Comment by rudhdb773b
7 hours ago
I don't really mind private surveillance. It's when the data gets sold or otherwise obtained by state powers that it gets scary.
7 hours ago
I don't really mind private surveillance. It's when the data gets sold or otherwise obtained by state powers that it gets scary.
Why would non state actors be any less scary?
Large companies colluding to reject potential hires due to surveilled ideology, sexual preferences of people in the closet filtered to scammers, hate groups learning about the family members of activists, insurance rejecting customers based on illegally obtained data… the list of risks is giant.
> Why would non state actors be any less scary?
Non-state actors can't easily use violence to throw me in jail.
TikTok is blocking upload of ICE videos and Facebook is blocking posts with information about the ICE agents. Amazon just paid millions of dollars to put out a movie nobody wants about Donalds wife. Every major tech company paid millions of dollars for Donalds library at the beginning of all this for "the library"
The surveillance non state actors are already doing anything this administration wants.
2 replies →
You're under the belief that private actors can't influence state actors to use violence on their behalf, completely isolating them from responsibility? If a private business calls the police on a suspected trespasser and the police shoot that person, is the business held liable? Ever? Seems like they have the better end of the bargain than the state.
1 reply →
>Non-state actors can't easily use violence to throw me in jail.
Let me rephrase: why wouldn’t state actors be scary?
The state might have a monopoly on legal physical violence, but I think it is naive to think private interests can’t harm you just as much, with or without state connections. See my previous examples.
They seem to be able to induce whistleblowers to off themselves at a shocking rate, though.
Blackwater, Wagner, Aegis, Triple Canopy, DynCorp, etc enter chat..
1 reply →
There is a reason that many of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, at some level, restrict the government (originally just the federal government, not even the states) and not private enterprises.
The go-to example is recording. Watch any "First Amendment auditor" video on YouTube (prepare yourself, most of them are a struggle to watch). I can walk into any government building, and as long as I'm in a publicly accessible area, I can record almost whatever and whoever I want. This includes otherwise private property that the government is leasing. I essentially cannot be kicked out unless I cause a disturbance as long as the location is open for public business. This is true for DMVs, county administrative buildings, police offices, jails, any government service with a public area and public hours.
On the flip side, if Target wants to ban recording in their stores, not only can they do so with zero risk of litigation, but if you get trespassed you can be fined or go to jail for a violation. The penalties get even harsher for the same trespassing crime if it's a private residence and not a business.
I'm sure we can come up with counterexamples, and maybe surveillance is the best one, but philosophically it's pretty easy to see why it's worse for the government to do a Bad Thing than for any individual or private enterprise to do the exact same Bad Thing.
Edit: I'd love to hear a justification as to why this is being downvoted because nothing in the content warrants that.
>but philosophically it's pretty easy to see why it's worse for the government to do a Bad Thing than for any individual or private enterprise to do the exact same Bad Thing.
This was not the claim though, the claim is that it’s not scary to be surveilled until that information reaches state actors.
States acting against citizens can be worse in a moral/political sense, but a victim is not more or less harmed depending on the aggressor.
(I didn’t downvote, if it matters, I just saw the message).