[globie]

Do you believe the disaggregation of those monoliths helps to put the "hypothesis to bed"? It sure seems like you were listing "constant litigation" over "records request" as counterevidence of the claim that "if a company knows something about you, so does the government(s)".

If anyone in the U.S. government is extracting data from companies in a manner which is unlawful or should be (and they sure are), I see that as strong evidence of the hypothesis. Pointing out that local agencies may have to fight for their access in court doesn't change that it "is exactly the state of affairs the government prefers".

[JumpCrisscross]

> sure seems like you were listing "constant litigation" over "records request" as counterevidence of the claim that "if a company knows something about you, so does the government(s)"

Yes. Just because the NSA can access some data doesn’t mean the entire federal government, including the NSA, has it.

> local agencies may have to fight for their access

The White House is fighting Harvard for student records. I don’t think people appreciate the degree to which information is siloed, intentionally and unintentionally, in the federal government. (It’s what led to DOGE likely committing multiple felonies.)

[globie]

>I don’t think people appreciate the degree to which information is siloed, intentionally and unintentionally, in the federal government.

Thanks for that. Information can be completely siloed and the statements "If a company knows something about you, so does the government(s)" and "This is exactly the state of affairs the government prefers" still be correct.

Is your belief that the federal government has not actually purchased hordes of corporate surveillance data? Or is it that because there are examples of information being siloed or not available, that means it's okay or a non-issue that Americans' data that was once unlawfully collected is now still unlawfully collected but also collected by corporations and purchased wholesale by the federal government?