[thisisthenewme]

So on the side of wanting easy access to American data -

  - People in the gov who want to monitor the general populace for dissent
  - Power hungry individuals and governments
  - Governments wanting to learn about their foreign adversaries/allies
  - People in the gov who want to monitor other gov agents for whatever reason
  - Corporations wanting to learn about their adversaries
  - Corporations wanting to maximize their profits
  - Corporations wanting to learn about their users for whatever reasons
  - And so on and on.

On the side of limiting access to user data -

  - People wanting privacy

Don't want to sound too pessimistic but I can't help it.

[imagine99]

Most - if not all - the people in your first group are also in the second group! That is, I think, what they (and everyone) really needs to realize and understand:

The all-powerful CEO who wants access to detailed customer data? He will be in The Database himself (if not his own, then in the one that a rival company offers). As will his favorite son with the drug habit, and the questionable thing he did on holiday that one time... Might not even be that bad or illegal. But would he want his workers to know those things about him?

The policitian whose party is in power right now? She is in The Database, too. As is her shady half-brother, all the info about the medical procedures she had done while in college, plus her husband's business dealings. Sure, they are legal but will it sound good to her constituency if it leaks? After all, her party might not be in the majority anymore after the next election...

Whenever your unbridled greed for tracking, profiling and surveillance becomes overwhelming, please attend your closest meeting of "Data Collectors Anonymous" and memorize the mantra: IYDTS - It's your data, too, stupid!

Your own daughter will be spied on by creeps. Your mother may be discriminated against when trying to get a mortgage. Whenever you collect people's data for profit or control, you WILL hurt yourself and the ones you love.

Even if you personally are the cleanest Mr. goodie two shoes to ever live, those around you surely aren't - and don't forget, in the end it's very easy for The Database to have some entries about you that might not even be true. Mistakes happen. Good luck proving or correcting them.

If you don't do whatever you can to protect privacy and minimize data collection, every day the chance increases that your own data will be collected and used against you or the ones you love. Then you might not be in a position to stop it anymore. And you may never be happy again...

[sokz]

> The Database to have some entries about you that might not even be true. Mistakes happen. Good luck proving or correcting them.

This actually happened to me. A clerical mistake by a teacher changed my name in databases which led me to change my name officially so that I can have my original name back.

[science4sail]

Why wouldn't they just special-case themselves? Pass a national security law (or a de-facto informal agreement) against harvesting politicians' personal data?

[Loquebantur]

You paint a defeatist picture of the situation, which should be obvious not to be helpful in any way.

You list many categories of small groups of people opposed to one encompassing the absolute majority of all. How is the former more powerful by necessity?

The key is people realizing they are part of a large group with a common cause. And powerful if they organize as such. Your comment appears designed to prevent that.

[kelnos]

> You paint a defeatist picture of the situation, which should be obvious not to be helpful in any way.

Recognizing obstacles to your goals is hardly unhelpful. GP is clearly pessimistic (and admits as much), but that doesn't change anything. If we (presumably in the "people wanting privacy" camp) want to win, we need to go down that first list and either decide why each of those sorts of people don't matter, or figure out how to counteract their political power.

"How is the former more powerful by necessity?" is a good question that deserves an answer, but I think you seem to have already decided, without evidence, that those people are not powerful, which I think is mere wishful thinking.

[Loquebantur]

You utilize power as a group via coordinated action targeting pressure points and leverage. Understanding how the system you want to influence actually works is a prerequisite surprisingly often omitted.

"Counteracting" individual groups as you propose is a nonsensical approach. It is reactive and at best a second order addendum.

How you read from my comment I was making any assumptions about these groups is your secret alone.

[kelnos]

> You utilize power as a group via coordinated action targeting pressure points and leverage.

Ok, sure...

> "Counteracting" individual groups as you propose is a nonsensical approach. It is reactive and at best a second order addendum. Understanding how the system you want to influence actually works...

I don't think you really understand how "the system you want to influence" works? Knocking down "the other side"'s argument is often an integral part of getting things done in politics. Certainly there are other ways, including trading favors and agreeing to support someone else's pet project for their support on yours. But that's not everything, and often is not sufficient.

