8 ms·

I keep saying this, and nobody believes me, but I'm just going to keep trying: These things happen because so often we focus the privacy conversation on corpor

I keep saying this, and nobody believes me, but I'm just going to keep trying: These things happen because so often we focus the privacy conversation on corporations, which is exactly where the governments want it to be. My controversial but strong opinion is that privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much. We need to stop allowing the conversation to get distracted by talking about cookies and ad-tracking and whatnot, and always bring it right back to privacy from governments. Yes, corporations and the government are often in cahoots here - but even then we should be talking about how wrong it is for governments to be buying/taking/demanding data from corporations - keeping the focus squarely on the government. The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line.

amelius 2y ago
> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) There, you said it. If we want to keep data out of the hands of wrong governments, we better keep it out of the hands of corporations.
- schiffern 2y ago
  Thank you. If governments have more restrictions than corporations, all that will happen is that corporations will immediately spring up to exploit this arbitrage opportunity.
- Angostura 2y ago
  To be fair, Apple seem to try really quite hard to keep users data out of its hands
  - 05 2y ago
    Non E2E encrypted on by default iCloud backups say otherwise.. And remember that enabling advanced data protection just means they'll get your conversations from the other partys' iCloud backups.
    - HelloImSteven 2y ago
      On one hand, I get the business reasons for not using E2E by default (it’d make data recovery more difficult for probably the vast majority of their users, which would be a customer service headache). Hell, even some experienced users would be more inconvenienced when something goes wrong. But if they won’t enable it by default, the option to enable it needs to be MUCH more clearly presented to users. The current implementation leads users to believe their data is more private than it is, which imo is just asking for trouble down the line.
    - Terretta 2y ago
      Most users' "threat model" is loss from actually losing things, or doing dumb things to themselves. They expect Apple to fix that. Apple understands this, and in most markets there's a Genius Bar somewhere near the user, with technology letting Apple help them. If your model is something else, they also have your back. > remember that enabling advanced data protection just means they'll get your conversations from the other partys' iCloud backups Conversations may have a counterparty not using ADP, your data storage probably doesn't. And yes, who else can see things is very important. People show others "your" messages on their phones all the time, the more unfortunate the message, the more likely they are to overshare. Very much worth remembering they have copies of the same discussion, for this, and for backups. While ADP won't solve betrayal of trust through analog sharing or digital resharing, Apple DO have a way to ensure your message is only between you and a personally verified counterparty: - iMessage Contact Key Verification: https://support.apple.com/en-us/118246 https://support.apple.com/en-us/118246 After that, trust is up to you, or use a different app – knowing it can still be shown.
binarymax 2y ago
That’s not the worst thing a corp can do. The worst things a corp can do is sell your private data to someone else, monopolize a critical function and squeeze you dry, or block you from a monopolized utility that is critical to modern society. The focus need to be on both
- Fernicia 2y ago
  Is there an example of this happening? Seems like a stretch. On the other hand there are examples of people in the UK expressing racist sentiments in DMs and being jailed for it.
  - biesnecker 2y ago
    This was the first example that popped to mind: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs... Not having Google accounts isn't the end of the world, but given the amount that many (most?) of us rely on their services (I think of all the accounts I have tied to my @gmail email and cringe, but still I'm there), this is fairly disasterous.
- rendaw 2y ago
  Plus the common privacy threats: stalkers in the company accessing your private information, technical gaffes or breaches or unconcern exposing your private information, both of which could derail your life depending on what sort of marginalized groups you're a part of. A stalker in LEO is bad, yes, but so is a stalker in your apartment lock managing company or at any other number of non-government companies you're forced to interact with.
sbszllr 2y ago
I agree with your point that government overreach is more serious. Which is why I want to emphasize that various government police (like FBI) notoriously buy data that they would need a warrant for otherwise. I’m aware that you’re saying it, but I think you’re underestimating the extent to which preventing spying from the corps == preventing spying from the govt.
rdtsc 2y ago
> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line. It depends what government and what corporations. If it's a healthy functionally representative government then it's rules and laws can be to a certain extent controlled by the public. It may be harder to influence corporations. If a bank wants to close your account, or Visa stops accepting your payments or airlines don't let you fly, you can't complain, they'll just "well tough luck, it's our bank, our airplanes, our payment system, go create your own if you disagree". So I agree with you that this should be a worrying thing for the U.K. citizens, they should ask their government why the heck does it want all that data and maybe it should stop. > Yes, corporations and the government are often in cahoots here - but even then we should be talking about how wrong it is for governments to be buying/taking/demanding data from corporations - keeping the focus squarely on the government. Very much in cahoots. They hide behind each others backs, too. "(Apple): Sorry, government made us do it, our hands are tied". "(Govt): Sorry, _we_ are not spying on you. We just bought some data from Google or Apple".
- bad_user 2y ago
  In a democracy, the government is an outcome of elections, however they represent the majority and you may not be in that majority. This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. And the differences should be obvious, given the state can deprive you of freedom, it can starve you, it can inflict physical violence, and can even kill you. Corporations can't do this, unless the state commands it, obviously. > It may be harder to influence corporations. Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. And even if you disagree with this, consider that you can vote for politicians promising to regulate Apple. And switching to Android or Windows has a lower cost than switching countries (and yes, that's an oligopoly, but that's because your state granted it via IP laws).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
impossiblefork 2y ago
Corporations can steal your work, etc. and thereby cause enormous problems that do not fit governments. For me I think they're a much greater danger than at least my government. My government has no reason to care about what's on my computer. A company however, has an incentive to use every scrap.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Wait until you speak out against your government or try to organize a protest. More realistically, if you are a women trying to get an abortion in Texas and message someone to help you leave the state to get one see how much more you should be worried. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-transgender-care-outside-state-borders/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-trans... The government has guns and policemen that can take away your freedom, your property without a trial (civil forfeiture), etc. Google can serve you ads
  - jasonjayr 2y ago
    Google can kill your digital identity for completely arbitrary, unknowable reasons. Especially if you are all-in on their system, as many, many people are. How many people have ran to social media begging for help because every avenue offered for appeals are simply automatically rejected?
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      My “digital identity” isn’t tied to Google. When Reddit started acting crazy, I deleted my Reddit account and didn’t look back. When Facebook, went full MAGA, I deleted my Facebook and Instagram accounts. I use Gmail. But if it disappeared, there are a million other email providers. Google Photos is just one of many services my photos and videos sync to - iCloud, OneDrive, Amazon Drive (photos only) and my local Mac. It would be an inconvenience for the few places that I use Gmail for. But I have use Apple’s Hide My Email feature since it’s been a thing and that’s connected to Yahoo address and I could change iCloud to forward to another email address. It’s a lot easier to remove my dependence on Google than get from under the thumb of the US. I know, I’m seriously thinking about a “Plan B” to get out of the US after retirement with the way that the US is headed under President Musk with the dismantling of the health care system and trying to undermine Medicare and probably the ACA where I won’t be able to retire early and buy insurance on the public market.
Kudos 2y ago
FYI, it's widely known that the US government has being buying citizen data from data brokers.
ta1243 2y ago
I can hold my government accountable via the polling booth I have no control over Apple or Amazon or Alphabet. I can petition the government through the court system if it tries to put me in jail, the government functions with a massive series of checks and balances. I can't petition google, they are an unelected uncontrollable unaccountable entity that not even the government has power over
- neogodless 2y ago
  It's easier to not buy an iPhone than it was trying to prevent a politician I didn't trust from getting in office. In either case, collective action is, at best, the best you're going to have. Do regulations not have meaning?
  - ta1243 2y ago
    You might think you're safe because you don't carry a phone, never upload a photo, etc. You drove across the country in a car you paid cash for while bemoaning cameras that catch you speeding, in the name of "privacy". Meanwhile meta knows exactly where you are as their face recognition attached it to your shadow profile when someone took a selfie with you in the background, you were seen on a ring doorbell by amazon as you walked down the street This "individualism" and "I'm alright jack" approach is a fallacy the world can't afford. My government doesn't have a copy of my family tree or a good idea what my DNA is. Ancestry.com does.
