I just saw this. Yes, there are solutions (e.g., don't use Google or Facebook for anything), but for people to know what to opt out from, they need to know how the system works.
Google Requires People to Use the Google Social Network, Gains Ground Against Facebook - WSJ.com: "Both Facebook and Google make the vast bulk of their revenue from selling ads. But Facebook has something Google wants: Facebook can tie people's online activities to their real names, and it also knows who those people's friends are. Marketers say Google has told them that closer integration of Google+ across its many properties will allow Google to obtain this kind of information and target people with more relevant (and therefore, more profitable) ads."
But saying how bad government is, without also addressing private data collection, doesn't protect your privacy. If people only focus on government, I think they are doing it to hide what private companies are collecting (and can therefore provide to government).
If your information is being amassed by anyone, it is available to hackers, to private companies, to government. That's the big problem. A networked world is a world with decreasing privacy unless we take steps no one has yet fully taken. Most companies WANT to decrease your privacy because there is money to be made in knowing everything about you.
I think being vigilant about how government uses data is important. But I want to stress, over and over again, that the data is being collected and is being used and the companies that are collecting it are asking to have as little monitoring of their activities as possible.
I don't think it is enough to say government can't have the data but data collectors and their clients can have it.
At the very least, consumers need to know how to use tools to inhibit that data collection. And if tracking blockers screw up online advertising and the web companies they support, so be it. If we end up stepping away from mobile because it is location-based, so be it. If we decide not to use Google broadband because it gives Google too much control over our lives, so be it. If Facebook goes down the tubes because it can't be trusted, so be it.
I've been around enough hot-headed people in my life that I don't trust all of them to make wise decisions about when to use or not to use guns. Some of them are easily threatened and will pull out a gun when it isn't necessary.
As more people carry guns because they feel threatened, I expect to see more use of them.
'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides : NPR: "... based on the available data, it appears that crafters of these laws sought to give good guys more latitude to defend themselves against bad guys. But what Hoekstra's data suggest is that in real-life conflicts, both sides think of the other guy as the bad guy. Both believe the law gives them the right to shoot."
I'll add that perhaps it bothers some of these private companies that government can come in with a warrant and get the info for free. But, on the other hand, I'm sure the companies would be willing to sell lots of info/access to files if the price is right.
If the information is available for sale to clients, I'm sure the info can be be purchased by government, either directly by a government agency or via a private company acting on the government's behalf.
Also, many websites say that while they won't "sell" your information, they will make it available to "partners." That leaves a lot of doors open.
The government is just as interested in all your data as private companies are. SCOTUS ruled that your data is not protected by the 4th amendment if another holds it, so the government wants private companies to pay for the data collection and cross-linking, then they can swoop in with a warrant (or less) and get everything about you.
Be wary about government monitoring all you want. I just don't want to give private data collection a pass. I hope the pressure is put on Facebook, Google, and the like so that people are aware of how much info they are collecting. They aren't necessarily the "good" guys here.
I'm actually far more concerned about what private companies do than I am about government agencies because I think the private companies are amassing more data than government and putting in more resources into cross-referencing it. I don't think government is as interested in as many details of our lives as private companies are.
Look, the holy grail of private companies is to have us all using mobile devices that feed everything we do into databases which can then be used and sold to marketers. The government doesn't really want to monitor every citizen to the extent that private companies do. And I am pretty sure that these companies amassing all this data on people would be very happy to provide it to governments for the right price. As they say, data is the new oil.
If anything, I think the private companies want to shut out government so that the private companies are the only ones in possession of all this info on private citizens and then they can sell it to governments. Really, government intelligence often involves private contractors anyway.
The game is to lessen laws on private companies gathering data and shift the focus to governments, so the private companies get a free pass and governmental agencies stay out of their way. It's not really about privacy protection at all.
Hmm, just got a notice that I can't post a comment without moderation
I tried to add a link to a useful article on gun ownership and usage stats from around the world. But it didn't go through yet because it is awaiting moderation. Why is that?
Good question. I think the tech/marketing folks like to blame government so people won't notice how much private companies are compiling on people -- most of it easily obtainable if you search for it or pay for it. Marketers are collecting as much info about you as they possibly can so they know who you are, where you go (and where you are at any given moment), what you spend, where you live, what you own, who your friends and family are, etc.
