Hacker News Reader

Comment by LaGrange | Hacker News Reader

While I don't like at all the idea of government surveillance without court order, I find the idea of corporate surveillance even more horrifying.

Actually, this is what amuses me in the whole privacy affair. So a bunch of companies were using and abusing your data to target ads at you and shape your news stream so that it's more addictive, and people were cheering. A government (still mostly democratic, though not from my non-US perspective) is revealed to snoop on people illegally and people rage. I don't actually question the rage – but I see the complacent acceptance of the private companies using the same data as amusing.

A large part (not whole, though) of what NSA does is taking your stuff from the place it already shouldn't have been. We're complaining about a fireplace in a burning forest.

View on HN

I dont really see your logic, Gubment can put you in prison, take your rights away, companies targeting ads can't. It makes sense that one would be outraged at the former.

It's spelt "government". Spelling it "Gubment" doesn't suddenly turn everyone who's reading your comment against the notion of an elected democracy, it just makes you look stupid.

And the reason that it's much scarier if private companies abuse privacy than if the government does it, is that you yourself decide who the government is. You don't get that right wrt a private company.

If we're getting cranky about spelling, it's "spelled". Spelt is an ancient variety of wheat.

"Gubment" is pretty silly, though.

As long as we're continuing to be cranky about spelling, "spelt" is a perfectly valid British spelling of the past participle of spell.

Yeah, but you guys went and replaced the perfectly cromulent "aluminum" with "aluminium", so already I am suspicious.

aluminum sounds illiterate

Laughing My Ass Off

Spelt is the correct spelling in British English (and most of the commonwealth). There is a vast world outside the US too.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=SPELT%2BSpelt%2...

I was partially taught by British teachers (I still can't spell 'neighbour' without a 'u' and my 'colour' waffles fairly evenly with and without it). I just can't keep track of every variation, sorry.

I dunno, is an intentional phonetically accurate representation of dialect rather than being a mispelling, a bit like Yorkshire's t'internet.

The government charters and governs companies so if companies are out of control who do you blame?

not really. everyone involved in the NSA scandal is not elected.

from the people that authorizes budget, to the contractors in hawaii reading your info, to the agents in CIA/FBI building evidence against you, to the cops arresting you...

not a single one is your representative. Your only representatives are all in the same dark as you are.

Companies are likely "interested" in a group of people that are not traditionally commonly seen as targets by the government. I'm thinking specifically of middle-class law-abiding citizens who just happen to be tech workers at a rival company.

Sure, but the government is subject to popular pressures. They can't imprison or otherwise hassle even a substantial fraction of the population in any meaningful way. Corporations are not subject to popular pressure. They can hassle millions of Americans and get away with it.

As a practical matter, you have a lot more to fear from corporations misusing your private data to deny you jobs, mess up your credit, etc, than you do from government misusing your private data to shut down your anarchist political movement.

I think the TSA and no fly list counts as rather large scale hassling. IMO the real problem is it's much harder to fight the government than corporations.

Who funds our lawmakers and elected officials? Who bribes their way into regulatory agencies so that these agencies promote business interests over interests of the people and country at large? Who's got the revolving door between private enterprise and public office?

Large business, owned by very rich people. Without campaign contribution limitations and regulation, the voice of people is drowned out by the flow of money. We're about the least regulated in that respect in about a century.

In the short run, maybe. In the long run, no, no, no.

It is hopeless to expect the gov't to not do whatever corporations commonly get away with.

Once the corporations do it, the information in question becomes private property. Now all the gov't has to do is persuade the corporation to hand over or "sell" some little nuggets of their private property. As it is private property that is not yours, it is none of your business in the eyes of the law whether these nuggets of private property are dizzyingly complete records about you.

Compainies can do the same harm as government. Individuals can do the same harm as government. But a restriction applies to them all... they get in trouble with society if they do.

current government is irrelevant. The data captured now will exist likely forever. If at any point there's a new leader who wants to wipe out a race, he'll have much easier time than checking everyone's papers.

I don't mind getting targeted ads, I prefer them to spam ads.

If all things are equal, then I too prefer targeted ads to non-targeted ads (I'm not going along with the "spam ads" labelling because all ads are spam). However, if it's a choice between a company having all my private data and sending me targeted ads, and the opposite of each, I tend to lean towards the latter.

Interestingly, here in Germany, the "average person" was much more concerned about data collection by Facebook and Google than by governments. (We even had a heated debate about Google Streetview in the mainstream press.)

Then the NSA/GCHQ/BND scandal hit and (at least as far as I can tell) now completely overshadows that former concern.

I think most of your repliers are forgetting about Blackwater. (/tinfoil-hat)

Who is paying them and giving out assignments?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com