    - danielbln 2y ago
      They all do though. Do you think the government isn't tapping the genetic databases of 23andme and Ancestry? Or the bottomless data out that is Gmail. Or iCloud. Or Gmaps location data. I'd rather not decide who is the worse privacy offender, companies or governments, and best restrict both to a need-to-know basis.
      - ta1243 2y ago
        They wouldn't be able to tap those databases if those private companies didn't make them in the first place.
sneak 2y ago
Apple gives data to the United States government on over 70,000 user accounts per year without a warrant. Anything Apple knows, the FBI can know, without probable cause.
- nickburns 2y ago
  Not doubting this whatsoever, but what are you citing here?
  - sneak 2y ago
    Apple’s own transparency report. Look at the FISA (FAA702, aka Prism) section. Per the Snowden slides, this (FAA702 collection) is the #1 most used collection method by US spies. They can basically read approximately every camera roll and iMessage in the country with a few clicks.
    - kdmtctl 2y ago
      So, seems that E2E is a total bullshit then?
      - nickburns 2y ago
        Only if it's backdoored (or otherwise breakable).
      - sneak 2y ago
        iMessage e2ee is bullshit because iCloud Backup e2ee is opt-in, and approximately 0% of Apple’s user base has turned it on, making iCloud Backup non-e2ee in practice. All of the iMessage access data (either the iMessages themselves or the iMessage sync key for “Messages in iCloud”) is stored in the non-e2ee iCloud Backup. This means that the iMessage service e2ee is meaningless because the iMessages themselves are not e2ee. Note well that turning on iCloud e2ee is insufficient, as everyone else that you iMessage with will still have it off, and all of your iMessages will still be backed up non-e2ee to Apple in their device backups. Having iCloud e2ee available is the best of both worlds for Apple: they can say that it’s available for privacy-conscious users to opt into, while still being able to turn over basically 100% of all iMessages to the feds whenever they ask.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
> we focus the privacy conversation on corporations Focus on government, cool. Is the government tracking me with cookies, offering cloud services, tracking me with ads, and whatnot? Sorry, but we should talk about privacy at the source of where we are losing it. In fact, it might even be easier to make the case that corporations want our focus to be on privacy at the state level and not their brand.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  >Is the government tracking me with cookies, offering cloud services, tracking me with ads, and whatnot? The ops point is that the 'risk' of the corporation having that data is that the government could get it. Otherwise the damage to you is what, an embarrassing ad if your sharing your screen? How does an ad on reddit having context of what you googled an hour ago actually hurt you? Yes it's 'privacy' but there's no human involved here. The companies involve don't actually care what you're viewing (unless again, they're required to report it to the government).
zerocrates 2y ago
The way the law in the US works, it's much easier for the government to get your data once you've given it to a company first. So it's very much intertwined.
kmeisthax 2y ago
Prior to the Progressive Era of American politics, corporations used to act a lot more like organized crime - the state sans the legitimacy. What we're seeing with governments and corporations working together is a slow return to this era. As the second Trump administration solidifies, we're going to learn the hard way that we're long past the point of corporations just wanting to sell you something.
uoaei 2y ago
Corporations are legally allowed to collect much more and more varied kinds of data than governments, in general. Governments are not barred from purchasing data from private corporations, and it's unclear what an actually-enforceable and -effective regulation on that activity would look like. Governments can do a lot more damage than corporations when they have that kind of data, true. But nothing stops them from acquiring it by issuing money (fiat currency in the US -- practically unlimited!) and employing it for their own ends. So it seems like focusing on the collection of which kinds of data, irrespective of who is collecting, is the real concern here.
Lammy 2y ago
We should have privacy from both. In fact I very much dislike the framing of privacy as being from something — my privacy is for me.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>My controversial but strong opinion is that privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much. The majority of people saying this just don't want ads at all in my opinion, since usually the argument comes up on the topic of targeted ads. When you're right, the only thing you are to google is a number, likely some uuid in a db. To them all other identifying info is just metadata to shove into an algorithm.
codalan 2y ago
Your post is reminiscent of Rogaway's paper "The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work" https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162.pdf
sega_sai 2y ago
If the companies are selling, then the government can always buy, or just ask.
debeloo 2y ago
> privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much. Historically perhaps, but if you notice what's been happening in America then the line between government and corporation is getting very blurry. Also historically, when you have a fascist government then companies/corporations are quick to join the party if they want to survive.
swagaccident 2y ago
The next step of this is when you realize that these entities are more intertwined than people give then credit for. The line between government, companies, and people gets very fuzzy very fast (especially on the levels below national governments) Privacy from government === privacy from companies === privacy from anything else. We need not split them into their own distinct groups, we can (and should) create software, policy, etc. to protect from all at once.
like_any_other 2y ago
> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something And squash unions: https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-with-heat-map-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat... https://www.newsweek.com/they-were-spying-us-amazon-walmart-use-surveillance-technology-bust-unions-1658603 https://www.newsweek.com/they-were-spying-us-amazon-walmart-... And steal tips: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-pol... And make sure you don't block ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUv7mwdBUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUv7mwdBUs Or use "their" products (they retain ownership even after you "buy" them) in unapproved ways: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer-gpus-in-data-centers/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-bans-tesla-drivers-ridesharing-their-cars-will-roll-out-n670516 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-bans-tesla-drive... Or catch whistleblowers: https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/w... These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed plenty of ways. We also have personalized pricing to look forward to in the near future. I've also neglected how they abuse surveillance to squash competition and smaller firms. Consumers rarely care about this, but the private and business spheres are not hermetically separate - when there is only one telecom or supermarket or other company left (or just a handful, and they collude), because they've killed competitors with anti-competitive practices, consumers and employees will feel the consequences. When they won't be able to run their own e-mail, and farmers will see supermarkets take all the profits, and be forbidden from 'unauthorized' tractor repair, and innumerable other abuses.
eximius 2y ago
Others are addressing your point about governments buying data from corporations also being bad. But also, you think companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc which are increasingly activist and distorting truth and public discourse aren't also privacy threats? And there is danger of it getting worse. So, your points have merit, but we cannot dismiss the threat of abusive corporations either.
regularjack 2y ago
Corporations are the nice guys now? Please. We need privacy, period.
ixtli 2y ago
I think this is partially correct but as the center moved rapidly to the right I’d say you need to study early 20th century governments and the arc of the US government as they decline into fascism. This is characterized primarily by privatization (and ofc surveillance and militarization of police.) In practice this means that the corps become a government just one that has zero accountability so people can’t use words like “authoritarian”
keybored 2y ago
> I keep saying this, and nobody believes me, but I'm just going to keep trying: You’re the top comment currently and you are repeating the hegemonic American belief for the last half century+. Although focusing narrowly on the government has become less popular lately > The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Coca Cola has allegedly murdered trade unionists.[1] > That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line. Yes. And corporations want to fight against you if you unionize. It’s not like it can sell products in order to fight unionization. [1] (progressive source apparently) https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/ https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/ [2] (does not blame any corporation) https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AMR230292007ENGLISH.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AMR230...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
grvbck 2y ago
> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. That's not all they want. Just look at some recent scandals, like Cambridge Analytica. Harvesting and analyzing the right data makes it possible to influence democratic elections and referendums. Selling you stuff is great, but tricking you to vote for lower taxes for their trillion-dollar corporations or tariffs/other negative effects for their competitors is better.
jltsiren 2y ago
Corporations can also kill you, enslave you, steal your property, start wars, and take over your country. Think of something like Pinkerton, United Fruit, Wagner, or the East India Company. Governments, corporations, and criminal organizations are not disjoint categories. There is a lot of overlap near the boundaries. You should focus more on what the organization is actually doing than on its nominal classification.