Regarding coordinated action: I agree, but it turns out that's very hard to coordinate, especially when it comes to privacy issues, as most of the US electorate either doesn't care about privacy, or doesn't understand why they should care (seems they often fall victim to the whole "if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" fallacy that the government always pushes). It's very hard to coordinate a group that at best thinks what you're talking about isn't important, and at worst has bought your opposition's propaganda efforts and thinks you're wrong.

> How you read from my comment I was making any assumptions about these groups is your secret alone.

Then what was the point of your post? OP was listing obstacles to getting this legislation passed. Some of them may not be relevant, but I don't think it's safe to blanket assume they all are. If you think they are indeed all irrelevant, then that's fair, but I'd disagree. If you think we don't need to care about those other groups, then I also disagree. If you don't hold either of those positions, then, again, what was the point of your post, and what did it have to do with what the OP was saying?

[mistermann]

> Regarding coordinated action: I agree, but it turns out that's very hard to coordinate, especially when it comes to privacy issues, as most of the US electorate either doesn't care about privacy, or doesn't understand why they should care (seems they often fall victim to the whole "if I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide" fallacy that the government always pushes). It's very hard to coordinate a group that at best thinks what you're talking about isn't important, and at worst has bought your opposition's propaganda efforts and thinks you're wrong.

I tend to agree, but rarely discussed: why are things this way, as opposed to being better?

Would investigating that not be top priority in a corporation? Isn't it strange that when it comes to the literal system that (theoretically) oversees and coordinates ~everything, we seem to never wonder such things, as if governance is an immutable constant?

[phpisthebest]

>>The key is people realizing they are part of a large group with a common cause

COVID Shattered my belief that people "wanting privacy from government" is a "large group" as you seem to imply

People are more than willing to trade their privacy for the promise of the government provided safety blanket, even if that promise is false, can never been realized and will result in massive abuse.

I dont think there is a a large group to organize.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Part of the problem is it's hard to find people who want privacy due to that very privacy they crave, and their general mistrust of large organizations make it difficult to form them into a large organization for that reason.

Basically they find security in obscurity, and feel they have a better chance of surviving under the radar on their own.

[TheRealDunkirk]

Yeah! All we need is Congress to ignore all the corporate PAC's funding their campaigns, and do what anyone can see the average person plainly wants. There's no need for cynicism!

[nwoli]

Patriotic people in government (they exist) who understand spying on innocent citizens can cause untold economic harm and damage America in the long run

[pessimizer]

> spying on innocent citizens can cause untold economic harm and damage America in the long run

I'm on the side of people who believe in privacy, but not on the side of people who believe this. I do not believe that privacy should be contingent on how it affects the US economy, and as such I do not believe that if I can engineer a wealthy totalitarian economy, there's no reason for privacy.

[raincom]

Most of these patriotic people in the government are either powerless or keep silent.

[freeopinion]

Is that like vegetarians who eat hamburgers?

[allenrb]

This feels like a correct summary of the situation. I wish it were not so, but that genie is so far out of the bottle, she’d need GPS to find her way back in.

[mhoad]

It’s correct in the same way Joe Rogan talking about anything other than MMA or comedy feels correct to some people.

It’s great at feeling like you’ve said something clever but also makes it clear you haven’t actually thought about the topic for more than five minutes and you just said the first thing that came to mind and missed a bunch of important points in the process.

[twojacobtwo]

Since you seem to be an authority of some type on this topic, do you care to add any examples, for the sake of those who don't have as broad an understanding as you?

As it stands now, it seems like you posted this just to say something clever.

[mdhb]

It’s posted further down the page

[badosu]

I understand the point, but it feels disingenuous to have it directed at someone who makes a living out of inviting guests and making interesting talk out of it.

I don't think he ever claimed to be an expert at the stuff he talks about and that we're free to talk about stuff we don't know everything about.

[newuser94303]

Gov'ts that want to monitor citizens for say a tendency to get an abortion have more power than a corp that wants to sell me diapers. One step at a time. Try to stop the worst offenses then work your way down.

[pessimizer]

Governments are monitoring citizens for the corporations. They don't care about abortions. They care about abortions turning out a base that will elect politicians who will pass laws written by the corp that wants to sell you diapers.

[blix]

Really? Abortion is a wedge issue in the USA because of Big Diaper?

