Slashdot Mirror
FBI Turns To Private Sector for Data
MSNBC is running a nice piece about a private company that aggregates data about you and sells it to the government. Things like this are why I just don't understand the typical Libertarian babble that government data collection is bad, but corporations should be allowed to collect and sell whatever data they want. Hey, guess what: if a corporation can collect and sell your information, it's available to the government too. Ten billion records! That's more than 30 lines of data - each line could have dozens of pieces of information - about every man, woman and child in the United States. The mind boggles.
Um. When you say, "Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money", you're right; although I wouldn't really consider this either innocent or noble, but nonetheless, their goal is to make money. However, you then go on to say that they have our (our being consumers, etc.) interests in mind.
They don't. Not at all. Their goal is to make money. Period. Not to make products. Not to benefit the consumer. To get the consumer to give them as much money as they can, while doing as little as possible in return (because the more you do, the less profit you make). This is how business works today.
You can further see this by looking at all the silly patents and lawsuits that come up; these corporations have figured out that they don't even need to make anything to get money, they can just sue the pants off anyone who has an idea they've claimed. It's pretty sickening.
The information collected by corporations is simply to find where they can make the most money, not, as you assert, to "give us the products we want". If you were right, the RIAA would be donating music and money to napster for us all.
(This is not to say that some people in some corporations have more noble goals. It's just to say that this is not the corporate goal.)
Now the government is rather the opposite situation. Their goal is not to make money. It is to govern the people. Unfortunately, you have the opposite problem you had with corporations; the government as a whole might have a (somewhat) noble goal, but you get individuals and groups who struggle for more and more power.
Now claims of privatizing everything, without any thought as to the current state of the system, and what implications there would be for moving to a privatized system, and indeed what implications at all a privatized system would have, are just silly. (CA, power, deregulation.) Now, to put policing power in the hands of a corporation (whose goal is to do nothing but make money) just smacks of abuse.
You miss the point, as well. The government is owned by people, too. (Unless you think it is owned by aliens or something.) Just a lot more people. Each one of us. Corporations abuse us just as badly, just in different ways and for different goals.
"That is all we need to know" sounds like brainwashing or stubborn blindness to reality, too, if you ask me.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Honestly, you'd think that sort of thing _hadn't_ been extensively tried in Chile and damn near destroyed the country. It just doesn't work. The invisible hand is an article of faith- means 'there's nothing there'. In practice, and libertarian forms of government HAVE been tried in practice (by force- Chile), it just doesn't work.
Thankfully your opinion is not the only one that matters, but simply one among many :)
There's nothing wrong with corporations learning all sorts of things about me, but the deal is they do that to exert FORCE. If they learn that I buy X kind of food, and strongly dislike substituting other sorts, they can and will jack up the price and collude with other corporations to make sure I don't have anywhere else to go. They're no friend of mine, they honor no social contract with me- they are nothing but predators trying to reduce me to the most helpless state they can manage, and feed off me as intensely as they can. That is their 'duty' to their shareholders.
THAT is the problem. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with a company learning stuff, or discontinuing a product that they can't afford to produce! But the reality is, these organizations devote great effort to boxing me into a corner and leaving me with minimal or illusory choice, and I call that force in the sense that a checkmate in chess could be called force. (Do Libertarians concede checkmates in chess, or do they always play until their king is captured because the situation is not real to them until the last move? Do they have an ability to project outcomes or are they unable to?)
This reminds me of another discussion in rec.audio.pro I recently sat in on. A guy was ranting and being offended because some posters had questioned his use and recommendation of 'Behringer' gear. Turns out, Behringer makes a practice of getting other gear (Aphex, dbx, Mackie) and taking it over to China and having people do an exact clone of the other company's design, only with cheaper parts, and then underselling the original company and doing lots of business.
Now, on the one hand that situation is about the sanctity of intellectual property- but in another sense, that situation is about force. If Behringer, by being basically an IP parasite, is capable of severely undercutting the companies that actually do the R+D for products like mixers, then they are capable of driving their 'host' companies out of business. Not only do they force higher costs onto the competing products (legal bills in trying to fight Behringer), not only do they exert competitive force making those companies choose between making shoddier, cheaper products that don't work, or going out of business, but if you take a Libertarian sort of view, you have no justification for buying the product of the beleaugered original developer, because it costs more than the Behringer clone. It's a cancerous sort of situation that is blatantly, obviously unhealthy, but it plays right into notions of darwinistic competition in the marketplace as the invisible hand. It's unfortunately impossible to have a healthy market under the invisible hand, because the invisible hand likes cheaters as long as they don't get caught, and the invisible hand REALLY loves parasites that don't really contribute anything, and any sort of scam or rip-off that earns profit without producing anything of value.
Maybe rather than getting worked up over the mechanisms of privacy abuses like turning collected personal data over to the government, it would be better to look at it in a broader sense. If something collects data on you, what are its responsibilities to you? The Libertarian view would be, it has no responsibilities other than what you can FORCE it to have (funny, I thought only governments had force, not individuals). The socialist view that I favor would suggest that it has as many responsibilities to you as you have to it- possibly quite a lot, depending on what's deemed acceptable for each party to do. Maybe what's needed is for corporations to have some, limited, responsibilities towards just individuals- for instance, it can see what stuff is selling, it can see how much insulin it needs to order for different stores' pharmacies, but it cannot use that information to identify pockets of diabetics and collude to jack up the prices unbearably in those areas.
Some of that should sound familiar, because we've always had some types of legislation to take care of that. However, it's worth repeating, because it's being forgotten.
And Pinkerton which Thompson-machine-gunned strikers in the '20s.
Seems to me the end result is exactly the same. Exactly how are corporations _not_ government in this day and age? Who pulls the strings? Who gives the orders?
The typical "Libertarian babble" is to allow corporations to do as they please. If a company wants to do something to piss off its customers, then the customer should be smart enough (read: not too apathetic) to not do business with that company.
Riiiight. Boycots don't work anymore. Companies are too well diversified for this to happen easily, especially the large multinationals. Go take a look at companies like GE, GM, Sony, and Philip Morris and tell me you can drive any of them out of business. We've been working on MS for 10 years and have barely put a dent in their bottom line.
The problem is the vast majority of people that just don't care.
...which is the other reason why they don't work.
Because they would just hire the Pinkertons, who would show up and kill the rioters.
See early 1900s history, unions, and Buffalo for more on that one.
Uhmmm....
Sure, you can keep *some* information out of the hands of corporations. But, you know your insurance agency? They are a corporation. They know a lot about you-- health, income, demographics, etc.
It disturbs me that some people won't trust the government, which is ultimately disorganized and essentially responsible to the public; but they trust corporations, which are not beholden to anyone... not even their customers. Yes, they are supposed to be responsible to their shareholders. Big deal. As long as they maximize profits (by any means necessary), they can do what they want.
No, I don't trust the government. But I trust corporations even less.
Corporations have most of the rights of individuals (even the right to buy votes), but none of the resonsibility.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Big corporations aren't the scare, its the government that's the scare.
...
...
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong, Mor-ton! Big corporations ARE the government! Issue 2
Opt-out of all you can
This is infeasible. If just one outfit slips one by on you (your fault, right?) they'll all have your information because they'll buy and sell it amoung themselves. This "opt out" business is baloney.
Back when I was more enamored with Libertarian ideas, one that had greatest appeal was the notion that the central role of government was to protect individuals. This idea was put forth by the "limited governmentalists", not the "anarco-capitalist" faction. That was 20 years ago. Today, people describing themselves as Libertarians seem to be advocating corporate welfare.
I'm a Libertarian (card carrying) and I don't see how this is a problem.
In time, you will.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
There's nothing, on the other hand, that stops corporations s.a. Verizon, from monitoring your calls for profit only, uncontrollably.
Secodndly, the government is completely different from this. It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives. It has a moral outloook, and if your morals are different you are screwed.
You elect the government. Dont like police beating - vote Harry Browne. Want clean air - vote Ralph Nader. Want to see how dumb a president could be - vote ... oh, never mind that one ...
