[scribu]

So let me get this straight:

  1. Corporation collects user data.
  2. Government wants access to that data, in secret.
  3. Corporation lets people know when the government accesses data about them.
  4. Hurrah, the government is more transparent.

If the corporation didn't collect the data in the first place, there would be nothing for the government to request access to, transparently or not.

[lern_too_spel]

Here is a perfect example of irrationality. These companies process data that the user wants them to process (emails and other conversations that the user can search from any of their devices). Not collecting that data would obviously (to everybody except irrational people like scribu) make those products impossible to implement. That same data that is so useful to the users is also useful to the FBI and anybody else investigating a person.

[scribu]

I don't understand how your claim (that users want the products that data collection enables) refutes my claim (that data collection has not helped with government transparency).

[lern_too_spel]

If your point is merely that "data collection has not helped with government transparency," I do not refute it (and I know of nobody who would -- there is no reason that Gmail nor banking nor even the price of tea in China would help with government transparency). That is, however, a rather inane point to make.

[scribu]

> I know of nobody who would

Then you're forgetting about the guy up-thread:

> accountability of governments has increased in response to many of those exact same services (Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/Google).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9672999

But reading your first comment again, I realize that you were making a different point. Sorry.

[tripzilch]

> to everybody except irrational people like scribu

please.