amelius 2y ago

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) There, you said it. If we want to keep data out of the hands of wrong governments, we better keep it out of the hands of corporations.

schiffern 2y ago
Thank you. If governments have more restrictions than corporations, all that will happen is that corporations will immediately spring up to exploit this arbitrage opportunity.
Angostura 2y ago
To be fair, Apple seem to try really quite hard to keep users data out of its hands
- 05 2y ago
  Non E2E encrypted on by default iCloud backups say otherwise.. And remember that enabling advanced data protection just means they'll get your conversations from the other partys' iCloud backups.
  - HelloImSteven 2y ago
    On one hand, I get the business reasons for not using E2E by default (it’d make data recovery more difficult for probably the vast majority of their users, which would be a customer service headache). Hell, even some experienced users would be more inconvenienced when something goes wrong. But if they won’t enable it by default, the option to enable it needs to be MUCH more clearly presented to users. The current implementation leads users to believe their data is more private than it is, which imo is just asking for trouble down the line.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    Most users' "threat model" is loss from actually losing things, or doing dumb things to themselves. They expect Apple to fix that. Apple understands this, and in most markets there's a Genius Bar somewhere near the user, with technology letting Apple help them. If your model is something else, they also have your back. > remember that enabling advanced data protection just means they'll get your conversations from the other partys' iCloud backups Conversations may have a counterparty not using ADP, your data storage probably doesn't. And yes, who else can see things is very important. People show others "your" messages on their phones all the time, the more unfortunate the message, the more likely they are to overshare. Very much worth remembering they have copies of the same discussion, for this, and for backups. While ADP won't solve betrayal of trust through analog sharing or digital resharing, Apple DO have a way to ensure your message is only between you and a personally verified counterparty: - iMessage Contact Key Verification: https://support.apple.com/en-us/118246 https://support.apple.com/en-us/118246 After that, trust is up to you, or use a different app – knowing it can still be shown.

binarymax 2y ago

That’s not the worst thing a corp can do. The worst things a corp can do is sell your private data to someone else, monopolize a critical function and squeeze you dry, or block you from a monopolized utility that is critical to modern society. The focus need to be on both

Fernicia 2y ago
Is there an example of this happening? Seems like a stretch. On the other hand there are examples of people in the UK expressing racist sentiments in DMs and being jailed for it.
- biesnecker 2y ago
  This was the first example that popped to mind: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs... Not having Google accounts isn't the end of the world, but given the amount that many (most?) of us rely on their services (I think of all the accounts I have tied to my @gmail email and cringe, but still I'm there), this is fairly disasterous.
rendaw 2y ago
Plus the common privacy threats: stalkers in the company accessing your private information, technical gaffes or breaches or unconcern exposing your private information, both of which could derail your life depending on what sort of marginalized groups you're a part of. A stalker in LEO is bad, yes, but so is a stalker in your apartment lock managing company or at any other number of non-government companies you're forced to interact with.

sbszllr 2y ago

I agree with your point that government overreach is more serious. Which is why I want to emphasize that various government police (like FBI) notoriously buy data that they would need a warrant for otherwise. I’m aware that you’re saying it, but I think you’re underestimating the extent to which preventing spying from the corps == preventing spying from the govt.

