Comment by gruez
12 hours ago
>We really have a societal problem in that we allow private entities to do things we don’t allow government to do.
It really isn't, given that the government literally has a monopoly on violence, and therefore it makes sense to have more guardrails for it. That's not to say private entities should have free reign to do whatever it wants, but the argument of "private entities can do [thing] that governments can't, so we should ban private entities too!" is at best incomplete.
>Furthermore, the issue is exacerbated by then allowing governments to bypass these issues by then just paying private entities to do the things it can’t do as a proxy for the same functional outcomes.
Again, this is at best an incomplete argument. The government can't extract a confession out of you (5th amendment). It can however, interview your drinking buddies that you blabbed your latest criminal escapades to. Is that the government "bypassing" the 5th amendment? Arguably. Is that something bad and we should ban? Hardly.
Your cell phone provider does not constitute "drinking buddy". The fact that, in essence, everyone is being surveilled location wise all the time by these providers is reason enough to restrict the activity.
> The poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. DRINKING BUDDY IS WATCHING YOU.
> 'Does Drinking Buddy exist?' 'Of course he exists. The Party exists. Drinking Buddy is the embodiment of the Party.' 'Does he exist like you or me?' 'You do not exist', said O'Brien.
> Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Drinking Buddy is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Drinking Buddy is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts.
>Your cell phone provider does not constitute "drinking buddy".
You're right, it should be even more scandalous for the government to get information out of my drinking buddy, because the information I told him was in confidence, and he promised he wouldn't tell anyone. My cell phone provider, on the other hand, clearly says in their ToS who they'll share data with and in what circumstances.
A non-exhaustive list that has, time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, to downplay the grossly cavalier approach they take to the "privacy" of your location data.
They value it alright. At several dollars per person.
And the ToS probably has a clause that says "we can alter the deal any time we want and you should pray we don't alter it further".
"who they'll share data with and in what circumstances"
Anyone who offers them money?
And what many are saying is that the phone provider should not be allowed to be so free with your data in the ToS. In the same way that your landlord can’t add a slavery clause to your lease.