On the contrary, you do not elect corporations. You are forced to obey whatever they tell you to do pretty much the same way you're forced to obey laws - i.e. techinically you could ignore laws or corporate agreements, but you'll face the consequences
Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people.
Not exactly, but I like your sence of humor. Corporations care about people, help people and protect people. For a list of people browse www.forbes.com.
Opinions are mine only and could change without notice.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Yes, there is something wrong with the government getting ahold of information about me. There should always be a choice when it comes to information, and there should always be an exchange.
Take grocery store discount cards. I have a choice of whether or not I want to sign up in the first place. Then there is an exhange - they give me a discount in exchange for them being able to follow my spending habits.
Hopefully they can use this information to notice what brands I buy in order to better serve me in the future.
Credit card companies track me, but I have a choice of having a card (I do not), and they give me services in exchange for using their cards. I have theft protection, and easy access to money.
Slashdot tracks me through the use of cookies but I have a choice in the matter (I run a client that allows/disallows cookies based on the domain), and in exchange for Slashdot looking after me, I get to tailor what I want to see when I come here.
This brings us to the government. What choice do I have if a company wants to sell my habits to the government? None. What do I get out of this exhange? Nothing but a loss of privacy.
Before you reply to this comment talking about my grocery store selling my information to other companies - I have signed up using a false name, address, and phone number. Not only that, but the grocery gave me four cards when I signed up, and I distributed the other three to friends in other cities. The information they gather about me is useful to the store, but useless to other companies since it would be impossible to track me down fromthe information they have.
Yes, credit card companies could sell information about me to other companies, and this is one reason I do not have a card. However, there is still a choice in the matter (getting a card or not), and the credit card company still provides benifits. You just have to weigh the benifits against all of what the company does to you (tracks you *and* sells the information).
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Moderators, please mark this article as -1 Flaimbait. With the fall of the technology sector and geeks in general, slashdot doesn't have anything else useful to report on. Another reason slashdot is no longer needed.
Thank you.
Joseph Elwell.
It seems to me that if a boycott is ineffective because most people don't support it, then that's a great example of the system working exactly as it should.
"Things like this are why I just don't understand the typical Libertarian babble that government data collection is bad, but corporations should be allowed to collect and sell whatever data they want. Hey, guess what: if a corporation can collect and sell your information, it's available to the government too."
Not if the government doesn't have explicit legal authority to purchase that information. Remeber that government collection of data is a symptom, the disease consists of the nefarious plans they have for using that information. If they don't have the undue authority over our lives that makes that information valuable to them, data collection becomes a moot point.
Remember that the entire reason interest groups and corporations lobby the government is because they believe they can gain by doing so. If the government didn't have the power in the first place to do those favors, there'd be no point in lobbying. Similarly, if the gov't didn't have the power to regulate the minutiae of our daily lives, there'd be no reason to collect personal data on the masses.
If we were to somehow ban corporations from collecting personal data, or ban them from selling it to The Man, then the jack-booted thugs would just get the lawmakers to make it legal to collect it directly. If you don't want them collecting information, YOU MUST REMOVE THE INCENTIVES TO DO SO.
MoNsTeR
"within the law"?!?! You, who claim to not trust the government with your money, trust the government to make your laws? Have you looked at the recent trend in laws passed by the government? Copyright law, UCITA, DMCA, etc? Guess what those laws are doing. Giving MORE FREEDOM TO CORPORATIONS. And you can bet that corporations are going to take whatever they can get. Hell, they're the ones lobbying for such laws. Do you really think some senator dreamed up the DMCA?
Do not fear the government. It is merely a pawn of those with money (the corporations). Money is power.
noah
DO NOT fill out those warranty cards unless they're required for the warranty. Weber, Inc. really is not entitled to know your household family income and hobbies just because you bought a freakin' grill...
If you use those "discount" cards in supermarkets, well - first, don't, but if you do, be sure to swap them with your friends whenever you can. Otherwise they know your preference for Fat Tire over Budweiser, etc.
Use cash.
Don't participate when some yokel calls you to ask bout your radio station listening habits.
Use junkbuster to filter out the cookies.*
Etc... feel free to add to the list...
*isn't it time to make a big "cookie swap" service on the net, to essentially randomize those doubleclick cookies? I'd be happy to let them thorugh if I could swap them with somebody else out of a pool of 100,000 every hour...
---
What happens, for instance, if your bank decides that they want to do a hyper-thorough check on you before giving you a loan? They might decide not to give you a mortgage despite a perfect record of making payments on time because you don't change your oil often enough and they think that you won't take good care of your house. Or what happens when nobody wants to sell you health insurance because you buy too much ice cream?
The bank and the health insurance company go broke. Companies don't make money by turning customers away for idiotic reasons.
One could say that they work for these companies so that they have potatos to pass.. Times being what they are and all ;)
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
Data being available publicvally is good, as long as it is not abused. Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people. The government does not and is not. That is all we need to know.
Hmm, where is this record of non-abusing corporations? And since when are corporations owned by the people? If that's so, shouldn't I be raking in some dividends on all these corporations? The corporations have PRIVATE interests at heart. That is very very different from having PUBLIC interests at heart. If it weren't different, we wouldn't have corporations who pollute, pay off lawsuits instead of performing recalls, drive prices up, and generally make popular culture as stupid as it is. I'm no expert, but a few of your statements just caught my eye.
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
Michael, once again you're added your trademark idiotic commentary to what could possibly have been an interesting story.
The typical "Libertarian babble" is to allow corporations to do as they please. If a company wants to do something to piss off its customers, then the customer should be smart enough (read: not too apathetic) to not do business with that company.
Unfortunately, thanks to people like you, the prevaling notion is that the government should step in like a big "daddy" to take care of the innocent little consumers whenever the big, bad company takes advantage of them. This should be the exception, and not the rule.
One day you'll learn.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
The FBI was investigating a someone who lived in canada and owned property in florida. Instead of going to the state for the property database they went to a direct marketer that purchased the file from the state. The direct marketer sold the file to the FBI also. Reason they did not want to go through the red of getting the file from the state. Might raise to many flags.
Many corporations have information on me that I have neither tacitly nor explicitly consented for them to have. You sound like the spams I regularly get, insisting that they are only sending me mail because I have somehow consented, often lying and saying I signed up for the list.
But then, corporations are themselves government creations. To be a consistent libertarian, you should demand that corporations be abolished, so that individuals will be fully responsible for their actions.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with corporations collecting data about people. Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money. They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people. They use data to benefit people - through focused marketing. With information, they can give us the products we want.
Not all corporations are evil. Not all corporations are good. I support the free market, but not every action of every corporation. I am most concerned with corporations that try to use the power of government to achieve their aim of making money. Examples being the RIAA and the MPAA.
n short, we should live in a society of limited government. If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer. Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
Individuals decide to riot, not cities. A private police force does not guarantee that people will not riot. There really is no guarantee that others will choose to behave in a peaceful and non-violent manner. As a Libertarian I recognize that life is full of risk and believe that I have a fundamental right to defend myself against violent individuals. Thus no government should take away my right to own firearms, hire security guards, or install an alarm system in my home or business.
Data being available publicvally is good, as long as it is not abused. Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people. The government does not and is not. That is all we need to know.
Again this is too general. Many individual corporations have a history of non-abuse. However, other individual corporations do not. Remember that corporations are only a legal entity. They are owned, controlled, and operated by individual human beings. Some of these human beings see nothing wrong with using the force of government to achieve their end. They have no problem lobbying for regulations to hurt competitors or rules that invade the privacy of consumers.
Remember that the government does not want privacy or anonymity. No government wants that. The government wants to be able to track everything you do. Think about all of the regulations that the government imposes on you and how they stop you from protecting your privacy. Any and all non-cash (i.e. anything that isn't a cashier's check, money order, traveler's cheque, or currency) financial transactions require the use of your social security number (or taxpayer ID) so that the government can make sure people are paying their income tax. You can't rent an apartment without proving that you have the legal right to live in the US. This allows the government to know where you live and keep immigrants out of the country.
