4 ms·
By this point, we should assume that all companies with sensitive data that could theoretically help solve crime will be accessed by the government as a rule.
by jamestimmins 1y ago
By this point, we should assume that all companies with sensitive data that could theoretically help solve crime will be accessed by the government as a rule.
That's just being a realistic technology user in 2025.
- dmix 1y agoThe only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it. Expecting consumer choice or regulations to prevent that data from ever existing is mostly a fools errand IMO, there's just too much of it and it's everywhere.
- deelowe 1y ago> The only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it. I don't think this is a solution, personally.
- encrypted_bird 1y agoCare to elaborate? You can't just say "I disagree" without explaining why you disagree.
- anigbrowl 1y agoBased on what? There's no constitutional right to privacy, while courts have consistently expanded the scope of government powers and immunities and consistently hollowed out the Bill of Rights. It's gonna require a new legal paradigm.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> There's no constitutional right to privacy, Being secure in my person, house, papers, and effects is my privacy in action.
- anigbrowl 1y agoHow is that working out for you? It can't stop your data being sold or grant you any kind of privacy when you appear in public (eg being filmed continuously when you leave your home).
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> How is that working out for you? Same as everyone else, not great. We've very few politicians that support the 4th Amendment in a meaningful way. Which I suppose is a reflection of voters harboring a fierce disinterest in the 4th. And, in my estimation, all of that flows from generations of news orgs who rarely notice the 4th Amendment, nevertheless treasure it on behalf of the public.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y agoThe curious part is that for every ideological group (and Americans adore their ideological groups) that has a theoretical boogie man, 4A violations are key and core to the rise of that nemesis. Examples are - bulk warrantless surveillance is critical for any aspiring anti-christ - a surveillance state is the largest possible government - omnipresent surveillance ensures gov revenge for having guns/abortions Yet adherents from each of those groups are super comfortable with sweeping, pervasive surveillance - the continual monitoring that captures them and their descendants for perpetual subjugation to govs/corps/etc.
- bdangubic 1y agoany solution that has “law” in it is 100% not a solution
- encrypted_bird 1y agoThey did say "and strong courts willing to enforce it." What good is a law without enforcement, after all?
- lotsoweiners 1y agoI’d prefer to see a solution provided by technology that negates surveillance. Could be a very lucrative industry to start selling Bond style tech to the masses.
- def5ranl 1y ago[dead]
- ErigmolCt 1y agoAt this point, it's not if the data gets accessed, it's when and how quietly it happens