I can't say I have ever heard this particular conspiracy theory before.

[ROTMetro]

Is there a legal argument to be made to include the right to privacy in the current dispute regarding first amendment rights and the government talking to social media companies about removing information/accounts? Basically if the government can't undermine the 1st amendment through 'asking nicely' of companies then they also can't bypass the constitutional right to privacy? That would make it a broader constitutional rights coalition.

[j45]

Everything that can be used for bad can be used for good.

Take memes for example and how they out educated press conferences during the pandemic.

Creating content that is anchored to hell the everyday person learn and decide what’s important to them beyond conscience at the expense of security and privacy should be an informed decision.

On the other hand, if people went through this 20 years ago, chances are it will start to happen some more with a much larger group, only less technical.

[j45]

Clarification: use of everything = tech

[landemva]

1) Those who are willing to pay to get your data

vs

2) Those who think it should be easy and convenient to use services and free to keep that data private

Which group is in fantasy land? Privacy takes work and meaningful trade-offs.

[vacuity]

Well, I'm not getting paid for all (any) of the data collected about me.

How about this: services/sites make it abundantly clear what data they collect (no full page of legalese designed to make people scroll to the bottom). Make it a list of bullet points, maybe. Explain how the data will be used, maybe collapsed by default so it's not overwhelming. Depending on the service, it may be appropriate to notify users about an updated privacy policy. Enforce antitrust and whatnot so Google and co. aren't just dominating the landscape and forcing their way. Also remove dark patterns. This isn't exhaustive, by the way.

Then set a price. And no "here's a constant subscription notice that you can't really block". Guess what happens in my ideal world if a service is found violating the privacy policy.

[freeopinion]

Your first sentence isn't exactly accurate. If you are not receiving a benefit from Facebook, why do you use it? If you don't benefit from your credit card or cellphone or bank, why do you use them? If you don't benefit from the relationship you have with your employer, why do you have that relationship?

All of those parties are collecting data about you. While there is some value to using that data internally, it is obviously valuable as a commodity to be sold to others. You might complain that your cellphone company benefited instead of you. But you gave up your data to somebody for some reason.

You can't complain about not getting invited to this weekend's party if you aren't willing to share your phone number with the organizers. If you weren't willing for them to sell that data later, you should have put them under contract. Of course, they may have responded by charging you admission to the party. If you don't like being charged admission AND getting your data sold, go to a different party or no party at all.

I know, I know. It isn't fair. Parties are a basic human right.

[vacuity]

I'll assume that you're speaking in general, because that last line especially isn't like me.

Sure, I give data to my bank. I expect them to do bank things well, and if they expect action on my part then I'm liable for not doing it. I benefit and so does the bank, because it does investing or whatever. Does that mean the bank should have carte blanche to share my data now? As a pure matter of trust, I have no recourse because I trust(ed) the bank. That's the "scary cracker breaking into the database" kind of trust.

However, I feel I'm entitled to more than that as a citizen of the fine and upstanding US of A. Governments are worthless if they don't protect the people from (or at least try to resolve) getting robbed and whatnot. I view "not getting my data spread to arbitrary parties with possibly only direct consent or knowledge on the surface level" as another thing to be protected from. A cost-benefit analysis breaks down if my benefit is "I get to use these services" and my cost is "I'm literally, financially paying and I'm tracked everywhere and I have a social credit score" and I don't have a feasible alternative.

For parties, perhaps they shouldn't be regulated the same as companies, so I guess I should be prepared for my phone number to be sold if I go. I can still complain if their excuse is dubious.

[landemva]

>> as a citizen of the fine and upstanding US of A.

If you work as W-2 in USA, your employer, or their payroll company, may be sending your payroll data including itemized withholdings to theworknumber. Some employers don't even know the payroll provider is doing this nonsense.

>> I don't have a feasible alternative.

Most people have to work.

The Work Number is good for us, says this university.

https://hrs.uni.edu/theworknumber

[vacuity]

That's deeply unfortunate. Still, I rest my case. There's a difference between using PII for the agreed-upon service and sharing/selling it to third parties for a profit. If a free service can't be sustainable by properly using the information, then it should either charge or be abundantly clear about how data is used, allowing for "right to forget" and whatnot. It's not like a service has the right to exist if the matter comes down to consumers. Given that snooping inside peoples' homes is generally unacceptable, I posit that having access to peoples' searches, browsing history, locations, etc. should also be strictly curtailed unless it is necessary. Naturally that falls on the government to enforce.