rdtsc 2y ago

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line. It depends what government and what corporations. If it's a healthy functionally representative government then it's rules and laws can be to a certain extent controlled by the public. It may be harder to influence corporations. If a bank wants to close your account, or Visa stops accepting your payments or airlines don't let you fly, you can't complain, they'll just "well tough luck, it's our bank, our airplanes, our payment system, go create your own if you disagree". So I agree with you that this should be a worrying thing for the U.K. citizens, they should ask their government why the heck does it want all that data and maybe it should stop. > Yes, corporations and the government are often in cahoots here - but even then we should be talking about how wrong it is for governments to be buying/taking/demanding data from corporations - keeping the focus squarely on the government. Very much in cahoots. They hide behind each others backs, too. "(Apple): Sorry, government made us do it, our hands are tied". "(Govt): Sorry, _we_ are not spying on you. We just bought some data from Google or Apple".

bad_user 2y ago
In a democracy, the government is an outcome of elections, however they represent the majority and you may not be in that majority. This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. And the differences should be obvious, given the state can deprive you of freedom, it can starve you, it can inflict physical violence, and can even kill you. Corporations can't do this, unless the state commands it, obviously. > It may be harder to influence corporations. Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. And even if you disagree with this, consider that you can vote for politicians promising to regulate Apple. And switching to Android or Windows has a lower cost than switching countries (and yes, that's an oligopoly, but that's because your state granted it via IP laws).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

impossiblefork 2y ago

Corporations can steal your work, etc. and thereby cause enormous problems that do not fit governments. For me I think they're a much greater danger than at least my government. My government has no reason to care about what's on my computer. A company however, has an incentive to use every scrap.

scarface_74 2y ago
Wait until you speak out against your government or try to organize a protest. More realistically, if you are a women trying to get an abortion in Texas and message someone to help you leave the state to get one see how much more you should be worried. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-transgender-care-outside-state-borders/ https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/09/texas-abortion-trans... The government has guns and policemen that can take away your freedom, your property without a trial (civil forfeiture), etc. Google can serve you ads
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  Google can kill your digital identity for completely arbitrary, unknowable reasons. Especially if you are all-in on their system, as many, many people are. How many people have ran to social media begging for help because every avenue offered for appeals are simply automatically rejected?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    My “digital identity” isn’t tied to Google. When Reddit started acting crazy, I deleted my Reddit account and didn’t look back. When Facebook, went full MAGA, I deleted my Facebook and Instagram accounts. I use Gmail. But if it disappeared, there are a million other email providers. Google Photos is just one of many services my photos and videos sync to - iCloud, OneDrive, Amazon Drive (photos only) and my local Mac. It would be an inconvenience for the few places that I use Gmail for. But I have use Apple’s Hide My Email feature since it’s been a thing and that’s connected to Yahoo address and I could change iCloud to forward to another email address. It’s a lot easier to remove my dependence on Google than get from under the thumb of the US. I know, I’m seriously thinking about a “Plan B” to get out of the US after retirement with the way that the US is headed under President Musk with the dismantling of the health care system and trying to undermine Medicare and probably the ACA where I won’t be able to retire early and buy insurance on the public market.

Kudos 2y ago

FYI, it's widely known that the US government has being buying citizen data from data brokers.

ta1243 2y ago

I can hold my government accountable via the polling booth I have no control over Apple or Amazon or Alphabet. I can petition the government through the court system if it tries to put me in jail, the government functions with a massive series of checks and balances. I can't petition google, they are an unelected uncontrollable unaccountable entity that not even the government has power over

neogodless 2y ago
It's easier to not buy an iPhone than it was trying to prevent a politician I didn't trust from getting in office. In either case, collective action is, at best, the best you're going to have. Do regulations not have meaning?
- ta1243 2y ago
  You might think you're safe because you don't carry a phone, never upload a photo, etc. You drove across the country in a car you paid cash for while bemoaning cameras that catch you speeding, in the name of "privacy". Meanwhile meta knows exactly where you are as their face recognition attached it to your shadow profile when someone took a selfie with you in the background, you were seen on a ring doorbell by amazon as you walked down the street This "individualism" and "I'm alright jack" approach is a fallacy the world can't afford. My government doesn't have a copy of my family tree or a good idea what my DNA is. Ancestry.com does.
  - danielbln 2y ago
    They all do though. Do you think the government isn't tapping the genetic databases of 23andme and Ancestry? Or the bottomless data out that is Gmail. Or iCloud. Or Gmaps location data. I'd rather not decide who is the worse privacy offender, companies or governments, and best restrict both to a need-to-know basis.
    - ta1243 2y ago
      They wouldn't be able to tap those databases if those private companies didn't make them in the first place.