In short, I am not afraid of all corporations. Only those that conspire with the government.Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
For instance, consider seat belts. I would be a lot safer in a crash if I took out my 3-point shoulder-lap belt and replaced it with a 5-point racing harness. But it is illegal to sell a car with a 5-point racing harness and it is illegal to remove the shoulder-lap belt and in many states if you are wearing a 5-point harness instead of the shoulder-lap belt, you are violating the law. How does this affect my -- or the automakers' -- incentive to experiment with safer and more convenient ways of strapping in the driver? Puts a real damper on it, I'd say...
I play Nerd-Folk!
Will this information now be available to all under the FOIA?
Surely!
ID: 03412341242424/01/AB
Name: Joe Doe
Date of birth: 1/1/70
Place of birth: Littletown in Littlestate
Comments
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX protest XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX approaches XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
pedophilic XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX sex XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX fight XXX
kids XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX support XXXXXXXXX
sado-masochism XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX violence XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
personality XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
quite worrysome XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX disagreement XX
XXXXXXXXXXXX society XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX outcasts.
This is a mere rough extrapolation. But what this guy may look like? Sincerly I saw a few FOIA papers that frequently leave a very dubious meaning of the original text.
Well, it is all easy if every person could just be tagged with a number that they must -- under pain of jail time -- use in every substantial transaction.
The number exists. It is your SSN. And who created that?
So here is the reason that privacy is always a greater issue between the State and citizen, and between citizens or groups of citizens (including corps): the State can use force. Citizens can't. Isn't that distinction quite clear?
A large part of our current problem with privacy is the fact that even in our dealing with private entities, we are still required to use SSN. And that makes them perfectly able to index all significant facts on us. Furthermore, it opens the door to use of the SSN by others asking trusting-but-foolish consumers, to index all of their own information with that of the larger players.
Without a superkey, none of that would be possible. Naturally there would be tried to invent superkeys, by the Doubleclicks of the world. But people would instantly see the intent and avoid such things.
If you want to say that soviet governments occasionally (or frequently) rounded up agitators and subersives, or that it might have happened during the 1950s for a short period in this country, fine. But dont call it a habit.
During the 1960's and 1970's it was groups like the Black Panthers who got that type of treatment.
During the 1980's, this type of behavior waned for a while. However it returned with a vengance in the 1990's with the persecution of extremely right wing people.
In one generation we went from leftists who were persecuted to right wingers. If it can happen at both ends of the spectrum, it can happen to those of us in the middle.
You may choose not to call it a habit, but it is nonetheless.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Or Norma Rae or more nauseatingly, Erin Brockovitch. Nauseating to know that a business deliberately dumped poison into a community and then lied about it.
Whatever a real free market firm might be like, the actual existing US-style corporations are clearly not the same animal. The US corporation is very much a creation of government policies (the tax code, the legal limits on liability, pollution regulations, allocation of property rights and so on). In turn, corporations do their best to control the US government through a system of legalized bribery called "campaign contributions".
Think about the Big 5 record companies. Are you sure that they have no interest in advancing a "political agenda"? Have you ever heard of the RIAA?
Consider the fact that you can't get elected to high office without heavy contributions needed to pay for access to the airwaves, whose "ownership" was pretty much arbitrarily assigned to certain companies by government fiat.
The real world is so far away from the ideal libertarian situation, that libertarians can only apply their theories by selectively ignoring inconvienient facts...
One reason is this: corporation cannot force information from you. You always have option (though sometimes impractical) to opt out. When government (e.g. IRS) wants information, it is: "Answer or else go to jail."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I can't believe that you type this with a straight face. There is nothing innocent and noble about pursuing profit above all else.
Corporations destroy our environment, abuse workers (what do you think minimum wage would be if there were no unions? We only need to look to where your Nikes were made for the answer)
Corporations are about expoitation. Suck as much cash out of the consumer as possible, lie to the consumer as much as you can possibly get away with, only regard the health and safety of employees and consumers when mandated by law. (How safe were cars before government regulations?)
If you want a prime example of why libertarianism is doomed to fail, you only need to look as far as the Tobacco industry, which lied to consumers for decades, before finally being forced to come clean and admit that cigarettes were both addictive and harmful. (Standard Libertarian answer would be that its a person's choice to smoke, but I would argue that most people begin smoking when they are young, before they are fully capable of understanding the consequenses of their actions, and nicotine, being a more addictive substance than heroin, is manipulated to make it very difficult for people to quit.)
The reality is that Libertarianism only works if Corporations are 100% honest with consumers, and consumers are 100% informed. Neither is ever true. It is rarely in a corporation's best interest to be honest with consumers. Whole marketing departments are devoted to getting people to turn off thier brains.
Libertarianism is flawed, because it makes some very flawed assumptions, and aim for a kind of Utopian society that we can never achieve.
(Just my opinion... flame away)
Don't mod me up, Reply with something intelligent instead
Reality has a liberal bias
Government snooping includes collecting peoples computers and holding them for years.
Entering your home and turning it into a disaster.
Tapping your telephone (land line) by adding a device to your phone line. If you find this device in your box and remove it not knowing it was a government authorized tap you are in serious trouble.
Corporate will not physically enter your home unless with a salesmen. They will tap your phone at the phone company side or listen in over the wireless or cell phone signal.
If you catch and thwart corporate snooping your not in any trouble.
Corporate snoops are far more polite. You are not purely innocent but a potential costumer and will bend over backwards to be nice to you.
Government snoops develop a point of view of "if he wasn't guilty we wouldn't be checking him out".
Over all government snoops are big nasty thugs.. Storm Troopers...
Corporate snoops are more akin to space balls dark helmet...
Being snooped by anyone is a painful experience.
But I'd much rather deal with corporate snoops...
I don't actually exist.
YES!
Orson Scott Card called this 'the significance problem' in his book Pastwatch. You've summed it up perfectly, the problem with privacy is that many people are so arrogant that they believe they matter. They think they have some clever ideas no one else has thought of. That they are important enough that Time/Warner or the government (choose your poison) is going to give a rip about them. That they are something more than just another one in six billion.
After working with large scale databases for a while it becomes very clear that privacy doesn't matter much. The Man isn't out to get you (and if he were, he sure as hell wouldn't be using a 250 million person database of lung cancer data to find you). You don't matter to anyone you haven't already met. Get over it.
--
Incorrect, any corporation, organization, or business that keeps a detailed file on a citizen of the USA, that is outside the normal requirements for that bus., org, corp can be held liable for the release of that information.
But corporations can say just about any information is within "normal requirements". An insurance company will look at the results of your DNA tests to look for "pre-existing conditions" and deny you coverage. You might be denied a loan for a house because you had problems paying off your student loans, even though you made the last payment 3 years ago.
Any attempts to restrict this kind of information exchange, and impose penalties on violates, have been shot down buy our beloved Republican Congress.
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
You say that cars weren't as safe before government regulations, and you're partly right. Cars were 1/2 the price back then. And if you thought safety was important, you could buy a Volvo. But people didn't buy Volvos in droves, because they didn't want to pay a 100% premium for safety. Now, Big Government feels that you shouldn't be able to opt-out of having 5000$ worth of airbags and safety systems in every car. Effectively increasing the price of cars in a significant way. Instead of the less fortunate being able to afford recent yet less safe cars, they have to purchase old piles of mobile rust.
Great, 5 people pay $5,000 less on their car, but when one of those people gets in minor fender bender, he has $200,000 worth of medical bills because his car has no air bags, no seat belts, and crumbles like a pop can.
Yeah, our society would save so much money! Lets get rid of all car saftey regulations!
Ours is the same one that mandated airbags that were so powerful, they killed people.
Kill a few, save a hundred.
I made this post farther up, but I see I should have saved it for your's.
The purpose of our goverment is to make and enforce laws, maintain our infrastucture, economy, military and generally serve our greater needs. You might not like some of the things they do (people fuck up, and as our government is made out of people it will fuck up from time to time), but thats what our gvt is for.
