[ibeckermayer]

For folks who are not aware, there is a huge difference between a private company doing something and a government doing something. Government is the institution of violent enforcement, making them much more powerful and potentially dangerous than a PR consulting firm.

[lovich]

That's only true as long as corporations remain relatively small in power. There has been a definite trend in consolidation of power amongst the larger corporations and if it continues there won't be much practical difference between them or the government

[ibeckermayer]

I agree.

[pasbesoin]

You should also be aware that U.S. governments routinely acquire data from third-parties to circumvent constraints in place that prevent them from doing so, directly.

They also sell their own data, when not constrained against doing so. The many state budget crises have apparently exacerbated motivations to do so.

All that said, I can't view this DHS initiative as a positive development, WRT domestic monitoring.

Actually, I can see the point of passive monitoring. And I can't help but believe it's already done. The difference here may be the DHS, specifically, and the public nature -- announcing the initiative. Therefore perhaps also who will have access to the resulting system or systems.

Maybe I'm biased by my news consumption habits, but I worry about politicizing and agendas, when the DHS is involved.