A bold position to take for representatives of a government that maintains multiple databases of fingerprint scans for foreign nationals and their own citizens…
Government is just the biggest “private” company, whose business is violence[0] - both the use and mitigation of it. Every citizen is a stakeholder. Foreigners are not invested, they are competition, both friendly and not. We vote at shareholder meetings called elections.
From this simplistic framework I wouldn’t say there is a big difference. About the only thing I can think of is scale, and optimization for human wellbeing instead of profit, but that hardly feels true in the modern world.
Really? They are both effectively the same, except Amazon will sell the data gathered to the government and anyone else willing to pay for it. And those companies will sell it to other companies. And some of those companies will get hacked and then the data goes s effectively public domain.
Yeah, very big difference indeed. I'd take the private company over government any day. Remember, companies have to ask you to buy their wares, govt just sends armed fighters to your home.
...or other governments. And there's already precedent for getting around pesky things like the 4th amendment by simply buying your data from another country who has it.
The article is about AMZN collecting palm prints of people that opt in to a specific program that has alternatives.
The US gov doesn’t have alternatives. When they ask for your biometric data you give it, or else they deny your clearance/ background check/entry to the country.
You don't really have much choice about corporate surveillance unless you live in a cave and never communicate with anyone, and I have no power over Amazon.
The government is limited by the voters, Constitution, laws, and two other branches of government. I have no power over Amazon.
Anyway, I don't see why the government is relevant: Amazon is the topic, as you said.