The one and only purpose of business is to make money. The only "morals" or "ethics" that businesses have either come from laws, enforced by our government, or from competition. The only reason why your local grocery store gives a shit about you as a customer is so you don't shop at their compeditors on the other side of town. The only thing stopping the mine 20 miles up the river from dumping poison into is environmental regulations.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
B U L L S H I T.
A cops salary comes from taxes, so he is beholden to the people. If the cities police department is privatized, his responsiblity is to the corporation that pays his salary. There can be racist cops in either case, but do you think a bigot is more or less likely to shoot someone when he isn't directly responsible for them?
It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives.
Aside from this being a crock, our government is what keeps us out from under the thumb of organized religion.
Not the lenders fault is it. You did it, you live with it. That's why there are programs for higher risk people.
Maybe I didn't state my point clearly enough. There are virtually no limits on the sale of personal information in the US. And there are damn few penalties for the abuse of such data or if it is grossly inaccurate.
I think there was a YRO story this spring (searched but couldn't find a link) about how basically anyone can tell a credit company that you have a bad credit history, and they'll accept it with little or no verification. You may end up spending thousands fighting credit bureau's just to get a small loan, but you still might have a bad rating.
There's little incentive for credit bureau's to do even basic fact checking, as holding them accountable for messing up your history is basically impossible.
You miss the point that according to libertarians, government shouldn't be big enough or have any right to do anything with this info. If that was so, it wouldn't be buying that info. It wouldn't have money in the budget for it, and it couldn't do anything with it anyway. Libertarians have a problem not with them collecting this info per se, but with them having authority to use it in any way. But, as things *ARE* right now, I would say that most libertarians would consider it a bad thing when a corporation collects private information about citizens, because they may either sell it to government or government may simply get ahold of it by order of court or something.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
"Corporations have a record of non-abuse"
I almost choked on my gum when I read that. Go rent the movie Matewan. It should be available at any video store.
For those of you who aren't going to go rent it, I'll give you the short version. It's about a West Virgina town in the 20s just as mine workers are starting to unionize. The corporation they work for, with its innocent and noble aim of making money, beats the crap out of people.
-B
You ask what the difference is between your garage keeping a record of all your oil changes, etc, and some big evil corporation doing the same?
Well, the difference is this: your garage keeps only the information it needs in order to do business with you. What if all of a sudden, your mechanic went out to all the other businesses you frequent-- your supermarket, your drycleaners, or got out your criminal record, your employment history, etc? Would that be an invasion of privacy?
What if then, they sold it to the highest bidder, without asking you if they could share that information with anyone else? Do you think you still implicitly consented to that when you decided you use all those services?
You didn't. You agreed to let the mechanic keep track of *one* piece of data about you-- your car. You didn't agree to let him share it with anybody else, nor should you have to.
It's not the data-tracking people are objecting to, it's the sharing of said data with people you may or may not trust, and the sale of such information without your consent.
We won't even begin to talk about what happens when your mechanic makes an error in his system about what kind of car you own (maybe a jalopy instead of your mercedes), which simultaneously gets transferred to seventeen other databases around the world (your employers', the governments', your dry cleaners', the banks'), whose psychographic profiles of you now put you in a "high-risk" demographic, and you can't get loans or service or be eligible for credit.
I know that's a worst-case scenario, but this is what PRIVACY POLICY is for-- not just for websites but for all our personal information. We should have the right to choose who can see it and who can sell it.
I know very few libertarians who feel any better about corporations collecting data on people than they feel about the government collecting data.
Corporations have a special place in the pantheon of state. They get special privileges and special protections.
So please don't confuse all libertarians with people who like corporations.
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
(Here is the stock libertarian reply to save someone the trouble: "Yes, that's why I have no credit cards; I live on the farm I inherited and I only eat the turnips I grow myself, and I perform all medical procedures I need by myself on myself with a red-hot poker and rubbing alcohol." Congratufuckinglations.)
(Ouch. Brain freeze from excess of sarcasm.)
That constitutes, to be sure, a novel use of the terms "search" and "seizure."
And if you need housing, just find a landlord or mortgage bank who won't insist on a credit check. Or live under a bridge.
The Bureau has far too much information regarding this individual. The SA reviewing this file reported profound nausea after completing his review.
The retailers order and buy from the manufacturers in SE Asia. While (the few remaining) American textile manufacturers may have an interest in having clothing made from cotton rather than hemp, there is no reason why American clothing retailers should care whether the clothing is made from hemp.
Sounds a lot like the phonecall I got for my 10K/km maintenance. I think I was over by about 100km. Had it not been for the fact I was in recently before that to have something else looked at I would have been really concerned...
I find this excerpt from the linked article to be interesting: Although ChoicePoint says it has records on nearly every American with a credit card, it doesn't always provide access to that data. The company's Autotrack service is popular with many agencies and businesses and is also used by reporters at The Wall Street Journal. But entering the name of FBI Director Louis Freeh into the Autotrack database produces an error message. A company spokesman says ChoicePoint intentionally blocks Mr. Freeh's records as an act of good corporate citizenship.
Translation of the last line: "A company spokesman says that the publicly held firm, ChoicePoint, is not so stupid as to endanger its stockholder's investments by providing information on the man heading one of ChoicePoint's biggest client organizations." Apparently this comment by the ChoicePoint drone is intended to make us all feel better, as if we all hobnob with politically heavyweights of Freeh's standing.
I don't know what you mean by "under the commission of
Yes, because it's the government forcing you to pay so much. It's the armed force of govenment that ensures that only GenericPharmacueticals can make your "patented" AIDS cocktail.
You said it.
Here's a scenario. It's the late 1950s and all of your biochemist friends are raving about this new chemical that has been going around. You call up a supply house and order some. Your package of LSD arrives the next week and you use it. Two years later, it's illegal and people who are known to have used it are considered "dangerous" and an "employment risk".
Do you think that, today, companies would not be searching credit card records for such purchases?
Also, as a criteria for employment at most financial companies (anyone bound by the SEC, basically) you have to be bonded. This means that an insurance company does a background check and decides how likely they are to lose money on you.
Do you think that your milk purchases are innocent? You do know that people who buy "too much" milk just happen to be insurance risks, right? Oh, probably not for any reason that would affect you, but Prudental doesn't know that, you see. They're just doing actuarial math, and you lose.
Now, let's think about what this information will lead to in the hands of the FBI... profiling based on... let's say, type of reading material? Software choices (people who buy Red Hat are national security risks, FreeBSD users are terrrorists and BeOS users are drug smugglers, right), it just goes on and on. How many years do you think it will be before the FBI can issue a search warrant based on a 99% corolation with a criminal profile? If you said, "that would never happen," then in the words of the West Wing, I want you to write down the exact date and time that you said that....
1. Will this information now be available to all under the FOIA?
2. My main concern with "outsourcing" investigations is that the government might well engage private entities who have in vigilante-style gathered information and then tipped off the government, in the meanwhile engaging in conduct that the Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements would preclude. Does purchasing that information without having solicited the invasions of privacy permit the government to do indirectly what it was not permitted to do directly? [An issue related to one raised during the first Claus Von Bulow appeal.]
So one vote out of 280 million is not enough representation but a hundred shares of billions of shares is good enough. You have more say in how your govt behaves then how ms behaves. At least the govt makes a pretense of being a democracy. Corporations have no concept of one person one vote. Whoever has the most shares has the say so and unless you are a billionaire you aint got no juice with Bill Gates.
You are slave to everybody. You have to buy from somebody so your illusion of choice is just that. Don't buy from one corporation but buy from another whoop dee doo that's freedom? Guess what you can live in another country too but that does make you free. You only have freedom to choose your enslavers.
If you think that corporations don't abuse us please visit the town of libby montana where W.R. Grace corporation has committed mass murder of the citizens of that town. They then declared bankrupcy (chap 11) so that they can't be sued. Once the suits go away they will be re-opened for business.
Like that sheeple you complain about the sheeple of montana and libby readily went along with this poisoning of their friends and neighbors because they made proft from it. It costs too much money to clean up after yourself. It costs too much money not to kill people. Every corpie recognizes this simple fact. Kill them now and if the sheeple decide to come after you attack them with lawyers and if that does not work then use the legal system to circumvent personal responsibility.
