbrockman 3y ago

“Better-targeted advertisements” is not the most nefarious way this information is used. That’s just one of the selling points to entice advertisers. It’s also been used extensively to determine content that you will find the most engaging, regardless of whether it’s to your benefit or not, so that ad-driven marketplaces may harvest and sell your attention. If you have any contemporary examples of the way the government has used the same information, in a way that’s been more widely destructive, I would be curious to know more.

wharvle 3y ago

> Of course governments can extract the information from corporations that have it, but let's keep the spotlight on the government itself, and use THAT as a reason to give corps less information about us. Yep. Treating the two as distinct makes no sense. Corporate dragnet surveillance collecting forever-datasets isn't meaningfully different from the government doing the same thing, directly. People who fear government power ought to support outlawing corporate collection of the same types of things they don't want government collecting. Granted that's relying on the government to prevent corporations from doing things in order to limit... the government (and, incidentally and IMO beneficially, also the corporations themselves). However, that's the only effective mechanism we've got—and the basis of all the other mechanisms we have available, ultimately, short of violence and strikes and such—and I think it's implausible that, even assuming a great deal of bad-faith behavior, such a move wouldn't significantly curb this activity.

mitchitized 3y ago

Wouldn't the exact opposite focus have a better effect? Going after the "evil corporations" would mean nobody was collecting the data in the first place, which would also take away the "evil government" as they have nobody to buy that data from. Right now they just write fat checks to Google, Apple, Amazon and the telcos and badda bing, badda boom it's done.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
A government can (in some cases) force a company to collect information they otherwise wouldn't have. The reverse is not true. So I do think the bigger danger here is the legal framework that not only permits this but keeps it secret, rather than the mere fact of information collection.
digging 3y ago
I suppose if government orgs weren't allowed to buy that data, the value might drop. Significantly? Unclear.

pphysch 3y ago

This is such a strange position for me. Do we not agree that corporate America and other special interest groups essentially control Washington via lobbying and corruption? Do we not agree that a US citizen has (nominally) more leverage over their government than over an unaccountable private collective? I mean, we are half a century deep into this Reaganite "your government is your enemy" experiment.

colordrops 3y ago
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
- eks391 3y ago
  I'm getting a blank page from your link
  - colordrops 3y ago
    It's a PDF download.
- rangerelf 3y ago
  You already mentioned this higher in the thread, no need to repeat yourself. For the record I agree with the grandparent post's question: at least, gov is _supposed_ to be controlled by the citizenry through elections, corporations are not. I can have ("should have") visibility into what the government is doing, corporations can hide (and do hide) as much real information as they can and there's no way for me to get to it. Whether it's naive of me to think so or not is not what is being discussed here.

riversflow 3y ago

> I believe the risk to our freedom is much greater from the latter. I’ll take power being consolidated in a democratically elected government over a privately controlled corporation any day of the week. Let’s put the spotlight on the stuff that isn’t democratically controlled, and subject to much more limited oversight.

colordrops 3y ago
The US government isn't really democratically controlled, which is obvious to anyone paying attention, and this Princeton paper proves it: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  The person you're replying to is making a statement about democratically accountable consolidation of power; not necessarily today's current (and broken) implementations of such things.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    No non-broken implementation of such things is known to exist. Democracy itself is the tyranny of the majority even when majority rule is what is actually happening. Concentration of power has to be prevented because of this, not in spite of it.
- autoexec 3y ago
  You know what does control the government? Corporations. Seems like that's where our focus needs to be regardless.

krunck 3y ago

Corporations use the government to get around regulation. Goverment uses corporations to get around the constitution. It takes two to tango.

autoexec 3y ago

> I think where we go wrong is to allow the conversation to revolve around what evil corporations are doing with our information, rather than what the evil government is doing with it. I think it would be wrong to ignore either. Especially since most of the data the government gets is from corporations. > Corporations showing me better-targeted ads is the least of my troubles. You're right about that. That data sure isn't only used for ads. Companies use it to decide what services you're allowed to get and under what terms. The policies a company tells you they have are different from the polices they tell others they have. Companies use it to set prices so that what you pay can be different from what your neighbor does for the same goods/services. Companies even use that data to determine how long to keep you on hold when you call them. Employers use it to make hiring decisions. Landlords use it to decide who to rent to. It's sold to universities who use it to decide which students to accept or reject. It's sold to scammers who use it to select their victims. Extremists use it to target and harass their enemies. Lawyers use it in courtrooms as evidence in criminal cases and custody battles. Insurance companies use it to raise rates and deny claims. The data companies are collecting about will cost you again and again in more and more aspects of your life. Ads are absolutely the least of your troubles.

aaroninsf 3y ago

Now do, "declining to hire, insure, or loan to you" and "declining to admit your kids into school|sports program|internship"