

Never Mind the NSA, What About Google and Facebook? - xhomes
http://editeddaily.com/nsa-google-facebook

======
forgottenpass
I don't think this is the is a particularly strong argument, but an incredibly
important point none the less.

There are different mechanisms and motivations by which corporations gain,
express and are removed from power. But I remain thoroughly unconvinced that
those make the power wielded somehow benign.

There are differences, sure, but to quote my favorite blogger: Wired are more
horrified about NSA spying, despite there being an explicit terms of service
agreement with them that what it finds without a warrant is inadmissible, but
Google monitoring my sexts for their commercial benefit is SAGE approved
behavioral economics. Google buying Boston Dynamics is better than DARPA
having it, is that the game we're playing now? If I had to put my chips and my
children against an 8 year rotation of civil service nincompoops vs. some nerd
with an open marriage who spent $15M on a "bachelor pad" so he could score
chicks of questionable emotional stability, I'm going with the group my
private sector lawyers have an outside chance of pwoning.

------
socket0
Hysterics choose sides, realists distrust government and commercial interests
equally. But the key to evaluating the threat can be summed up in the
Senator's own words: "private sector entities gathering personal data for
marketing and commercial purposes". That's it. I don't want to buy the crap
Google and Facebook want to sell me, but I do want to use their services to
make my own life easier. I'll keep on benefitting from this unequal
relationship until I feel uncomfortable.

Government agencies, on the other hand, are not as forthcoming about their
motives. "We spy on you to keep you safe?" No you don't. You spy on other
people to keep me safe. You spy on me to keep other people safe. Who are these
people? Why do they feel threatened by me? Are these people who have a reason
to fear me? Should I rather fear them?

So no, not never mind the NSA. Or any other three letter agency. There's a
world of difference between the transparent and often sleazy motives of
commercial entities, and the secretive and often sinister motives of
governments, government agencies, and the "patriots" who blindly support them.

------
Nadya
>So I ask you this: Why is it that a popularly elected and democratically
accountable government—the democracy in which Americans take such pride—is
more suspect than immensely large and wealthy private corporations?

To offer my perspective on this, and feel free to disagree.

Corporations could (and do) use the data to increase profits - mostly through
marketing and selling the data to marketers. While invasive of peoples'
privacy - their freedoms remain intact.

Government could use the data for control, to maintain power over the people
and could use it maliciously through imprisonment and maltreatment of people
based entirely on the collected data. While also invasive of privacy - it has
a risk of limiting freedoms or worse. People fear the possibility of this.

It's not that people necessarily trust corporations with their data (most
users are simply unaware) - but rather that they have _less to fear_ from
companies than the government.

The government might revoke my drivers license because I show signs of road
rage. The license being revoked could lose my transportation to work, losing
my job. In the current economy and lack of job availability in my area - I'd
lose my house. All over a little blob of data the government decided to use
against me. Meanwhile, Google having that same information might show me ads
for an anger management class.

I'd rather Google have it than the government in my contrived and made up
example. I imagine that's why fewer people care if Google/Facebook know
everything but want to keep that information from the government.

Privacy-concerned people use alternative-to-Google services like Duckduckgo
and don't even have a Facebook. So they don't trust corporations either
(although ironically turn to smaller corporations as alternatives?)

~~~
pdkl95
Did you miss the whole PRISM thing? If you give data to Google, you are _also_
giving it to the government.

~~~
Nadya
I used Google as an example but it could very well be any corporation - local
or international - and unless you believe every company in the world is a part
of PRISM or is handing data to the government, my example holds but without
the specifics.

Thank you for bringing up this point though, I was hoping someone would (and
you can choose to not believe me if you like). Making the connection of major
companies to government surveillance outside of the security-minded (ie.
people who keep up or are educated on the Snowden leaks) wouldn't make this
connection. Which I treat as supporting evidence for my speculation on why the
"common layman" doesn't care.

~~~
Menge
I think your overall point is accurate and would go further to add that there
is an ironic safety in storing my data with "hostile" nations (or corporations
associated with them) over nations that are "friendly" and readily exchanging
data with my own.

The US is in fact far more likely to imprison/traumatize one of its citizens
over one of its many obscure technicalities (whether actually violated or not)
than say NK is to attempt to use data to somehow pressure that US citizen.

Trying to decipher the underlying perspective of the article, I also find
mirth in the apparent angst of all the secret agents and their sponsors; they
have no idea what corporation will screw up their cover. Joseph Conrad would
be proud of our progress even if it is marginal.

------
bjhowell
Never Mind the NSA, Google and Facebook. What about your own employer or
recruitment firms? [http://www.benhowell.net/future/2015/05/03/people-
analytics-...](http://www.benhowell.net/future/2015/05/03/people-analytics-
and-the-big-data-dystopia/)

------
Sbn
Google and Facebook keeps most loud noise on internet happy by giving them
free stuff. Actual quote from a comment here: "Google gives their software for
free, I don't see any reason to oppose them". So don't be disappointed if
people don't hear you out. Nice article, thank you and good luck

------
ccvannorman
I think this is hinting towards a future where end-users will expect end-to-
end encryption for everything by default. As a consumer I never want to think
about who's watching me, I just want it to be impossible.

~~~
forgottenpass
What are you talking about? Encryption doesn't protect you if the other party
in the communication wants to sell you out.

See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media embeds.

~~~
34576
End-to-end encryption isn’t perfect, but it’s still an improvement that
reduces attack surface. Prevents man-in-the-middle attacks.

I think this is hinting towards a future where tech-savvy privacy-aware end
users will continue to trailblaze- utilizing and evolving technology that
minimizes the need to trust government _and_ corporations.

That technology includes self-hosted services, decentralized/distributed
(p2p-esque) protocols and platforms, open-source encryption ciphers that
feature perfect forward secrecy, and open-source hardware.

>See also: any https website that uses google analytics or social media
embeds.

There are browser plugins for opting out of google analytics tracking. Also
plugins for blocking social media and commercial/advertiser tracking. A
bandaid- but better than nothing.