The sheeple of libbly are not unique nor is W.R. Grace. The history of capitalism is full of even worse examples of atrocoties committed by corps. For every opressive govt there are hundreds of opressive corps and corps which have killed or maimed or destroyed thousands of sheeple.
War is necrophilia.
How can anyone work for these evil, evil companies?
"What did you do at work, sweetie?"
"Invaded the privacy of millions!" [Sparkling grin]
"Wow, that's swell. Pass the potatoes..."
How? It must take an army of underpaid monkeys to do this evil thing. Government employees I can see, but these are normal people not looking for an agenda.
Truly mind-boggling.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
A friend of mine that I hadn't seen for four years became an Amway salesman. We spent about two minutes saying hi and catching up. He then proceeded to spend the next half an hour trying to sell me the catalog and turn me into an Amway salesman. I spent the half hour attempting to explain politely that I had no interest in either.
I never got the jokes about not sitting next to an Amway salesman on the bus until my buddy morphed into one. He could have become a Scientologist and been just as obnoxious. If joining Amway is the solution to all my problems then I'll just learn to live with the problems.
Hey, could you send me just one of your credit card numbers? Or do I have to go to the web and get all of them?
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
It's not about harming or hurting "society", which is a pretty abstract concept anyway. The state is, oddly enough, concerned mainly about you harming or hurting the state.
"A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it." - Henry David Thoreau
Let me introduce you to the Law of Eristic Escalation: Impostion of Order = Escalation of Chaos. As applied to government and safety, it means this: by imposing a stronger government to make sure your kids are safe, you create the very anti-government sentiment you fear. Consult any Taoist sage for more information.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Only if you're including alcohol as a drug. No other drug significantly potetiates violent behavior. (Though if a person with a disposition towards violence is under the influence of drugs, they may be difficult to stop due to inhibited pain response.)
The vast majority of drug related violenece is related to the black market (turf wars between dealers, junkies stealing to afford their fix, and so on), not to the pharacological effects of drugs themselves.
Odds are that pretty much everything you think you know about currently illegal drugs is wrongs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
because Christians started it. :P
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Yeah. Now go ask Doubleclick what they know about you... oh wait, they won't tell you ? could it be that you are WRONG ? what are you gonna do ? sue ? Isn't that asking the help of a civil servant from the governement ? I thought big boys like you didn't need no stink'in governement...
Except that someone has to do the work, and if it's not the governement it's the corporations. As bad as politicians are, they are still elected by all citizens, and there are lot of safegards and counter-prowers in the gov. With corporations, the CEO is only choosen by stockholders and doesn't care about pleasing anyone else. There are also very little safegards.
So it's either facing a governement that might be corrupt, or facing some mega-corporations that are corrupt from the start as they clearly here for the money. Between two evils, I'd rather pick the lesser one.
What do you mean there are safeguards
Ever heard of "separation of powers" ? That's why the president isn't the only one taking decisions. A law cannot be passed if hundreds of elected people don't agree to it, from the senate to the president. And even once a law is passed, it can still be stopped thru the constistution. In a democracy, one or two people can't pass an evil law all by themselves.
Only the government can bust into you house (legally) waving guns.
Well someone has to have this power, or else criminals would be all free to do what they want unpunished. So who can have this power ?
- your neighbours (you know, the couch-potaty guy next door that is also a NRA and KKK affiliate). Obviously this is the anarchist favorite, but we all know what happen when a group of angry people decide to make justice by themselves.
- a corporation, whose only obligation is to turn profit (but would you really want Microsoft to have the right to come to your house and arrest you ?)
- a governement, bound by laws and a consitution
Obviously no one likes to be busted in his house, but if it has to happen it's better if the guys doing it are not doing it because it will bring profits to shareholders. Believe me, you are safer in the hands of the cops than in the hands of any corporation private militia. Corporations don't give a shit about your civil rights. A democratic governement has at least to pretend to respect them. Big difference.
Disney and Microsoft can't force me to use their products.
That's because THERE IS a governement. Trust me, without a governement, it would be long since Microsoft had got Linus and RMS shot down and forced every linux zealot into forced labor (like maintaining some ugly Cobol legacy code). The governement is the counter-power to corporations. You remove it, they do what they want. Libertarians seem to believe that you can have a country with no one making the big dicisions. Well, I'm sorry, but if it is not the governement heads, then it's gonna be AOL-Time-Warner-Microsoft. And unlike a giant corporation, everyone is a "shareholder" of the governement with equal weight (that's what elections are for).
Government pays for programs with taxes, which they collect from everybody, including your sweet old grandma.
Nope, my old grandma pay no taxes at all (yeah there's VAT, but that's pro-rata what you buy, not a fixed sum), because unlike a corporation, a governement is concerned about justice. On the other hand, a corporation doesn't give shit about how poor you are, if you can't pay the price for their doctor, then you can go die in the streets.
would I be willing to shoot my grandmother over this
Again no - she doesn't pay any taxes. The military budget increase could make her pay more or not. Or a health-care budget increase could also help her save money and afford a longer and better life. That's why I vote for the guys would will put the budget I support. Not being a MS shareholder (or not rich enough shareolder to matter), I can't force them to lower the MS product prices. You can only change corporations policies if you are rich. You can change gov. policies if you are over 18. Much more democratic !
As it should be. Nobody else owns the company, so why should anybody else have a say in who they are trying to please?
Definitely agree - but then don't let those corporation run your life and take the place of the governement. They are only interested in you because you have money (if you have not, they'll let you die in the snow). A governement is interested in you because you are a citizen, rich or poor.
FINALLY, a few people who actually understand what they say!
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
The difference between corporate and governmental data collecting can be summed up as:
1) Lie to a corporation, and you don't get a free keychain.
2) Lie to the government, and you go to jail.
Is that clear enough?
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
Accessing credit card records...
User: 107011
Slashdot alias: Listen Up
CDs purchased in 1999: 60
CDs purchased in 2000: 1
Date of last computer purchase: December, 2000
Computer equipped with: CD-R
ISP, 1999: AOL
ISP, 2000: AOL Roadrunner cable
Profile match: MP3 downloader
Analysis: Profile match constitutes probable cause to suspect copyright violation
Presiding judge in district: Joe Judge
Probability of warrant issuance given this profile and judge: 90%
Estimated value of computer equipment on premises: $2,500
Recommendation: Seize all computer equipment. We could use another computer.
>
> Think needle. Then think big ass haystack.
Think database. Think bigger-ass magnet.
> Because they would just hire the Pinkertons, who would show up and kill the rioters.
Killing rioters is, except in rare cases of self defense, illegal. Killing peaceful demonstrators is never legal. Arresting them both if they break laws is perfectly legal and should be encouraged.
While I don't share the desire to privatize police, the point I think the original poster was trying to make is that government has a monopoly on the legal initiation of the use of force, which is why libertarians (small l) are much more against their data collection than that of corporations. Corporations also historically have a better behavior controller than governments: if they do something sufficiently heinous, people don't buy their products (except in the case of monopolies, which is why I support antitrust law).
Government, however, is a monopoly, and can legally do whatever it takes to make you obey the law, up to and including killing you if you don't (in the US, Japan, South Africa, and, until recently, Belgium--and elsewhere, too, if you count the fact that all countries allow the police to kill under certain circumstances). If the government isn't strictly limited, it can make you do whatever it wants and you don't have a realistic recourse--certainly nothing as easy as switching brands of washing powder.
Corporations cannot force you to give over information without your consent--usually they tie this to some product you want to entice you, but that's different from forcing. Sure, you "have" to have that MP3 ripper for free instead of using the paid version, but they require that information from you!! waaaaaaaa, I wanna pwayah for fwee, waaaaaaa, wifout givin' away no nassy infomation, waaaaaaa.
Replace every reference to "corporation" in your rant with "government" and it holds just as true.
Remember that the government of China refuses to institute a minimum wage (and in fact is the foreign company, lots of shoes are made in Chinese Army factories).
Everything you mention a corporation doing, governments have done 500 times worse. It wasn't a corporation that murdered 6 million Jews or dropped an atomic bomb on anyone.
