4 ms·

In the US, it could be argued that big tech, and the government through big tech, violate the 4th amendment - specifically regarding a reasonable expectation of

In the US, it could be argued that big tech, and the government through big tech, violate the 4th amendment - specifically regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy. Can an individual reasonably know the data that every platform has on them? Is it ethical if a government obtains a warrant to an individual's data they don't know the tech company is on possession of? What's stopping the government from buying data from companies without the need for a warrant?

aristofun 2y ago
Who draws the line of “reasonable” when it comes to visiting websites? Any other more serious examples?
- randomonad 2y ago
  That is not serious enough? To be fair Google gives you a lot of control over what data is kept but the defaults suck. I am not sure what happens now but there was the PRISM debacle. Send an email to a non US citizen and they can end run your rights because the other person isn’t. At scale things that are innocent are no longer so. Your neighbour knows you had a visit from the police at 6am. But what if a company knows who has visited who, where everyone has been, what sites they have visited (e.g. anger management class, criminal lawyer) and then can piece it all together in a world where, well look at Trump - you can make a misdemeanour into a felony with the right constructs against even a powerful person. It is quite dangerous for the average person. And this is pre AI revolution.
  - aristofun 2y ago
    You imply that big tech has malicious goals in mind in the first place. Which is not the case, speaking from experience. It means it is not a serious threat by itself, no more than professional pilots is a threat to air travel safety. Just because they know too much about flying.
    - palata 2y ago
      > Which is not the case, speaking from experience. Of course not. A company does not have "intentions" or "feelings". A company is just a big profit maximization machine, and people at every level contribute to it. But I think we can say that the result is that BigTech results in unethical stuff (starting with surveillance capitalism). Without blaming individuals, it's possible to recognize it and search for solutions.
      - aristofun 2y ago
        > BigTech results in unethical stuff Nope. This is a pretty big claim to be taken without a good proof. Why do you think so? Because of _some_ bad actors today (out of many)? Because of _some_ bad practices in the past (already covered by new regulations in place)?
        palata 2y ago
        > Why do you think so? As mentioned in the next words of my quote (which you apparently ignored): because BigTech brought us surveillance capitalism, and surveillance capitalism is unethical. The evolution of surveillance capitalism being mass spying (with AI accessing all that data), which is unethical. And because of tons of documented "bad practices" over the years. New regulations will just bring new unethical practices if that goes with profit maximization.
        aristofun 2y ago
        Define “surveillance capitalism”, prove that it is what big companies purposfuly do, show how it is doing more harm than good to society and only after that your words can take part in meaningful discussion. Until then all you say is just opinionated generalizations and dropping cool looking but meaningless words.
        palata 2y ago
        It genuinely feels like you are in bad faith here, ignoring the parts of my comments you don't like. Surveillance capitalism [1] is a pretty well-defined concept. If you don't know it, maybe you should refrain from talking about ethics in the context of BigTech. > prove that it is what big companies purposfuly do Why should it be purposeful? That's just your addition to support your point of view. I clearly said above that the purpose of companies is to maximize profit. All the rest kind of comes from there. A company is not unethical because it is "evil". It is unethical because that's the rational way to maximize profit. > Until then all you say is just opinionated generalizations and dropping cool looking but meaningless words. Sure. And yours are not. Let's stop it here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

aristofun 2y ago

Who draws the line of “reasonable” when it comes to visiting websites? Any other more serious examples?

randomonad 2y ago
That is not serious enough? To be fair Google gives you a lot of control over what data is kept but the defaults suck. I am not sure what happens now but there was the PRISM debacle. Send an email to a non US citizen and they can end run your rights because the other person isn’t. At scale things that are innocent are no longer so. Your neighbour knows you had a visit from the police at 6am. But what if a company knows who has visited who, where everyone has been, what sites they have visited (e.g. anger management class, criminal lawyer) and then can piece it all together in a world where, well look at Trump - you can make a misdemeanour into a felony with the right constructs against even a powerful person. It is quite dangerous for the average person. And this is pre AI revolution.
- aristofun 2y ago
  You imply that big tech has malicious goals in mind in the first place. Which is not the case, speaking from experience. It means it is not a serious threat by itself, no more than professional pilots is a threat to air travel safety. Just because they know too much about flying.
  - palata 2y ago
    > Which is not the case, speaking from experience. Of course not. A company does not have "intentions" or "feelings". A company is just a big profit maximization machine, and people at every level contribute to it. But I think we can say that the result is that BigTech results in unethical stuff (starting with surveillance capitalism). Without blaming individuals, it's possible to recognize it and search for solutions.
    - aristofun 2y ago
      > BigTech results in unethical stuff Nope. This is a pretty big claim to be taken without a good proof. Why do you think so? Because of _some_ bad actors today (out of many)? Because of _some_ bad practices in the past (already covered by new regulations in place)?
      - palata 2y ago
        > Why do you think so? As mentioned in the next words of my quote (which you apparently ignored): because BigTech brought us surveillance capitalism, and surveillance capitalism is unethical. The evolution of surveillance capitalism being mass spying (with AI accessing all that data), which is unethical. And because of tons of documented "bad practices" over the years. New regulations will just bring new unethical practices if that goes with profit maximization.
        aristofun 2y ago
        Define “surveillance capitalism”, prove that it is what big companies purposfuly do, show how it is doing more harm than good to society and only after that your words can take part in meaningful discussion. Until then all you say is just opinionated generalizations and dropping cool looking but meaningless words.
        palata 2y ago
        It genuinely feels like you are in bad faith here, ignoring the parts of my comments you don't like. Surveillance capitalism [1] is a pretty well-defined concept. If you don't know it, maybe you should refrain from talking about ethics in the context of BigTech. > prove that it is what big companies purposfuly do Why should it be purposeful? That's just your addition to support your point of view. I clearly said above that the purpose of companies is to maximize profit. All the rest kind of comes from there. A company is not unethical because it is "evil". It is unethical because that's the rational way to maximize profit. > Until then all you say is just opinionated generalizations and dropping cool looking but meaningless words. Sure. And yours are not. Let's stop it here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism