Comments on: Surveilling a double standard http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/ A clear-eyed view from Zachary Karabell Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:10:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: BidnisMan http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-633 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:10:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-633 There is a small difference between Google trying to sell you an advert and men in black kicking in your front door.

]]>
By: JL4 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-632 Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:37:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-632 Previous posts make an excellent point about the difference between government and corporations, and I see the difference.

But the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the government from using/abusing its citizens and to guarantee their privacy. I agree with that.

Those who are now screaming that the government is infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights forget that what Obama is doing is perfectly legal, and the corporations that are assisting him are happy to comply.

Many of the House and Senate members who voted for The Patriot Act are now the very ones – STILL IN OFFICE – who are crying for Obama’s head on a platter as flying in the face of the Constitution. And many people don’t stop to think about that. Amazing.

And if anyone thinks that Obama is the only President who took advantage of TPA, you’re not thinking clearly. Bush and his administration were just more covert, and the Democrats dropped the ball in exposing him. But then many Democrats voted in TPA as well.

Obama is exercising his legal right, compliments of George Bush and the Congress in 2001. Squeals of indignation and outrage are purely political maneuvering and posturing. We’ll all hear about it in the next race.

Obama will not be elected in 2016 of course, but it’s still a fight between Dems and Reps, so this is all a political set up for the Republicans’ 2016 platform. I mean, saying that 47% of the American people are “takers” didn’t work so well for them. Gotta come up with something better.

Should they take the White House, TPA will still be legal, and our privacy will still be compromised at every opportunity, and corporations who basically control government now will be more than happy to supply government with whatever info they request.

Freedom, once lost, is damned hard to recover.

]]>
By: MilesFSpencer http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-631 Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:53:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-631 Schizo indeed Zach. But I think the definitions are changing quickly, and good people are recognizing that good behavior and transparency pays off. I also think the outrage trends older, and the younger “mobile natives” are less bothered.

Take @trustcloud for example. Tens of thousands of people meticulously curate their entire online data in one place, and get scored like FICA on trustworthiness.
For a younger genration, that’s becoming more relevant than a credit check.

]]>
By: AZreb http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-630 Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:49:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-630 It is one thing to willingly give a corporation or entity your information but entirely different when your own government sets up a secret court, secret surveillance and spies on your phone calls, emails (private conversations) and more.

When it comes to government, it has the census but evidently that isn’t enough – it has to secretly spy in order to obtain even more information on what we think, what we say, what we do in our daily lives. Fear and intimidation and spying – three tools of our government and it uses them daily.

]]>
By: Fromkin http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-629 Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:45:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-629 Simple. As much as we love to hate corporations, we know that they can not use the information we give them to REALLY hurt us. All they do with that info is try to make a profit and that’s ok with the majority of people. But the same can not be said of the government which can be infiltrated by bad people with bad intentions seeking to cotrol or hurt people. In a democracy People should be free to exercice their free will when dealing with private or public entities, especially when it comes to issues related to privacy and personal identity.

]]>
By: COindependent http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-627 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:17:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-627 It’s a matter of personal choice. Where I have the opportunity to refuse to give data to a corporation, the government via my tax returns, 1099’s, bank statements, etc. requires the data be made available with or without my consent.

It is also important to note that should a corporation violate the terms of privacy associated with the use of my personal information I have recourse and in most cases I would win in court.

With a government agency, there is little, if any recourse no matter how egregious the offense. Furthermore, in the case of an IRS audit I am guilty until I can prove my innocence AND I have absolutely no recourse to recover the costs of proving that innocence. Notwithstanding the fact that if I had five IRS agents interpret any one of the 72,000 pages of tax code they could never agree on how to calculate my liability. And, even if they (eventually) arrived at agreement, a sixth agent in Ogden UT would take exception.

And, as evidenced recently, government employees have zero concept of privacy and non-disclosure, re the EPA publishing the confidential information of farmers and giving it to another private (political) organization.

Please explain again why citizens would be so accommodating.

]]>
By: joebenlabrant http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-626 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:50:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-626 Anyone who was paying attention knew that NSA was collecting lots of information but the scale upon which the scheme seems to operate is astounding. No one company has access to the amount of data that NSA is apparently collecting. Does it really need to be secret in order to be effective?

]]>
By: rikfre http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-625 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:54:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-625 right speak is good speak…..

]]>
By: matt416 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/06/14/surveilling-a-double-standard/#comment-624 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:23:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=229#comment-624 These beliefs are not incoherent or inconsistent in the least. You said it yourself: companies do not have the same power or force that governments do – if they did, do you really think people would be alright with corporations taking data? Hint: no they wouldn’t. The difference is between having the power to use force, so ignoring this massive difference and then claiming people are being inconsistent is completely illogical. We don’t mind giving up personal information when we don’t see any way for it to be abused, and so being comfortable with corporations but uncomfortable with governments is a legitimate concern.

I also disagree with your notion that people are clamoring for companies to have gather information on its customers. If they came up with new processes that gathered information on us for the benefit of an improved customer experience many people might be okay with that – but it’s not as if we’re absolutely begging them for more personal data collection.

]]>