Also, the previous poster did not say the aim was to "make money above all else", he just said "to make money." If you believe that making money is not one of your aims in your own life, you need to learn the art of introspection.
It's a rare industry that allows you to treat your customers badly and get away with it (excepting government granted monopolies of course).
But realize that in this case the customer is the Government, not you! Just like the customers for the TV networks aren't it's viewers, but it's advertisers.
...I'd wager that most of those are government created, which was my exception.
And the oligopolies are bought by the companies from the state and the politicians, and it's all a depressing public choice nightmare, and it will all end in ttears, but I really need to go to sleep now.
I believe that your thinking has a few flaws. You do overlook very important facts.
In the current economic and political situation, it is quite difficult to start a new business and try to compete with the dinosaurs. Regulations make it much harder for an enterprising young fellow to start his own business and make a profit. He'll have to follow countless rules, file tons of documents, pay fees, and waste a lot of time doing accounting and management to satisfy the lawmakers. As an entrepreneur myself, I can testify to the high barrier of entry into the club of business creation that has been instated by the governement.
Those regulations are there and make it much harder for anyone to become a threat to the larger corporations. You could invest your money in smaller businesses, but the thought of having the governement seize most of your profits make your teeth grind. So, why not take a tax-sheltered account and invest in Blue Chips ? That's easy..
Corporations abuse workers, you say ? Why w
You say that cars weren't as safe before government regulations, and you're partly right. Cars were 1/2 the price back then. And if you thought safety was important, you could buy a Volvo. But people didn't buy Volvos in droves, because they didn't want to pay a 100% premium for safety. Now, Big Government feels that you shouldn't be able to opt-out of having 5000$ worth of airbags and safety systems in every car. Effectively increasing the price of cars in a significant way. Instead of the less fortunate being able to afford recent yet less safe cars, they have to purchase old piles of mobile rust.
Governement makes it harder for anybody to make money, and to spend such that money. It makes it easier on Big Corporations that claim 100% tax deductions through creative accounting, and hurts the smaller companies through laws that make running a small business much harder.
Imagine if you had a no tax to pay on anything. Going in business would become second nature to anybody. Start selling stuff on the side, start consulting on the side. There is no penalty. There is no 500$ incorporation fee, no 50 page tax document to file.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=4, Interesting=3, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=12.
I'd hate to see what it will be like in a few years. I am surprised some angry hacker hasn't tried to erase these data bases. I would think they'd want to do that--at least for "I did it" value.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
A corporation can only take your information with your permission. If you refuse to report to the governmnent, they can shoot you ... dead.
If I hang up on a telemarketer, I finish my dinner.
If I ignore the IRS, they will forcefully take my property. If I resist, they shoot.
VERY big difference in how a business achieves it's ends vs. a government which has a monopoly on the use of force.
Who said anything about Unions not being a part of a libertarian society - they are private organizations, not gov't run. RE Nike, vote with your checkbook whether or not you believe in their practices...how much has current government done to curtail these practices?
Corporations are about expoitation. Suck as much cash out of the consumer as possible, lie to the consumer as much as you can possibly get away with, only regard the health and safety of employees and consumers when mandated by law. (How safe were cars before government regulations?)
Do you want the government doing your thinking for you? Ours is the same one that mandated airbags that were so powerful, they killed people. Politicians are not engineers, scientists, or developers, they only care about getting back into office. At the most pessimistic level, the only difference between a politician, and a corporation, is that the product of a poltician is available only when they get elected - if they default on their promises, you need to wait 'till the next re-election. For a corporation, if you don't like what they produce, you don't need to buy it.
If you want a prime example of why libertarianism is doomed to fail, you only need to look as far as the Tobacco industry, which lied to consumers for decades, before finally being forced to come clean and admit that cigarettes were both addictive and harmful. (Standard Libertarian answer would be that its a person's choice to smoke, but I would argue that most people begin smoking when they are young, before they are fully capable of understanding the consequenses of their actions, and nicotine, being a more addictive substance than heroin, is manipulated to make it very difficult for people to quit.
One of the reasons that the cigarette companies had to lie about their product, is because if they didn't, they might become regulated by the FDA...something that would exist under the libertarian system. BTW, where did the responsility of the parents go when their kids started smoking?
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
I have to disagree. What about insurance companies lobbying against the patients bill of rights? Or chemical companies lobbying for lower environmental standards? I find that most corporations ARE as you say "out to make money" but at whose expense? I won't even mention the tobacco companies.
To be honest, if I were to align myself with any political party it would be the Libertarians because they have a great rap (propaganda) but in the real world, their agenda will never happen. So drastic a shift in government structure is impossible (so long as the 2nd amendment is intact). That aside, I still voted Libertarian last election.
I do not trust anyone who tells me that they are collecting data to help me. If I am forced to give up information, I usually end up as a 16 year old retired housewife that makes over $125000 a year.
The fourth amendment does not and has not ever covered private collection of data. If I go and get information about you that the government would need a warrant to get, and it is legal for me to collect this data (Good example: recording telephone conversations like Linda Tripp did. Comlpetely legal in most places) and give it to the government. If they give me some money in return that's even better.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
The government always outsources tasks, since they've shown that they're not much good at anything to begin with. Outsourcing intelligence is the next logical step -- you saw what happened with China when they tried to do it themselves (yes, that's half-joking).
I can't wait till they start outsourcing legislation and the judiciary. Maybe something useful will get done for once. On the other hand, you saw what happened when they out-sourced the prison system. fear
-Puk
Corporations finding you boring doesn't rule out thier screwing you over. Cuts either way. It could make it more likely.
That was a beautiful, beautiful troll. Artwork. The best part was the +5 Informative. You deserve ten bonus Karma points for that alone.
Oh cut the crap.
"Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money."
Corporations have an interest in EXCHANGING POWER.
By power I'm refering to an ability, capacity, knowledge of, or any such enablement to succeed in a particular chosen task.
However, that's only the half of it. All of that is worthless speculation if you do not take into account the characteristic capabilities of that organization. If a corporation can't afford or doesn't care to acquire the legal skilled labor to accomplish something they will find other means.
You make the mistake of assuming that because money is the accepted currency, money is an end in itself. It is only a means. Read Ayn Rand.
You'll note that natural laws specify how energy is transferred or how it is exchanged for matter.
Corporations are made of people and interests. Governments are made of people and interests. Money is a measure of power. Whether that power is used to sell people the products they want or the laws people want they do so in exchange for something that enables them to get something they want.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Are you saying that if you haven't committed a crime and are not under strong suspicion of having committed one, the government has no right to hold data about you?
What about your name and address so you can vote?
What about your name, address and income so they can charge you income tax?
Governments need some data on everyone just to function.
The issue is not primarily whether the government attempts to gather information about us. The issue is that the government can compel you to give them information. If I do not like the fact that my credit card company sells identifiable information about me, I can change to a different credit card company. If someone from the government knocks on my door every ten years and says, "I'm from the government. What is you race? Your religion? Do you have trouble bathing by yourself?" (real question from the long form) I do not have the option to switch to a different census company.
A worse example of this is a recent proposal that medical records (including psychiatrists' notes) would be open to government agents without a warrant. Well, just go switch to a different government.
There is also the separate issue of how the government uses the information. When Amtrack opens up their customer database to the FBI for a cut of the value of the seizures (to catch drug dealers), the FBI is violating the fourth amendment because paying cash for a rail ticket is not "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For the second reason, it's a good idea to restrict the government from even gathering the information, so that they don't misuse it.
An example libertarians like to give of this is the fact that Hitler required registration of guns before things got so bad that people would resist. When he finally outlawed them, the police had a convenient list of who to go around and collect them from.
--Kevin
So where's the line to pick up my gargoyle suit? :P
- passion
AnyBirthday.com
Black Book Online (love that warning!)
While I thought it was cool that I could track someone down, sites like AnyBirthday.com bother me because they reveal very personal information. (Oh yeah, you can opt out, but, only if you have access to the net and know about the site to begin with.)