I actually envision something like this myself. I'd like everyone with guns to battle things out amongst themselves and let the rest of us stay inside until it all blows over.
I've also thought that maybe the right wing Christians should battle the right wing Muslims and keep the rest of us out of it.
Does that not solidify the original point that there are people who should not be owning guns who do? And the fact that you say it "should be expected," that we should expect threats from some subset of gun owners, only further makes that point.
Your comment just made me think of something. The gun advocates have gone on record saying that they want lots of people to have guns. And gun owners will often tell you about their guns.
But what they didn't like in this instance is that someone else told the world about their guns (which many of them want everyone to have anyway). So they want to think they are in control of this information, when in reality they aren't in control of most information about themselves because companies are collecting vast amounts of it and compiling profiles on them.
So my concern is with people who think guns give them control over the world, when those gyns probably don't and might become an endangerment in the hands of some people.
Journalists, gun owners, and shooting the wrong privacy horse: "Here is the deal, though. People can complain all they want about journalists publishing publicly available material. The fact is all this information exists. Much of who we are is a Google search away or stashed in databases scattered far and wide."
No. The clear intent is defamatory. The clear intent is "fear your neighbor".
But those who advocate that everyone have a gun want the same thing. They want us to think, "I better watch out because everyone around me has a gun." It's their assumption that if everyone has a gun, no one will get out of line (I don't necessarily agree with that, though, since a lot of these mass murderers kill themselves anyway).
The push is to have everyone armed, so what difference does it make to let the world know who already have guns? Seems like many of them are proud gun owners and will tell you so. I've certainly heard from Facebook friends who tell me about their guns.
I wonder how many gun owners see ads for ammunition, shooting ranges, guns, etc., whenever they visit sites on the Internet. Those that do are probably being tracked via ad trackers.
And of course, if they are getting junk mail on those products, they are in someone's database as possible buyers.
NRA members are, of course, on NRA lists, and the NRA does share those lists with some partners.
If people are going into gun shops, rifle ranges, and gun shows and have their cellphones on them, they may be providing data about where they are, which can generate a profile of their gun usage/interests.
Ultimately technology is going to figure out who has what and who does what. So whether or not a newspaper publishes this info, it will be available anyway.
Lots of companies are interested in monitoring everyone. There are companies that want to know who has guns and I'm sure they are doing their best to compile whatever data is available and to cross reference that with massive amounts of other data.
Maybe the problem is with investor-state arbitration
This underlines why it is crucially important for nations to get the wording of investor-state arbitration procedures right when negotiating FTAs, BITs and multilateral treaties like TPP.
Maybe the whole concept of investor-state arbitration should be ditched.
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: Re: It isn't either/or, it is both
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: It isn't either/or, it is both
Google Requires People to Use the Google Social Network, Gains Ground Against Facebook - WSJ.com: "Both Facebook and Google make the vast bulk of their revenue from selling ads. But Facebook has something Google wants: Facebook can tie people's online activities to their real names, and it also knows who those people's friends are. Marketers say Google has told them that closer integration of Google+ across its many properties will allow Google to obtain this kind of information and target people with more relevant (and therefore, more profitable) ads."
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Another resource to add to the discussion
Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
It isn't either/or, it is both
If your information is being amassed by anyone, it is available to hackers, to private companies, to government. That's the big problem. A networked world is a world with decreasing privacy unless we take steps no one has yet fully taken. Most companies WANT to decrease your privacy because there is money to be made in knowing everything about you.
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: Warrantless surveillance
I don't think it is enough to say government can't have the data but data collectors and their clients can have it.
At the very least, consumers need to know how to use tools to inhibit that data collection. And if tracking blockers screw up online advertising and the web companies they support, so be it. If we end up stepping away from mobile because it is location-based, so be it. If we decide not to use Google broadband because it gives Google too much control over our lives, so be it. If Facebook goes down the tubes because it can't be trusted, so be it.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
This is why as guns increase, I'll stay inside
As more people carry guns because they feel threatened, I expect to see more use of them.
