3 ms·

Fortunately, the mega corps haven't started hiring their own police forces and locking people up who break whatever rules they decide are appropriate. If they d

by d4nt 13y ago

Fortunately, the mega corps haven't started hiring their own police forces and locking people up who break whatever rules they decide are appropriate. If they did that, then I might reconsider what data I shared with them. The state is in a very different (privileged) position to commercial companies and we need an additional layer of protection from the state that is not necessary with companies.

weland 13y ago
> The state is in a very different (privileged) position to commercial companies and we need an additional layer of protection from the state that is not necessary with companies. I'm definitely not disputing that. I also believe that the current state of affairs isn't OK. What I am disputing is the notion that companies are somehow defending our privacy rights. No they're not. Microsoft, Google and Facebook not only do not battle for consumer rights, their entire damn businesses are based on eroding them as much as possible. If they could have legally collected the data NSA was collecting, they'd have done so without as much as batting an eye. All they're doing in this context is trying to shift public outcry from their own dubious practices, for two reasons: 1. As people start sharing less and less personal data for fear of government surveillance, they're also sharing less and less personal data with the tech companies themselves. This means less personal data to sell and, consequently, less profits. 2. Average consumers typically don't notice how much of their data is in fact shared with the likes of Facebook and Twitter. The NSA scandal put this into a new perspective: they share enough data that even the government cares. The PR folks aren't stupid; they are predictably trying to shift public outcry towards the NSA, attempting to create the image that somehow these companies -- which otherwise deeply care for their users' privacy -- have done the best they could to protect the private data of their customers, and now need support to battle against this Bigger Enemy. Conveniently, the fact that they can still tap unlimited information for their own use is shielded away. I'm not denying surveillance laws need to be changed, I'm simply denying the benevolent role of large corporations.

by d4nt 13y ago

weland 13y ago

> The state is in a very different (privileged) position to commercial companies and we need an additional layer of protection from the state that is not necessary with companies. I'm definitely not disputing that. I also believe that the current state of affairs isn't OK. What I am disputing is the notion that companies are somehow defending our privacy rights. No they're not. Microsoft, Google and Facebook not only do not battle for consumer rights, their entire damn businesses are based on eroding them as much as possible. If they could have legally collected the data NSA was collecting, they'd have done so without as much as batting an eye. All they're doing in this context is trying to shift public outcry from their own dubious practices, for two reasons: 1. As people start sharing less and less personal data for fear of government surveillance, they're also sharing less and less personal data with the tech companies themselves. This means less personal data to sell and, consequently, less profits. 2. Average consumers typically don't notice how much of their data is in fact shared with the likes of Facebook and Twitter. The NSA scandal put this into a new perspective: they share enough data that even the government cares. The PR folks aren't stupid; they are predictably trying to shift public outcry towards the NSA, attempting to create the image that somehow these companies -- which otherwise deeply care for their users' privacy -- have done the best they could to protect the private data of their customers, and now need support to battle against this Bigger Enemy. Conveniently, the fact that they can still tap unlimited information for their own use is shielded away. I'm not denying surveillance laws need to be changed, I'm simply denying the benevolent role of large corporations.