[wing-_-nuts]

When talking about government surveillance, people often ask some version of 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?'. My response is always, 'It's not that I don't trust our current government, I don't trust all future governments that come after this one'.

I hope given the recent events of having some hired thugs rifle through government databases (including the OPM, which supposedly has very sensitive data from security clearance applications), that maybe letting people collect and store data on you should be avoided at all cost.

The older I get, the more I understand the stereotype of the eccentric former techie who no longer wants anything to do with modern technology or society

[patrickmay]

I see no reason to trust the current government, nor any of the previous ones in my lifetime.

[theyinwhy]

Why would people distrust governments more than companies? I never understood that part.

[dmitrygr]

Because the government has more power over you. Thus, they deserve more scrutiny and suspicion.

[const_cast]

True, but the government also has more accountability.

Exhibit A: freedom of speech. Public institutions have a very high bar they have to meet to ensure freedom of speech. The private sector has nothing of the sort.

You can be banned or censored for just about anything in the private sector. So when we move really important stuff to the private sector, that can be a problem.

In action: payment processors, which provide essentially public infrastructure, censoring immoral or profane content, such as pornography.

[theyinwhy]

Isn't it the case that companies are hiding in the government's shadow? Who enables a government to exert power over its people?

[leereeves]

> Who enables a government to exert power over its people?

Mostly the police and military, not the companies.

[godelski]

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

[kurikuri]

Except the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people, whereas the company’s motive is either those of the people who control the company or profit.

Even then, if the government is weak than the ‘more power over you’ is simply false. Maybe the magnitude of the power is more for a government, but companies apply their power with much more frequency.

[godelski]

  > the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people

Your conclusion doesn't seem to match your usage of "ostensible". Yes, /democratic/ governments claim to serve its people, but do not necessarily do so. You should always be suspicious and critical of your government in an effort to ensure that the stated goal and actions are aligned. You should always be treating your government as adversarial. In fact, if you read a lot of the writings of people influential to the founding of the US you'll find that they were explicitly trying to design a system where they say its biggest adversary was itself.

But also, there are plenty of governments that do not even pretend to serve its people. They are completely self-serving and transparent about that fact. You never know when one is going to turn into the other but often going from ostensibly benevolent to explicitly malevolent is relatively mild, but gaining back freedom usually requires a lot of bloodshed. There's always exceptions, but this is common. The wort part is that people frequently vote in the malevolent leaders. Democracies can turn into autocracies without spilling a single drop of blood. I'm unaware of the reverse ever happening.

[shakow]

> ostensible

That's a very load-bearing word there.

[dmitrygr]

> the ostensible motive of the government is to serve its people

I see your history teachers did a poor job. My condolences.

[theyinwhy]

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Btw, "the apparent motive of the government is to serve its people" still stands even if the government does not serve its people.

[yks]

I guess the point is whether it's a private company collecting your data, the good government, or the bad government that gives the access to your data to random non-vetted individuals for fun, the end result is the same — your data ends up with people who have the ability and desire to cause you harm.

[wing-_-nuts]

Sorry, I was only giving government surveillance as an example, I trust no one to protect my privacy, government or corporation.

[fc417fc802]

I distrust both, but the government is generally capable of much more significant threats to me. Notably it is the government which prevents companies from posing similar threats (at least currently, in the west).

[andoando]

I mean, I dont want the private details of my life exposed, illegal or not. Who does

[dillydogg]

I know, it's not as if I just let the cops walk through my house whenever they want. I just don't understand the "I've got nothing to hide" defense.

[the_snooze]

> 'well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?'

I like to go with the simpler "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent."

[blooalien]

> "I hold lots of sensitive data for people who trust me: my family, my friends, my employer. One would have to be a sociopath to disclose other people's secrets without their consent."

Oh, that's a good one. I'ma totally steal that...