3 ms·

I was thinking about this same thing today. I think the reason the government "won out" over all the other abuses is that they are able to collect data willy-n

I was thinking about this same thing today. I think the reason the government "won out" over all the other abuses is that they are able to collect data willy-nilly from all the other corporations. So whatever problems you might have with FB privacy, it's nothing with the abuses involved with taking the problems of 50 providers and adding them all together. Then storing the data forever.

discostrings 13y ago
The government also "wins out" because it reserves the sole power to take your life, liberty, and possessions from you. The government is supposed to protect you from others trying to take these things and stop you from taking these things from others. It needs certain limited powers to do that. But without severe checks, those powers are certain to be abused. Combine that power with total information, and it's almost certain to result in abuses and authoritarianism. While it's a thought many might not have at the tip of their tongues, I think most people realize that, due to the nature of power, it's extremely risky for the agent with all the power to also have all the information.
mpyne 13y ago
The government has always been able to do that though, albeit with a warrant. Of course, a warrant is exactly what was needed for companies to hand over information even on non-U.S. citizens into NSA's Prism system in the first place. Whatever else you might say about recorded phone calls and emails, Prism itself was shown to require the company to buy off on the logic used in the NSA NSL in order to obtain data, so Prism was hardly the problem people made it out to be. In fact, a little itty bitty tweak here and there and Prism would apply directly to the FBI, who could then use it for normal warrant compliance for U.S. citizens. All the data just sitting there in their pretty little cloud silos, and pretty little hosted email solutions begging you to use IMAP, just waiting for the government to get a warrant (or not, unless ECPA gets revised). It would all be completely legal, and that problem has been around in some form for decades now.
- Joeri 13y ago
  Collecting information prior to the delivery of a warrant is unreasonably invasive. If you extend the reasoning then they could post a video camera in your home, filming everything you do, and then get a warrant to obtain the material at any point in the future. Our digital homes should have the same safeguards in place that our physical homes have: nobody has access before a warrant, and with a warrant they can only find out what's there now, not what's been there in the past.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Are you referring to Prism or the "beam splitting"? Prism sends over data that was already generated; it's not the government's fault that the company bothered to generate it but if they get a warrant why should they pretend like it didn't exist? I'm not sure how you would even begin to investigate things like 9/11 if you weren't allowed to collect evidence from actions that occurred before the crime came to the attention of the government. If you're talking about beam-splitting then, well, I see your argument. But that's not what I was talking about in my parent comment.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  I never been to the US, but I would say it is a matter of which type of agency we are talking about. I pretty much doubt secret services in most countries would need any kind of warrant to do whatever they want.

discostrings 13y ago

The government also "wins out" because it reserves the sole power to take your life, liberty, and possessions from you. The government is supposed to protect you from others trying to take these things and stop you from taking these things from others. It needs certain limited powers to do that. But without severe checks, those powers are certain to be abused. Combine that power with total information, and it's almost certain to result in abuses and authoritarianism. While it's a thought many might not have at the tip of their tongues, I think most people realize that, due to the nature of power, it's extremely risky for the agent with all the power to also have all the information.

mpyne 13y ago

The government has always been able to do that though, albeit with a warrant. Of course, a warrant is exactly what was needed for companies to hand over information even on non-U.S. citizens into NSA's Prism system in the first place. Whatever else you might say about recorded phone calls and emails, Prism itself was shown to require the company to buy off on the logic used in the NSA NSL in order to obtain data, so Prism was hardly the problem people made it out to be. In fact, a little itty bitty tweak here and there and Prism would apply directly to the FBI, who could then use it for normal warrant compliance for U.S. citizens. All the data just sitting there in their pretty little cloud silos, and pretty little hosted email solutions begging you to use IMAP, just waiting for the government to get a warrant (or not, unless ECPA gets revised). It would all be completely legal, and that problem has been around in some form for decades now.

Joeri 13y ago
Collecting information prior to the delivery of a warrant is unreasonably invasive. If you extend the reasoning then they could post a video camera in your home, filming everything you do, and then get a warrant to obtain the material at any point in the future. Our digital homes should have the same safeguards in place that our physical homes have: nobody has access before a warrant, and with a warrant they can only find out what's there now, not what's been there in the past.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Are you referring to Prism or the "beam splitting"? Prism sends over data that was already generated; it's not the government's fault that the company bothered to generate it but if they get a warrant why should they pretend like it didn't exist? I'm not sure how you would even begin to investigate things like 9/11 if you weren't allowed to collect evidence from actions that occurred before the crime came to the attention of the government. If you're talking about beam-splitting then, well, I see your argument. But that's not what I was talking about in my parent comment.
pjmlp 13y ago
I never been to the US, but I would say it is a matter of which type of agency we are talking about. I pretty much doubt secret services in most countries would need any kind of warrant to do whatever they want.