sneak 2y ago

Apple gives data to the United States government on over 70,000 user accounts per year without a warrant. Anything Apple knows, the FBI can know, without probable cause.

nickburns 2y ago
Not doubting this whatsoever, but what are you citing here?
- sneak 2y ago
  Apple’s own transparency report. Look at the FISA (FAA702, aka Prism) section. Per the Snowden slides, this (FAA702 collection) is the #1 most used collection method by US spies. They can basically read approximately every camera roll and iMessage in the country with a few clicks.
  - kdmtctl 2y ago
    So, seems that E2E is a total bullshit then?
    - nickburns 2y ago
      Only if it's backdoored (or otherwise breakable).
    - sneak 2y ago
      iMessage e2ee is bullshit because iCloud Backup e2ee is opt-in, and approximately 0% of Apple’s user base has turned it on, making iCloud Backup non-e2ee in practice. All of the iMessage access data (either the iMessages themselves or the iMessage sync key for “Messages in iCloud”) is stored in the non-e2ee iCloud Backup. This means that the iMessage service e2ee is meaningless because the iMessages themselves are not e2ee. Note well that turning on iCloud e2ee is insufficient, as everyone else that you iMessage with will still have it off, and all of your iMessages will still be backed up non-e2ee to Apple in their device backups. Having iCloud e2ee available is the best of both worlds for Apple: they can say that it’s available for privacy-conscious users to opt into, while still being able to turn over basically 100% of all iMessages to the feds whenever they ask.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

> we focus the privacy conversation on corporations Focus on government, cool. Is the government tracking me with cookies, offering cloud services, tracking me with ads, and whatnot? Sorry, but we should talk about privacy at the source of where we are losing it. In fact, it might even be easier to make the case that corporations want our focus to be on privacy at the state level and not their brand.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>Is the government tracking me with cookies, offering cloud services, tracking me with ads, and whatnot? The ops point is that the 'risk' of the corporation having that data is that the government could get it. Otherwise the damage to you is what, an embarrassing ad if your sharing your screen? How does an ad on reddit having context of what you googled an hour ago actually hurt you? Yes it's 'privacy' but there's no human involved here. The companies involve don't actually care what you're viewing (unless again, they're required to report it to the government).

zerocrates 2y ago

The way the law in the US works, it's much easier for the government to get your data once you've given it to a company first. So it's very much intertwined.

kmeisthax 2y ago

Prior to the Progressive Era of American politics, corporations used to act a lot more like organized crime - the state sans the legitimacy. What we're seeing with governments and corporations working together is a slow return to this era. As the second Trump administration solidifies, we're going to learn the hard way that we're long past the point of corporations just wanting to sell you something.

uoaei 2y ago

Corporations are legally allowed to collect much more and more varied kinds of data than governments, in general. Governments are not barred from purchasing data from private corporations, and it's unclear what an actually-enforceable and -effective regulation on that activity would look like. Governments can do a lot more damage than corporations when they have that kind of data, true. But nothing stops them from acquiring it by issuing money (fiat currency in the US -- practically unlimited!) and employing it for their own ends. So it seems like focusing on the collection of which kinds of data, irrespective of who is collecting, is the real concern here.

