|
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > We really have a societal problem in that we allow private entities to do things we don’t allow government to do. Thats basically the foundational idealogy of the united states. Thats not the issue. The real issue is your next sentence. The government can just loophole around their intentional limitations by paying private companies to work on their behalf. |
| |
| ▲ | runjake 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a loophole, but it's willful by design on the government's part. The book "Means of Control" by Byron Tau covers this in great depth. It's so much worse than even those of us who are moderately interested in mass surveillance know. | | |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm aware it's intentional on the government's end. My point is it is not intentional by the original intentions, and should be a priority for people to advocate to fix. |
| |
| ▲ | themafia 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only private companies with this power are monopolies. Effective competition would destroy this behavior. So the real problem is the government _intentionally_ and _illegally_ allows monopolies to form so they can get access to this workaround. |
|
|
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >
allow private entities to do things we don’t allow government to do. Furthermore, the issue is exacerbated by then allowing governments to bypass these issues by then just paying private entities to do the things it can’t do as a proxy for the same functional outcomes.
< Somehow this reminds me about Blackwater / Xe Technologies? :-/ (Im betting 100 USD that soon we will find out that ICE also deployed "private financed forces" to "support state actions"?) |
| |
|
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >We really have a societal problem in that we allow private entities to do things we don’t allow government to do. It really isn't, given that the government literally has a monopoly on violence, and therefore it makes sense to have more guardrails for it. That's not to say private entities should have free reign to do whatever it wants, but the argument of "private entities can do [thing] that governments can't, so we should ban private entities too!" is at best incomplete. >Furthermore, the issue is exacerbated by then allowing governments to bypass these issues by then just paying private entities to do the things it can’t do as a proxy for the same functional outcomes. Again, this is at best an incomplete argument. The government can't extract a confession out of you (5th amendment). It can however, interview your drinking buddies that you blabbed your latest criminal escapades to. Is that the government "bypassing" the 5th amendment? Arguably. Is that something bad and we should ban? Hardly. |
| |
| ▲ | salawat 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your cell phone provider does not constitute "drinking buddy". The fact that, in essence, everyone is being surveilled location wise all the time by these providers is reason enough to restrict the activity. | | |
| ▲ | nerdsniper 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. DRINKING BUDDY IS WATCHING YOU. > 'Does Drinking Buddy exist?'
'Of course he exists. The Party exists. Drinking Buddy is the embodiment of the Party.'
'Does he exist like you or me?'
'You do not exist', said O'Brien. > Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Drinking Buddy is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Drinking Buddy is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. | |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Your cell phone provider does not constitute "drinking buddy". You're right, it should be even more scandalous for the government to get information out of my drinking buddy, because the information I told him was in confidence, and he promised he wouldn't tell anyone. My cell phone provider, on the other hand, clearly says in their ToS who they'll share data with and in what circumstances. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A non-exhaustive list that has, time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, to downplay the grossly cavalier approach they take to the "privacy" of your location data. They value it alright. At several dollars per person. | |
| ▲ | mlfreeman 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And the ToS probably has a clause that says "we can alter the deal any time we want and you should pray we don't alter it further". | |
| ▲ | lukan 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "who they'll share data with and in what circumstances" Anyone who offers them money? | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And what many are saying is that the phone provider should not be allowed to be so free with your data in the ToS. In the same way that your landlord can’t add a slavery clause to your lease. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tastyfreeze 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is why I advocate for making selling location/identifying data illegal. If nobody is allowed to sell it then the government cannot legally buy it. |
| |
| ▲ | sib 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just because the government can't buy it, doesn't mean they can't ask for it reeeeallllllly persuasively. |
|
|
| ▲ | jtbayly 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree completely with your first paragraph, but I'm not sure what privatization has to do with it. Also, I agree that more regulation of private parties is needed. Or even better, break up the private companies that are like multi-state governments in terms of power. |
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | peyton 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why not vote for some law limiting the government’s buying of this data? After all, I expect a say in how the government is run, so that seems like the appropriate path. I don’t see why I should expect a say in how AT&T is run. AT&T can’t raise an army, or enter my house, or shoot me. |
| |
| ▲ | kelnos 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How exactly do I vote for such a law? We do not have a direct democracy, and I'm not aware of any viable political candidates that have this sort of thing as a part of their platform. | | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You didn't purchase your lawmakers, the companies profiting from the bad laws did. This is why they get their laws passed. |
|
