[Swizec]

> Meanwhile, Google, Facebook and so on are not keeping active track of the nature your conversations within chat and email in such a tightly controlled way.

The question is, should they? I'm sure banks weren't always as tightly regulated and didn't keep as tight a track of everything as they do now.

Should we ask web giants to start behaving in a more regulated way for various reasons ranging from the ability to get alibi from "I posted this on Facebok at X and couldn't possibly have been where you say I was", to the ability to have court evidence of what people were/are up to. If data isn't kept to a certain standard it becomes too unreliable in such cases.

On the other hand, do we actually need banks to have such a tight control over everything? Yes, we expect it. But do we need it?

[firasd]

In terms of court evidence, I believe internet companies are responsive to warrants (although some fight requests they consider unreasonable with more vigor than others.)

My reading of the article suggests this is more about active and ongoing surveillance, which gets into greyer areas (the feasibility of such monitoring, potential bias in algorithms, as well as issues like the concept of "pre-crime" and the legal concept of "prior restraint"...)