Lammy 2y ago

We should have privacy from both. In fact I very much dislike the framing of privacy as being from something — my privacy is for me.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

>My controversial but strong opinion is that privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much. The majority of people saying this just don't want ads at all in my opinion, since usually the argument comes up on the topic of targeted ads. When you're right, the only thing you are to google is a number, likely some uuid in a db. To them all other identifying info is just metadata to shove into an algorithm.

codalan 2y ago

Your post is reminiscent of Rogaway's paper "The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work" https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162.pdf

sega_sai 2y ago

If the companies are selling, then the government can always buy, or just ask.

debeloo 2y ago

> privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much. Historically perhaps, but if you notice what's been happening in America then the line between government and corporation is getting very blurry. Also historically, when you have a fascist government then companies/corporations are quick to join the party if they want to survive.

swagaccident 2y ago

The next step of this is when you realize that these entities are more intertwined than people give then credit for. The line between government, companies, and people gets very fuzzy very fast (especially on the levels below national governments) Privacy from government === privacy from companies === privacy from anything else. We need not split them into their own distinct groups, we can (and should) create software, policy, etc. to protect from all at once.

like_any_other 2y ago

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something And squash unions: https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-with-heat-map-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat... https://www.newsweek.com/they-were-spying-us-amazon-walmart-use-surveillance-technology-bust-unions-1658603 https://www.newsweek.com/they-were-spying-us-amazon-walmart-... And steal tips: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-pol... And make sure you don't block ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUv7mwdBUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUv7mwdBUs Or use "their" products (they retain ownership even after you "buy" them) in unapproved ways: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer-gpus-in-data-centers/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-bans-tesla-drivers-ridesharing-their-cars-will-roll-out-n670516 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-bans-tesla-drive... Or catch whistleblowers: https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/w... These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I've missed plenty of ways. We also have personalized pricing to look forward to in the near future. I've also neglected how they abuse surveillance to squash competition and smaller firms. Consumers rarely care about this, but the private and business spheres are not hermetically separate - when there is only one telecom or supermarket or other company left (or just a handful, and they collude), because they've killed competitors with anti-competitive practices, consumers and employees will feel the consequences. When they won't be able to run their own e-mail, and farmers will see supermarkets take all the profits, and be forbidden from 'unauthorized' tractor repair, and innumerable other abuses.

eximius 2y ago

Others are addressing your point about governments buying data from corporations also being bad. But also, you think companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc which are increasingly activist and distorting truth and public discourse aren't also privacy threats? And there is danger of it getting worse. So, your points have merit, but we cannot dismiss the threat of abusive corporations either.

regularjack 2y ago

Corporations are the nice guys now? Please. We need privacy, period.

ixtli 2y ago

I think this is partially correct but as the center moved rapidly to the right I’d say you need to study early 20th century governments and the arc of the US government as they decline into fascism. This is characterized primarily by privatization (and ofc surveillance and militarization of police.) In practice this means that the corps become a government just one that has zero accountability so people can’t use words like “authoritarian”

keybored 2y ago

> I keep saying this, and nobody believes me, but I'm just going to keep trying: You’re the top comment currently and you are repeating the hegemonic American belief for the last half century+. Although focusing narrowly on the government has become less popular lately > The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Coca Cola has allegedly murdered trade unionists.[1] > That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line. Yes. And corporations want to fight against you if you unionize. It’s not like it can sell products in order to fight unionization. [1] (progressive source apparently) https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/ https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/ [2] (does not blame any corporation) https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AMR230292007ENGLISH.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AMR230...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

grvbck 2y ago

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. That's not all they want. Just look at some recent scandals, like Cambridge Analytica. Harvesting and analyzing the right data makes it possible to influence democratic elections and referendums. Selling you stuff is great, but tricking you to vote for lower taxes for their trillion-dollar corporations or tariffs/other negative effects for their competitors is better.

jltsiren 2y ago

Corporations can also kill you, enslave you, steal your property, start wars, and take over your country. Think of something like Pinkerton, United Fruit, Wagner, or the East India Company. Governments, corporations, and criminal organizations are not disjoint categories. There is a lot of overlap near the boundaries. You should focus more on what the organization is actually doing than on its nominal classification.