Never Mind the NSA, What About Google and Facebook?(editeddaily.com)
editeddaily.com
Never Mind the NSA, What About Google and Facebook?
http://editeddaily.com/nsa-google-facebook
6 comments
Hysterics choose sides, realists distrust government and commercial interests equally. But the key to evaluating the threat can be summed up in the Senator's own words: "private sector entities gathering personal data for marketing and commercial purposes". That's it. I don't want to buy the crap Google and Facebook want to sell me, but I do want to use their services to make my own life easier. I'll keep on benefitting from this unequal relationship until I feel uncomfortable.
Government agencies, on the other hand, are not as forthcoming about their motives. "We spy on you to keep you safe?" No you don't. You spy on other people to keep me safe. You spy on me to keep other people safe. Who are these people? Why do they feel threatened by me? Are these people who have a reason to fear me? Should I rather fear them?
So no, not never mind the NSA. Or any other three letter agency. There's a world of difference between the transparent and often sleazy motives of commercial entities, and the secretive and often sinister motives of governments, government agencies, and the "patriots" who blindly support them.
Government agencies, on the other hand, are not as forthcoming about their motives. "We spy on you to keep you safe?" No you don't. You spy on other people to keep me safe. You spy on me to keep other people safe. Who are these people? Why do they feel threatened by me? Are these people who have a reason to fear me? Should I rather fear them?
So no, not never mind the NSA. Or any other three letter agency. There's a world of difference between the transparent and often sleazy motives of commercial entities, and the secretive and often sinister motives of governments, government agencies, and the "patriots" who blindly support them.
>So I ask you this: Why is it that a popularly elected and democratically accountable government—the democracy in which Americans take such pride—is more suspect than immensely large and wealthy private corporations?
To offer my perspective on this, and feel free to disagree.
Corporations could (and do) use the data to increase profits - mostly through marketing and selling the data to marketers. While invasive of peoples' privacy - their freedoms remain intact.
Government could use the data for control, to maintain power over the people and could use it maliciously through imprisonment and maltreatment of people based entirely on the collected data. While also invasive of privacy - it has a risk of limiting freedoms or worse. People fear the possibility of this.
It's not that people necessarily trust corporations with their data (most users are simply unaware) - but rather that they have less to fear from companies than the government.
The government might revoke my drivers license because I show signs of road rage. The license being revoked could lose my transportation to work, losing my job. In the current economy and lack of job availability in my area - I'd lose my house. All over a little blob of data the government decided to use against me. Meanwhile, Google having that same information might show me ads for an anger management class.
I'd rather Google have it than the government in my contrived and made up example. I imagine that's why fewer people care if Google/Facebook know everything but want to keep that information from the government.
Privacy-concerned people use alternative-to-Google services like Duckduckgo and don't even have a Facebook. So they don't trust corporations either (although ironically turn to smaller corporations as alternatives?)
To offer my perspective on this, and feel free to disagree.
Corporations could (and do) use the data to increase profits - mostly through marketing and selling the data to marketers. While invasive of peoples' privacy - their freedoms remain intact.
Government could use the data for control, to maintain power over the people and could use it maliciously through imprisonment and maltreatment of people based entirely on the collected data. While also invasive of privacy - it has a risk of limiting freedoms or worse. People fear the possibility of this.
It's not that people necessarily trust corporations with their data (most users are simply unaware) - but rather that they have less to fear from companies than the government.
The government might revoke my drivers license because I show signs of road rage. The license being revoked could lose my transportation to work, losing my job. In the current economy and lack of job availability in my area - I'd lose my house. All over a little blob of data the government decided to use against me. Meanwhile, Google having that same information might show me ads for an anger management class.
I'd rather Google have it than the government in my contrived and made up example. I imagine that's why fewer people care if Google/Facebook know everything but want to keep that information from the government.
Privacy-concerned people use alternative-to-Google services like Duckduckgo and don't even have a Facebook. So they don't trust corporations either (although ironically turn to smaller corporations as alternatives?)
>but rather that they have less to fear from companies than the government.
Absolutely true. Google isn't going to bust down my door because I'm a climate change activist.
>my speculation on why the "common layman" doesn't care.
I think the common layman absolutely cares, once they understand. It's getting them to understand that's the hard part. John Oliver's "Dick Pick" bit is a great start.
Absolutely true. Google isn't going to bust down my door because I'm a climate change activist.
>my speculation on why the "common layman" doesn't care.
I think the common layman absolutely cares, once they understand. It's getting them to understand that's the hard part. John Oliver's "Dick Pick" bit is a great start.
Did you miss the whole PRISM thing? If you give data to Google, you are also giving it to the government.
I used Google as an example but it could very well be any corporation - local or international - and unless you believe every company in the world is a part of PRISM or is handing data to the government, my example holds but without the specifics.
Thank you for bringing up this point though, I was hoping someone would (and you can choose to not believe me if you like). Making the connection of major companies to government surveillance outside of the security-minded (ie. people who keep up or are educated on the Snowden leaks) wouldn't make this connection. Which I treat as supporting evidence for my speculation on why the "common layman" doesn't care.