'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides : NPR: "... based on the available data, it appears that crafters of these laws sought to give good guys more latitude to defend themselves against bad guys. But what Hoekstra's data suggest is that in real-life conflicts, both sides think of the other guy as the bad guy. Both believe the law gives them the right to shoot."
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Hammer them all
If the information is available for sale to clients, I'm sure the info can be be purchased by government, either directly by a government agency or via a private company acting on the government's behalf.
Also, many websites say that while they won't "sell" your information, they will make it available to "partners." That leaves a lot of doors open.
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Hammer them all
Be wary about government monitoring all you want. I just don't want to give private data collection a pass. I hope the pressure is put on Facebook, Google, and the like so that people are aware of how much info they are collecting. They aren't necessarily the "good" guys here.
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Hammer them all
Look, the holy grail of private companies is to have us all using mobile devices that feed everything we do into databases which can then be used and sold to marketers. The government doesn't really want to monitor every citizen to the extent that private companies do. And I am pretty sure that these companies amassing all this data on people would be very happy to provide it to governments for the right price. As they say, data is the new oil.
If anything, I think the private companies want to shut out government so that the private companies are the only ones in possession of all this info on private citizens and then they can sell it to governments. Really, government intelligence often involves private contractors anyway.
The game is to lessen laws on private companies gathering data and shift the focus to governments, so the private companies get a free pass and governmental agencies stay out of their way. It's not really about privacy protection at all.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: Re: Hmm, just got a notice that I can't post a comment without moderation
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: Hmm, just got a notice that I can't post a comment without moderation
US Gun Policies: Facts You Should Know | Global Economic Intersection
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Hmm, just got a notice that I can't post a comment without moderation
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good question. I think the tech/marketing folks like to blame government so people won't notice how much private companies are compiling on people -- most of it easily obtainable if you search for it or pay for it. Marketers are collecting as much info about you as they possibly can so they know who you are, where you go (and where you are at any given moment), what you spend, where you live, what you own, who your friends and family are, etc.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: A Grand Experiment
I've also thought that maybe the right wing Christians should battle the right wing Muslims and keep the rest of us out of it.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: Re: Re:
Your comment just made me think of something. The gun advocates have gone on record saying that they want lots of people to have guns. And gun owners will often tell you about their guns.
But what they didn't like in this instance is that someone else told the world about their guns (which many of them want everyone to have anyway). So they want to think they are in control of this information, when in reality they aren't in control of most information about themselves because companies are collecting vast amounts of it and compiling profiles on them.
So my concern is with people who think guns give them control over the world, when those gyns probably don't and might become an endangerment in the hands of some people.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: No secrets anymore
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: Re: Re: A different take
But those who advocate that everyone have a gun want the same thing. They want us to think, "I better watch out because everyone around me has a gun." It's their assumption that if everyone has a gun, no one will get out of line (I don't necessarily agree with that, though, since a lot of these mass murderers kill themselves anyway).
The push is to have everyone armed, so what difference does it make to let the world know who already have guns? Seems like many of them are proud gun owners and will tell you so. I've certainly heard from Facebook friends who tell me about their guns.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
Re: No secrets anymore
And of course, if they are getting junk mail on those products, they are in someone's database as possible buyers.
NRA members are, of course, on NRA lists, and the NRA does share those lists with some partners.
If people are going into gun shops, rifle ranges, and gun shows and have their cellphones on them, they may be providing data about where they are, which can generate a profile of their gun usage/interests.
On the post: More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York
No secrets anymore
Lots of companies are interested in monitoring everyone. There are companies that want to know who has guns and I'm sure they are doing their best to compile whatever data is available and to cross reference that with massive amounts of other data.
On the post: Treaty Shopping: How Companies Tilt The Legal Playing Field For Investor-State Arbitration
Maybe the problem is with investor-state arbitration
Maybe the whole concept of investor-state arbitration should be ditched.
Multiple Countries Rejecting Investor State Dispute Settlement -- Network for Justice in Global Investment: "There appears to be a growing awareness that NAFTA-style foreign investor privileges and their private investor-state dispute system [ISD] ,which have been among the most controversial aspects of past US trade deals, should be rejected in trade and investment agreements."
Next >>