41–50 of 223 posts
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
And yes, getting imprisoned makes you less credible in the eyes of the public; people love a winner. :/
This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first? 1. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited…
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...
Given this is the United States Military waging an espionage offensive on domestic soil (as well as internationally), I regard it as a brave effort for anyone at any of these companies to stand up and push back.
Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...
Everything these companies say is informed by discussion in the media, among the public, and, yes, with elected officials. The line you want to draw is extremely fuzzy at best in reality.
I have read that Genghis Khan's original plan after conquering China was to raze the farming villages to provide more pasture for horses (and the Mongols that horse populations supported). Some bureaucrats pointed out to him that he could personally do better by taxing the Chinese farmers. And he sold out the Mongols to do it, which worked out great for him and the millions of peasants he didn't kill.
Do we count that as action by the peasants, who held essentially zero formal power, or by the mandarins, who could never have afforded to pay for the deal themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. We can make as many comparisons as we want but at the end of the day, if I don't like the way Facebook is doing their business I can just delete my account. I can't just delete my Social Security Number if I'm opposed to the US's continued investment into the war on drugs as well as its military strikes overseas. Nor can I really retaliate to a country on earth where I don't have to be afraid of the government…
It's also the stark differences in the consequences of misuse. Google can use my information to serve me diabolically targeted ads. The government can put me in jail. It's not that I trust Google more, it's that they have vastly less power to harm me even if their intentions are bad.
This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first? 1. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited…
On Internet you have the choice of which service to use, that's the key difference. You don't want Google ? Use DuckDuckGo. You don't want Microsoft ? Use Linux systems. And so on. The issue with the government is that you are tracked by default, on your mobile phone and on your online activity. You cannot opt out .
Or beyond that, there's all the sharing buttons, Google Web Fonts, hosted JavaScript libraries, and the like. If I wanted to prevent Google from being able to track me at all, I would have to avoid the vast majority of the web.
You can apply more and more extensions and filter rules to block this sort of thing. I have a variety enabled; they make it a quite a pain to surf the web, as they wind up breaking a variety of sites by blocking a little too much, and I have to sit there and selectively disable them until I find what allows the site to work.
So, effectively, you cannot opt out of corporate tracking either. If you want to, just like avoiding government surveillance, your best bet is to just disconnect from the net entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.
They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relati…
These companies have staked out a position, off the back of his endeavors, yet lack the courage and conviction to fully support him.
It makes me cringe to see Larry Page, Marissa Mayer et al posting weasel words on a web-site, as though they are champions of the people.
In the week that Nelson Mandela passed away, the contrast between giants and dwarves could not be clearer.
This is getting ridiculous. The ad empires built on stalking every single breath of every single human want to take governments to task on the topic of stalking. What about cleaning up your own house first? 1. Limiting Corporations’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Corporations should codify sensible limitations on their ability to collect and disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited…
These corporations, to my knowledge, have never used their data to:
* Spy on love interests
* Kill people abroad unilaterally
* Construct court cases against people
* Imprison people for victimless crimes (or any crime for that matter)
* Add me to no-fly lists
* Forcibly extract money from me to make me pay for their programs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the stark differences in the consequences of misuse. Google can use my information to serve me diabolically targeted ads. The government can put me in jail. It's not that I trust Google more, it's that they have vastly less power to harm me even if their intentions are bad.
The difference is quite subtle, if any. I'm not even sure why you are afraid of government stalking. After all, government is prevented by the rule of law from arbitrarily throw you in jail. For every reason you are afraid of government, you should be afraid of corporation X. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that corporation X will not collude with the government to do you harm 10 years from now. These corporations…
That hasn't exactly stopped them from holding detainees in Guantanamo with no charges for years, and no hope of release.
If the government gets the wrong idea about you, they may bust your door down and run in with guns drawn, then shoot you because they think you're reaching for a gun.
While I'm concerned about what Google or Facebook will do with my information, the biggest concern (and the one expressed here) is that the government will demand or snoop it from them, and act on it in one of the ways described above.