Thank you for bringing up this point though, I was hoping someone would (and you can choose to not believe me if you like). Making the connection of major companies to government surveillance outside of the security-minded (ie. people who keep up or are educated on the Snowden leaks) wouldn't make this connection. Which I treat as supporting evidence for my speculation on why the "common layman" doesn't care.
I think your overall point is accurate and would go further to add that there is an ironic safety in storing my data with "hostile" nations (or corporations associated with them) over nations that are "friendly" and readily exchanging data with my own.
The US is in fact far more likely to imprison/traumatize one of its citizens over one of its many obscure technicalities (whether actually violated or not) than say NK is to attempt to use data to somehow pressure that US citizen.
Trying to decipher the underlying perspective of the article, I also find mirth in the apparent angst of all the secret agents and their sponsors; they have no idea what corporation will screw up their cover. Joseph Conrad would be proud of our progress even if it is marginal.
The US is in fact far more likely to imprison/traumatize one of its citizens over one of its many obscure technicalities (whether actually violated or not) than say NK is to attempt to use data to somehow pressure that US citizen.
Trying to decipher the underlying perspective of the article, I also find mirth in the apparent angst of all the secret agents and their sponsors; they have no idea what corporation will screw up their cover. Joseph Conrad would be proud of our progress even if it is marginal.
That's an excellent point. Private companies that create markets for buying and selling your information are going to lose exclusivity over that information--perhaps routinely.
> Government could use the data for control, to maintain power over the people
So could corporations. If they were so inclined, Google could easily blackmail almost anyone. Your only recourse would be going to law enforcement and a messy public trial at which the embarrassing secrets they were using to blackmail you would be revealed.
So could corporations. If they were so inclined, Google could easily blackmail almost anyone. Your only recourse would be going to law enforcement and a messy public trial at which the embarrassing secrets they were using to blackmail you would be revealed.
I would rather be strongarmed by a corporation and have recourse, than be strongarmed by a government, legally authorised to do so by a secret court which overrules all other courts, or told to change my actions and never tell anyone why under punishment of imprisonment.
If Google's a dick, I can post on Facebook or Tumblr about how Google's being a dick. If my government is a dick, my life as I know it is over.
If Google's a dick, I can post on Facebook or Tumblr about how Google's being a dick. If my government is a dick, my life as I know it is over.
If they'd tried to blackmail me, I'd try to blackmail them with them trying to blackmail me.
Since I'm poor, there is more to gain on my side. I'd be excellent. ;)
Since I'm poor, there is more to gain on my side. I'd be excellent. ;)
Never Mind the NSA, Google and Facebook. What about your own employer or recruitment firms? http://www.benhowell.net/future/2015/05/03/people-analytics-...
Google and Facebook keeps most loud noise on internet happy by giving them free stuff. Actual quote from a comment here: "Google gives their software for free, I don't see any reason to oppose them".
So don't be disappointed if people don't hear you out. Nice article, thank you and good luck
I think this is hinting towards a future where end-users will expect end-to-end encryption for everything by default. As a consumer I never want to think about who's watching me, I just want it to be impossible.
What are you talking about? Encryption doesn't protect you if the other party in the communication wants to sell you out.
See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media embeds.
See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media embeds.
End-to-end encryption isn’t perfect, but it’s still an improvement that reduces attack surface. Prevents man-in-the-middle attacks.
I think this is hinting towards a future where tech-savvy privacy-aware end users will continue to trailblaze- utilizing and evolving technology that minimizes the need to trust government and corporations.
That technology includes self-hosted services, decentralized/distributed (p2p-esque) protocols and platforms, open-source encryption ciphers that feature perfect forward secrecy, and open-source hardware.
>See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media embeds.
There are browser plugins for opting out of google analytics tracking. Also plugins for blocking social media and commercial/advertiser tracking. A bandaid- but better than nothing.
I think this is hinting towards a future where tech-savvy privacy-aware end users will continue to trailblaze- utilizing and evolving technology that minimizes the need to trust government and corporations.
That technology includes self-hosted services, decentralized/distributed (p2p-esque) protocols and platforms, open-source encryption ciphers that feature perfect forward secrecy, and open-source hardware.
>See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media embeds.
There are browser plugins for opting out of google analytics tracking. Also plugins for blocking social media and commercial/advertiser tracking. A bandaid- but better than nothing.
There are different mechanisms and motivations by which corporations gain, express and are removed from power. But I remain thoroughly unconvinced that those make the power wielded somehow benign.
There are differences, sure, but to quote my favorite blogger: Wired are more horrified about NSA spying, despite there being an explicit terms of service agreement with them that what it finds without a warrant is inadmissible, but Google monitoring my sexts for their commercial benefit is SAGE approved behavioral economics. Google buying Boston Dynamics is better than DARPA having it, is that the game we're playing now? If I had to put my chips and my children against an 8 year rotation of civil service nincompoops vs. some nerd with an open marriage who spent $15M on a "bachelor pad" so he could score chicks of questionable emotional stability, I'm going with the group my private sector lawyers have an outside chance of pwoning.