5 ms·

> Assange's argument - and I agree with him - is that we are all getting screwed by Google. The fact that that royal screwing is the consequence of a symbolic c

> Assange's argument - and I agree with him - is that we are all getting screwed by Google. The fact that that royal screwing is the consequence of a symbolic choice made under false pretenses is not really a forceful counterargument. I, for one, have never been screwed by Google. I get a great deal of value from Google, and in return I see a few ads once in a while. I see nothing wrong with that. > evil after evil is discovered being perpetrated by Google What are these evils being perpetrated? I see a lot of handwaving and "what-ifs" in here, but nowhere do I see concrete examples of Google fucking people over. The fact is that anybody with power can abuse that power. What if all of the police officers in the USA decided to shoot all the citizens? Should we dismantle the police departments because they could abuse their power?

silentOpen 13y ago
You know when a police officer shoots you. You don't know when Google exports your records.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  False. When Google is legally permitted to, they notify you of requests for your records. They also publish all such requests in aggregate in the Google Transparency Report. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/googles-approach-to-government-requests.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/googles-approach-to-g...
  - marillion 13y ago
    I love how you say "When Google is legally permitted to..." because that basically excuses you from acknowledging all of the times when they don't notify you of requests for your records. As in, whenever they are not "legally permitted" to notify you of your records. Which is called "acquiescing to state power." Hence the phrase "titanic centralizing evil." Everyone reading this should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTuxoLDnmJU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTuxoLDnmJU
  - silentOpen 13y ago
    False. I always know when I have been shot by a police officer. I do not always know when my data has been copied even with your assertion of Google's good will. Your conditional of "when Google is legally permitted..." is quite telling (information is fluid and ephemeral) and makes your contradiction, "False.", laughable. The case of personal data privacy and control is categorically different than the case of physical violence.

silentOpen 13y ago

You know when a police officer shoots you. You don't know when Google exports your records.

cromwellian 13y ago
False. When Google is legally permitted to, they notify you of requests for your records. They also publish all such requests in aggregate in the Google Transparency Report. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/googles-approach-to-government-requests.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/googles-approach-to-g...
- marillion 13y ago
  I love how you say "When Google is legally permitted to..." because that basically excuses you from acknowledging all of the times when they don't notify you of requests for your records. As in, whenever they are not "legally permitted" to notify you of your records. Which is called "acquiescing to state power." Hence the phrase "titanic centralizing evil." Everyone reading this should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTuxoLDnmJU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTuxoLDnmJU
- silentOpen 13y ago
  False. I always know when I have been shot by a police officer. I do not always know when my data has been copied even with your assertion of Google's good will. Your conditional of "when Google is legally permitted..." is quite telling (information is fluid and ephemeral) and makes your contradiction, "False.", laughable. The case of personal data privacy and control is categorically different than the case of physical violence.