Hacker News Reader

Comment by pachydermic | Hacker News Reader

Thank you, fsf.

Hard to ignore the irony when Google, Facebook and even freakin' Linked In (ugh) are calling to increase protections for peoples' privacy. I don't know what the answer to all of this is - I like free products as much as the next guy - but it seems like a messed up situation. If the NSA were stopped from collecting our data, that would only prevent one party from doing so. Even if you don't use Facebook or gmail these companies still track you so it's pretty hard to actually keep your privacy unless you hardly use the internet (and from public computers) and don't have a cellphone. I don't think it should be that hard.

View on HN

How exactly is it ironic?

Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all.

The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data.

In the same way that Google has access to your data if it's in their datacenters and you use their services, the NSA assumes access to your data if it's within their abilities to get it, and they find you slightly suspicious.

It's really not the same thing and claiming it is the same thing is disingenuous.

I don't know if it's ironic so much as it is simple two-facedness.

>Google, Facebook, et al, collect data in exchange for a service. You can use incognito mode for Google, or just not use Facebook at all.

>The NSA collects your data whether you want it to or not, and you have no say other than to just not create any data.

The contrast between these two sentences is what makes your point weak.

There might be a difference between corporate and government surveillance, but you haven't approached it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in. The NSA offers you no such choice.

> The difference is that Google, Facebook, et al are opt-in

With the remarkable penetration of things like google analytics and the ilk, this may not be quite that simple.

Moxie has also pointed out that the choice is not simply "Do I want to be surveilled by Google?" or "Do I want the telco to track my every move?". It's stuff like "Do I want to stop talking to all of my friends who use GMail?". Or "Do I want to not have a cellphone and prevent myself from participating in informal social event planning?".

You were perfectly clear. You've made it clear yourself that the opt-in fiction is just that, just as the difference between corporate and government surveillance, such as it is, does not rely on any opt-in mechanism or lack thereof.

Don't give us this crap that there is a difference between the two when your point is so self-defeating.

I guess one difference is that you are relying on the assumption that Google is a bad actor. Google's actions have not shown that, and the benefit of the doubt is an important ideal.

how do you even know they do it all behind closed doors. with a one size fits all non negotiable contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com