[landemva]

>> Then set a price.

How about a cell phone service that would not sell any location data connected to you or your phone usage. Would you be willing to pay over $200/month or less? What would you pay?

I recognize some folks want privacy at no cost to them.

[vacuity]

As far as I can tell, $200/month is ridiculous compared to competitors. If I knew how to enforce "don't be a jerk and clearly overcharge" in law, I'd lay it out right here. It would be fair to require a moderate premium for legitimate privacy-upholding reasons.

[landemva]

Depending on what premium you are willing to pay, there might be a sustainable business. But privacy and cheap probably won't be a sustainable business.

If you think you can force it by law, then choose a good jurisdiction for that strong-arming.

[vacuity]

To create a new business that aims for respecting user privacy, it is indeed a daunting task. However, it is just as well if the likes of Google are made to respect privacy; they won't be worse off in the long run anyways. There could be evaluations after a year or two to see how much really changes. There should be strict measures that enforce privacy-conscious business models and prevent companies from unreasonably retaliating.

On a more general note, it's ridiculous that the status quo is so entrenched to the point where discussions about privacy often feature doomerism and cynicism ad nauseum, as this thread shows. For all the hubbub (in the US, at least) about human rights, about justice, about democracy (however misguided some of these pleas may be), there is a sickening lack of attention when it comes to privacy. When you realize you live in a backwards (literally? figuratively?) world, do you point it out? Will the others merely laugh at you? Is your vision of something different just a worthless hope? I, for one, fervently wish that more people become antagonistic to the idea that privacy is meaningless or not worth fighting for.

[yMEyUyNE1]

I am already paying the TSP for it's service and providing the data for it's functioning. So what right does it have to share it or use it without my permission for some different business purpose? Just like the other comment that if I share my data with bank, it is for providing banking service. The bank cannot turn around and use it for some different business purposes.

We are not talking about the free service providers like google or meta, right?

[georgeplusplus]

What is uplifting is that law is on the side of the people who want privacy as its in the constitution.

[nobody9999]

>What is uplifting is that law is on the side of the people who want privacy as its in the constitution.

Is it? Are you referring the the Fourth Amendment?

   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
   effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 
   and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
   affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
   persons or things to be seized.

While that's a nice fantasy, it's not the reality.

Firstly, while the fourth amendment does preclude the government from rifling through your physical belongings without a warrant, the Third-Party Doctrine[0] allows the government to get pretty much any of your information and private data if you provide it to a third party.

What's more, corporations are not subject to the fourth amendment and can do pretty much whatever they want and you have no recourse.

I wish you were right, as I value my privacy. Sadly, you're not.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

[georgeplusplus]

>>>While that's a nice fantasy, it's not the reality.

I was responding to many of OPs bullet list focused towards the government.

I mean it is the supreme law of the land. So I am confident it is not fantasy. That the people only need to assert their rights, that is the fantasy.

[nobody9999]

>I mean it is the supreme law of the land. So I am confident it is not fantasy. That the people only need to assert their rights, that is the fantasy.

I take your point and, as an American, I agree that's how it should be. What's more, upon further reflection, "fantasy" was probably too strong a term.

That said, there are serious issues around privacy in the US, given the legal jurisprudence around data you provide to others, especially since so many folks have their whole lives "in the cloud" (i.e., someone else's servers).

As such, I urge you to learn about and understand the Third-Party Doctrine[0].

It has a long legal history and is well established law in the US.

And it allows the government to obtain, without a warrant, any and all information you provide to a third party. That could be your cellular/email providers, your ISP, whoever stores your smart watch data, the company that hosts your menstrual period data, anyone to whom you willingly give information.

Granted, that third party could refuse and force the government to get a warrant/court order, but it's not required.

For many people that pretty much obviates most privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment.

That we have a right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," isn't at issue.

The issue is that so much of what you consider "private" data isn't private if you give it to a third party. And these days, we do that a lot by sharing our most private information with whoever hosts the app which tracks that information.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine