[aub3bhat]

This is an unbelievably ridiculous argument, the government has data on almost entire population thanks to all sort of identification cards and other innumerable sources of data. Why should corporations and other people be denied the same access & privilege.

You are spreading pure FUD, out of ignorance and misplaced sense of paternalism. The reality is that most people correctly understand the trade-off between privacy and utility. That's why they share information on social networks. They are not paranoid running around fearing government conspiracy theories. They just want to enjoy their short lives.

[axx]

So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying?

The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come.

[aub3bhat]

>> So what you're saying is, just because our governments collect everything, everybody else should be allowed to do it too, or stop worrying?

Yes, Strong corporations and public rights, are necessary to ensure, that government does not becomes too powerful. And there is at least some balance of power.

>> The fight for privacy is not for us, it's for generations to come.

Please define "us"?

"us" or "people" or "generations" are rhetorical devices, with little basis in reality. The romantic notion of "people" quickly disappears when those people either organize into corporations or political parties. At certain level Corporations & Governments are people, or aggregate expression of will of the people. The economies of scale necessitates strong corporations which can protect "people" from government and vice versa.

[jmcmichael]

> Yes, Strong corporations and public rights, are necessary to ensure, that government does not becomes too powerful. And there is at least some balance of power.

Are you suggesting here that corporations are a meaningful brake on state power?

Given that corporations are a legal fiction only made possible by the state institutions of law, currency, markets, international treaties, trade, and war, I don't see how this assertion can be supported; the origin, future, incentives, and fortunes of states and corporations have always been inextricably linked.

'Anarcho-capitalist' and libertarians solutions for non-state corporations have always appeared to me to be shallow hand-waving (speaking as a former anarcho-capitalist and hand-waver myself).

[dragonwriter]

> Strong corporations and public rights, are necessary to ensure, that government does not becomes too powerful

Corporations are an exercise of government power; their strength isn't a safeguard against government power, it is government power.

So the real message here seems to be that exercises of government power that disproportionately favor a certain narrow elite are seen as necessary to prevent government exercising power in ways that benefit other groups.

[axx]

By that i mean, that our decisions today, will effect everything that follows.

If we educate people that privacy is a privilege, they might not do things (sharing personal information) in the future, that they would otherwise do.

And i'm not talking about world-changing stuff here, it's the little things, like sharing very personal information on social media, like my party picture example from above.

The problem is, most people don't understand the implecations of their doing. And that's why we, who understand those issues, need to educate them.

Another thing is, social media is sold as this warm and cozy place where all your friends are. But in reality, you share your information with big corporations that want to make money (which is totally fine, they provide a service).

People just need to understand, that social media is not a private and social environemnt, it's a tool, provided by a company that has (in most ways) no interest in your personal privacy.

[blub]

As long as everyone has access to the data that's fair. What happens in practice though is that only a few actors with large resources do, thereby giving them even more power.

[allemagne]

>Why should corporations and other people be denied the same access & privilege.

Should we be offering that access and privilege to governments? Assuming that we should, your argument seems to be that it's "unfair" not to offer the same to businesses? Bizarre. Perhaps you can clarify.

>The reality is that most people correctly understand the trade-off between privacy and utility.

I would argue against that. However, even if "only" something like 20-30% of people don't understand the trade-off, that's a huge problem. Additionally, those who understand the trade-off that they are personally making in the present may not be giving thought to problems it will have for them personally in the future (the argument of the commenter you are responding to), or problems access to huge amounts of data causes in society right now or in the future.

[aub3bhat]

>> Should we be offering that access and privilege to governments?

They already have it.

>> your argument seems to be that it's "unfair" not to offer the same to businesses? Bizarre.

In Sorrell vs IMS Health (2011) Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor IMS Health, that Commercial Speech was protected under First Amendment. This case is particularly relevant since IMS Health counsel successfully argued that Government could use Prescription data to market cheap generics to physicians however Pharmaceutical companies were prohibited from using the same information. The judges decided that this was unfair and amounted to restriction of commercial speech.

And few days ago the US Supreme Court in 6-2 decision in Spokeo inc. vs Robins ruled that there has to be a concrete evidence of harm/injury before data brokers can be sued.

So regarding my reasoning being Bizarre I think not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/spokeo-inc-v-robi...

http://fortune.com/2016/05/16/supreme-court-spokeo-decision/

[allemagne]

Whether the government already has data is immaterial when the question is whether they "should" have it from a moral or philosophical standpoint, which is the context I'm assuming we're working within. The legality of their having it certainly has questionable constitutionality.

In Sorrell vs IMS Health, the issue does not seem to be whether government and private companies could use the same data to market pharmaceuticals, but whether pharmacies could sell prescription data without doctors' consent. "Fairness" to companies using the same data as government appears to have nothing to do with it. You missed a period at the end of your link, so I added it in mine below.

If we ignore that and assume your interpretation is correct, your conclusion that private individuals and organizations are privy to the exact same personal information that all government organizations may have is definitely not the conclusion that outcome would point towards and is still, indeed, a bizarre belief.

As to your final argument, who is talking about suing companies? If you're responding directly to something I said, the logic to connect it to your response is unclear at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.

[Houshalter]

This is an unbelievably ridiculous argument. Just because the government has something doesn't mean everyone can or should.

[aub3bhat]

You do realize the irony in your argument, considering its the Russian government which has probably the worst track record in recent times when it comes to a corrupt government abusing its power.

What you are essentially saying is that [1] this is bad but a government having a similar tool is fine.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine

[Houshalter]

I never said the government having it is fine. But the fact that it does doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about corporations and private people having it. And I certainly did not mention the Russian government.

[kardos]

> Why should corporations and other people be denied the same access & privilege.

Why should I be denied the option to keep my personal information private from said corporations/people?

[EGreg]

I wrote a piece about this phenomenon two years ago:

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169