[api]

> But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we?

Exactly. Surveillance capitalism is orders of magnitude more invasive than the NSA and does not answer to anyone. Regulations don’t even really work because they can just offshore anything shady or do it through fly by night data brokers.

[master-lincoln]

But private companies do not have the legal option to invade your home or use physical force on you.

[yterdy]

They can use the cops against you. Ask Kim Dotcom (whatever else you think of him).

[CamperBob2]

That wouldn't happen without power delegated from the government. We leave capitalism and free enterprise behind when that happens, yet still insist on using the same terms to label the consequences.

See also patent trolls, predatory DRM and copyright enforcement, and (often) the creation and maintenance of harmful monopolies.

[yterdy]

The government's power is delegated by the people (and, in particular, people with influence, i.e., money). The power of corporations to direct government force is therefore inextricable from the power of corporations writ large, and that is derived wholly from unrestrained or improperly-restrained capitalism/enterprise. The government loses the power to abuse the public so intensely when corporations lose the power to abuse government, at least within a capitalist framework.

[injeolmi_love]

Capitalism has always been a creature of the state. Kings gave licenses to private individuals to invest, operate, and run public companies. Nowadays it’s more complex but the first step to create any public company is still to apply for a license. Power and money have always flown both ways. I suggest you look into the Muscovy Company. Created in 1555 as the first joint stock company, it was highly influential politically and relied on its political connections to earn profits. Nothing has changed in this regard for corporations since.

[kube-system]

For profit companies ultimately sell to anyone with money. Profit maximization ensures that if private companies can collect the data, everyone who wants it will have it.

[ben_w]

Unless so empowered by the state.

Most of them don't want to, and let the police and the bailiffs do that kind of thing for them in the relatively rare cases it matters, just like any other form of contracting or outsourcing.

[injeolmi_love]

The big tech companies are not private; they are public companies that rely on state force to maintain their monopolies. Just as an example, intellectual property laws rely on the state for enforcement.

[ericmay]

Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights.

Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.

[injeolmi_love]

There’s limits to property rights even among the most extreme voluntaryist political philosophers. Rothbard, a famous anarchocapitalist, wrote extensively about why property rights don’t extend to slaveowners.

Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. These include limitation on liability, protection for many types of property, and much, much more. The protections even extend to securities regulations; since public companies aren’t privately owned, there is a misalignment between incentives of owners and managers. The state sides with the owners by using force on managers to prevent them from acting in their own self interest, and instead to act on behalf of the shareholder public.

The NAP cannot extend to public companies as they are not privately owned and can only exist when granted rights by the state. A lot of work has been done by libertarians on the topic of how monopolies are formed; it’s not due to private markets.

[ericmay]

I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I?

> Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state.

There are a few problems with this. To start, private business and private households also exist due to licensure from the state. The distinction between public and private is a matter of technicality, not categorical difference. The monopoly that the state holds on the initiation of violence applies categorically to your ability to purchase a home and pay taxes, and it applies to large tech companies.

The second problem is that public businesses were as a matter of fact private before they were public. So instead of offering shares to the public on government regulated, public markets that anyone can participate in, they could just be private instead.

[injeolmi_love]

Humans can be born without a license, and frequently are. Same with private businesses. Public companies cannot exist without a license. Just because birth, household formation, and private business are heavily regulated in some times and places does not mean they always are. We humans were all stateless tribes once, and some of us still are.

Regarding your second issue, we’re in agreement. Yes it’s true under capitalism that with the heavy regulation of private individuals and firms, everything becomes the public sphere. Your house becomes a public place where your actions are subject to judgement.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Bigtech is not the main threat. They are the new kids on the block. There is no shortage of privately held data brokers that will provide data to intelligence services. They've been doing it since before the Internet existed.

[jjtheblunt]

You just made me wonder if those smart TVs have the ability to packet sniff what’s going on on the Wi-Fi networks in the homes in which they’re installed.

[rolph]

from wikipedia

"HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel Introduced in HDMI 1.4, HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel (HEAC) adds a high-speed bidirectional data communication link (HEC) and the ability to send audio data upstream to the source device (ARC). HEAC utilizes two lines from the connector: the previously unused Reserved pin (called HEAC+) and the Hot Plug Detect pin (called HEAC−).[51]: §HEAC-2.1 If only ARC transmission is required, a single mode signal using the HEAC+ line can be used, otherwise, HEC is transmitted as a differential signal over the pair of lines, and ARC as a common mode component of the pair."

HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC)

HDMI Ethernet Channel technology consolidates video, audio, and data streams into a single HDMI cable, and the HEC feature enables IP-based applications over HDMI and provides a bidirectional Ethernet communication at 100 Mbit/s.[43] The physical layer of the Ethernet implementation uses a hybrid to simultaneously send and receive attenuated 100BASE-TX-type signals through a single twisted pair."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

--------------------------------------------------

This gives me the impression that packet sniffs, and many other operations have been in play since HDMI 1.4,

possibly a subscription based desktop as a service, or game console as a service, could distribute this way, and leech off local LAN gateway, for heavy loads.

[FirmwareBurner]

Some IOT devices definitely do scan your network automatically to look for other compatible members of the ecosystem.

[oyashirochama]

A reason why VLANing is important.

[jjtheblunt]

Downvotes for a valid question?

[generic92034]

Yet.