You get a bad credit report because some idiot in some corporation filed some stupid report with a typo or in the wrong bucket. Sure, you can try adding your explanation to your file - but who will other corps believe, you or Mighty American Express?
Corporations are not accountable for their actions. Government is -- nominally, at least.
And who defines these "normal requirements"?Unlimited growth == Cancer.
The nice thing about getting information from a private company is they don't have any nasty concerns about due process or constitutional rights. As a customer you pretty much surrender all that stuff if you want to deal with them. I would, however, question the constitutionality of an enforcement agency being able to use information provided under such a deal. IANAL, but I'd be interested to know if the Supreme Court has dealt with this sort of issue in the past and what their decision was in any such cases.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There's a big difference between voluntarily giving your information to a private company, and the gov't compiling information about you without your OK. The company has incentive (money) for offering you a good service, and you have incentive for using that service (time, peace of mind). But why would the gov't want all this information about you? What good could they possibly do with it? And what benefit do you get from it? None. So why are they doing it? The gov't should stay out of our private lives on the principle of it alone.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
As a libertarian myself, its this kind of nonsense ("corporations have an innocent and noble aim") that I suspect Michael was referring to as "libertarian babble." Libertarianism is not and should not be reduced to simple mindless worship of corporations. Most corporations suck and don't give a flying f--- about property rights as libertarians frame them.
My sources are impeccable. Really.
t
Every corporation larger than a certain size has an intense political agenda -- to make sure the laws either stay as they are, or twist them to make more money (profit). Because they are 'merely' interested in higher profits, this is unpolitical?
Also, a concept for you -- market power. Think MS bundling IE with Win, and 'selling' it for free to begin to pull the rug out from under Netscape. Yes, it was motivated solely out of a desire for higher profits. And the company was even thinking longterm, instead of shortterm returns. Hallelujah! This doesn't reflect directly, immediately on the consumer, those of us contributing information to these corporations, but...
Corporations are inherently political, in the name of higher profits.
--C
Look ma, I'm a
I don't pay my government to spy on me or buy data like that. If a private firm wishes to spend money tracking my root beer drinking habits and it involves no coersion, so be it. My government should not spend a dime either compiling such data or looking at it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why is everyone on Slashdot so concerned about having the right to have their very own militia group, or hate group, or whatever? For the rest of the US, you know, the people that hate militia groups, subversives, hate groups, gangs, etc. then why in the hell would you care what people know about you? I completely agree that if the US wants to wipe out or track people that do nothing more than HARM our society instead of HELP our society, then more power to them. I also have nothing to hide. And talking about credit card numbers being public is total bullshit. If you have a credit card, or have ever used your credit card, then someone has your number somewhere any ways. And NO, Slashdot, 99.9% of people don't support subversive or militia anything. Period. If my kids can make it to school safe in the morning and come home alive without worrying about some fucked up anti-government militia pyschopath needing to make a point by blowing something up, then I could give a shit less.
"Between the corporate world and the governement, that [the lesser evil] would be corporations. Disney and Microsoft can't force me to use their products."
No but Dow chemical can force me to drink poisoned water by dumping chemicals in the table (secretly, obviously) since it's more profit-wise to do that then use safe alternatives or actually clean effluent up before it leaves the plant. Hmmmm... I'm glad I can call the EPA on them there - IF I even find out about it before I develop leukemia or my child is born with serious defects.
SDG&E can FORCE me to pay exorbitant prices for electricity (well actually, Sempra) because I have to have it and they've kept cheap alternative power out of the market so long with their brute market force that there are no feasible (as in less expensive) alternatives availiable. They can FORCE my bill to go up 200% or more in one year by creating power shortages by taking plants offline, FORCING my GRANDMA to not be able to afford her perscription medication. I know you've got a weak heart, Grammy, but this summer you have to decide between air conditioning (and it's 100 degrees here in the summer) or you digitalin!
GenericPharmacueticals can FORCE me to pay so much for my patented AIDS cocktail that I cannot afford to buy it. Thank god for government "help"!
There are many more examples. At least a lot of government actions and divisions are set up to be altruistic to society. Corporations RARELY so, and regularly demonstrate themselves to be incapable of self-regulation (even when faced with your "well then we'll just boycott 'em to make them listen" stance, like NIKE) when profit beckons. When they fuck up the environment, the inner cities, pricing, labor laws, and a million other things, I care that the CEO didn't care what I think.
I think you libertarians are just mad that you can't figure out how to fill out grant applications and the like to get FREE MONEY back from the government. That is MY revenge on taxes!
ooky
One day, I am going to grow wings. A chemical reaction....-radiohead
Any chemicals Dow is putting in the water table, I'm thinking are not chemicals in the H2O sense. You know what I meant, what "good chemicals" would you assume they USUALLY dump instead? Did you want a list of every possible specific chemical I might be worried about, making sure to indicate whether it is d-rotated or l-rotated version that I am REALLY upset about?! Whatever...as I said you know what I mean...yes! the scary carcinogenic and or teratogenic "generic chemical" - and so you know, I may be a ditz (idiot) but I am also a chemist. As far as I know even biologists still say "germs" when they are talking about sickness-causing generic agents. Of course, YOU have made a big generalizing assumption in your response as well - that I am a sir. Should I discount the rest of what you're saying because you obviously weren't smart enough to know I am not a sir?
As for your assertion that I WOULD have recourse if they poisoned me or "my loved ones" 1) what real good is that going to do me when I already HAVE a down-syndrome leukamic child, and 2) the only recourse I have is really through GOVERNMENT courts and/or regulatory agencies.
ooky
They moostly come at night. Moostly.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Making money is not necessarily noble or innocent. Greed as motivator completely lacks morality. It is the lowest common denominator which corrupts not only the people's government, but also the philosophy of the libertarians.
'I, me, mine' always ignores the fact that 6 billion people live in the same place in which you flush your toilet.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
So let me get this straight... The law basically says that the FBI and other government agencies cannot compile a dossier on a presumed law-abiding citizen, but it's ok to purchase said dossier as long as they didn't compile it themselves. Seems to me the end result is exactly the same.
I say basically since it appears that there is not a direct law keeping the government from doing this sort of thing, but since they all interpret it that way, maybe they should... And it should be included that obtaining this information on presumed law-abiding citizens is just as bad.
It's like saying well, it's illegal to build a bomb, but not to purchase or be in possession of one. Or marijuana, or any other number of things.
I imagine the data about myself looks something like:
- >ww w.slashdot.org->www.goatse.cx->www.persiankitty.co m-> www.persiankitty.coma maz on.com],[4.95->www.hairyladies.com])
"PAST HTTP ACTIVITY->(www.slashdot.org->www.persiankitty.com
CC ACTIVITY->([19.95->www.cyberxxx.com],[14.95->www.
PAST WEEK WHEREABOUTS->(HOME->HOME->HOME->HOME->HOME->HOME) "
The rest of what you said, I agree with. I especially liked your opening comment that rights not explicitly spelled out are not neccesarrilly denied. There are some people (myself among them) that believe that the Constitution was not meant to spell out our rights, but to spell out the few cases in which the government has power over those rights.
Dude, amendments nine and ten say exactly that.
Had we held fast to this dogma, the Bill Of Rights would have been redundant: The government could not , for example, restrict free speech or gun rights because the constitution never granted them the power to do so.
Most of the original framers did not believe that the Bill of Rights was necessary, but in order to get the Constitution approved it was added to appease some who thought the federal government was too strong. And with the Constitution as originally written, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Of course, nearly all the States had similar provisions in their State Constitutions, but fact was, any one State could ban guns and limit free speech without repealing either amendment. It's only after several Supreme Court cases and the 14th amendment that these protections apply to all people from every level of government.
--
Uhm, does this remind anyone else of snow crash? Yipes!
I know more than you drink.
But the other problem is that it gives $BigGroceryStore an unfair advantage over $LittleCornerShop. The little independent grocery store doesn't have the resources to gather and analyze that kind of data to compete with the mega stores.
I suppose this is just another step in the "ahh they're replacing my coffee shop with a Starbucks!" rant that we've all heard a million times before....
Has anyone dealt with Checkpoint before? How accurate are they?
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
I really don't know why they would want this information.
You're kind of a rare bright egg, aren't you?
Corporations aren't interested in advancing political agendas? RIAA? DCMA?
Governments are only interested in control? Own a house? That's right, the gov made it possible for you to have a mortgage, and not pay exorbitant fees to the corporation actually lending you the money.
You want to farm out government functions to corporations only interested in making money? Hey, that's great. Hold out your arm, we'll put your barcode on. Careful in front of the telescreens.
Privatize police? How much do you spend on a murder? How much will you pay for peace of mind?
Where's the profit?
Woot w00t w007.
What guarantees this data is accurate? What guarantees it's from only US Residents?
It also says:
"The FBI has located nearly 1,300 subjects of criminal cases using these kinds of searches,"
What I'm curious is how many times people have been harassed and or publicly embarrased because the FBI's data they bought is WRONG?
Sadly this is not necessarily true. Banks and insurance companies make money by avoiding doing business with people who present excessive risk. The way they stay profitable is not by doing the most business but by excluding the N% of the business that's most likely to cause them problems, which is why people get turned down for loans and insurance as often as they do. Those businesses will probably be willing to tolerate a certain error rate, too, so if 5% of the people turned down are rejected for bogus reasons that's just fine from a profitability standpoint. Actually, in both of the case I mentioned you'd most likely just get stuck with a worse deal rather than being rejected outright, but the underlying problem is still there. Aggregation of data without careful checking to make sure that it's accurate carries the risk of penalizing people because of somebody else's screwup.
A more realistic problem is that one of these databases may get seriously corrupted data, either accidentally or maliciously, that really destroy's somebody's life. If your entry falsely declares that you are an ex-convict, have previously filed for bankruptcy, or the like you may find life very difficult. Even worse, since these systems depend on swapping data back and forth between different providers all the time the corrupted data can be very hard to purge; it only has to avoid being removed in one place to reinfect the whole system.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Yes you can. You can get bad credit by sharing a credit card with somebody who doesn't pay his/her bills. You can get bad credit if identity thieves steal your information and do bad things with it. You can get bad credit if your payments are lost or stolen in transit, or if erroneous information is entered into the database. And, of course, failure to pay your bills on time may reflect personal disaster rather than irresponsibility; many, many bankruptcies result from attempts to pay for expensive medical conditions by borrowing.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
And, of course, no private company interested in maximizing profits would ever kill somebody for a silly motive like saving the cost of a trial and imprisonment. We know that the legal system is perfect, and poor people would always be able to afford lawyers who would be guaranteed to win them big judgments against large corporations and force them to care about people's saftey.
Give me a damn break. Corporations as a group have given ample evidence that they don't give a damn about people, only money, and if it turns out that it's cheaper to hire good lawyers and have the cops shoot people to save on imprisonment costs then that's exactly what they'll do. They already do things like deciding that it's cheaper to kill people with things like pollution and accidents and settle the lawsuits than to clean up their act. Why believe that shooting criminals will be treated any differently, particularly when it's so easy to put a gun in the hand of the guy you've just shot to make it look like it was justified?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The problem isn't really with record keeping, per se, but with record aggregation. It's just fine for your oil change guy to send you a message that your oil needs changing, or for grocery store to track purchases so they know what things you might want to buy. The problem comes when they start selling that information and some large database winds up containing everything about your daily activities. When somebody can see absolutely everything about you, they can start taking apparently innocent pieces of data and start compiling things that might hurt you.
What happens, for instance, if your bank decides that they want to do a hyper-thorough check on you before giving you a loan? They might decide not to give you a mortgage despite a perfect record of making payments on time because you don't change your oil often enough and they think that you won't take good care of your house. Or what happens when nobody wants to sell you health insurance because you buy too much ice cream? Even worse, what happens if they make those decisions in error because their records are slightly imperfect- you change your own oil sometimes but the shop you get your oil and filters from doesn't track those things, or you actually feed most of that ice cream to your dog, who loves it?
You're boring until you want to do business with them. Then you become interesting, and they want to know everything about you that they can. And, as has been shown quite clearly by various problems with credit card companies and the like, erroneous data can get into the system and cause people no end of problems because it doesn't get flushed. Of course, businesses and governments aren't the only potential consumers of information. Do you really want all of your personal information to be available to private citizens who have grudges against you? How about somebody who's stalking you? It happens already, and it's a nightmare when it does. Adding more information to the pot will only make it get worse.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
Why?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Corporations aren't interested in advancing political agendas? RIAA? DCMA?
The typical Libertarian answer to this is that the government has too much power. The government has constantly expanded it's power base, and thus it has more and more to offer through lobbies. If you are an industry *cough* textiles *cough* and you can lobby the government to outlaw your competitors *cough* hemp *cough*, then at some point somebody's going to do it.
You have to break the cycle somewhere. Either you need to stop the lobbying (questionable, ethically, because there are valid reasons to lobby), or you have to lower the power of the government by restricting it to it's constuitional foundations, which doesn't really allow for making formerly legal products illegal.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
I'm a former Libertarian, and man, you have got to be joking. Look here for an essay on the use and abuses of private security guards, and here for an analysis of abuses in privately-run prisons.
I mean, god forbid that we engage in democracy and have authorities held accountable to a public decision-making process, or maintain social programs that are supported by the majority of our citizens.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
The use data to benefit themselves. Through focused marketing, they try to convince us that we want and need things we really don't want or need. They certainly don't give us the products; they ocnvince us to pay for them.
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
I don't mind them having my personal info to send me reminders. I do mind them selling that info to others who have no business having that info.
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Disney and Microsoft can't force me to use their products.
:) I think I made a reference to the government buying data up a bit, so I won't make a token effort to be on-topic.
There are plenty of examples of businesses either using the "power of the gun", or getting in bed with government to essentially force people to work for them/buy their products. Slavery, and violent union-breaking are examples of the first; taxes on recordable media that go to various corporations are examples of the second.
I'd imagine Libertarians would be against this sort of thing, as it breaks down the barrier between corporations and government-- corporate government essentially destroys most of the Libertarian tenets. I'd also image they're against this government buying data thing, not because the corporations should be unable to sell the data, but because the government shouldn't even be able to afford it. (Correct me if I'm wrong on either point.)
The problem, though, is that by allowing corporations to play such a large role in the electoral process (money), there's little hope of getting the "pure" corporation espoused by Libertarians. They want to make money-- fine. But perhaps it's more efficient for them to lobby the government to force us to pay them money at gunpoint, rather than make a good product and sell it. A simple look at the huge budgets corporations allot for lobbying is enough to convince anyone. And what happened when Microsoft was slow to get in the money-to-Capital-Hill game? Witness the DOJ-- foolish MS, you didn't pay off the government!
Well, this is a rather off-topic ramble, but your above post got me to thinking.
You're right-- it isn't always bad. And most of it is insignificant. But if you think the government, insurance companies, and so on are paying lots of omney to see what kind of milk you buy, you're dead wrong.
What kind of data are they buying? How about medical records? Or complete, comprehensive financial data? Why would they want those?
You say, "Face it -- to the rest of the world, the big evil government, and the big evil corporations, YOU ARE BORING.". That's incorrect. To corporations, you are a consumer. You are a potential revenue stream. And I stress potential. If you're trying to buy health insurance, they'll want to scan your entire medical history, and possibly your genetic makeup. If you're signing up for a subscription service, they might check not just your credit history, but a history of every dispute you've ever had with a company-- to see how easily you're bullied into paying up any debt claimed by the corporation, legitimate or not. If you're applying for a job, they might want to dig around to see if they can find any information on whether you're planning on having kids in the next few years.
Is a lot of this illegal now? Sure it is. Do they still get lots of this information? Sure they do. With so many partnerships, mergers, and huge tangles of which corp owns who, it's easy to illegally share data without any real risk of prosecution.
Why would the feds want your information? Again, it's not what brand of milk you buy (although, if you buy non-growth-hormone milk, maybe you're a communist). You're not a potential revenue stream, but you are a potential threat to the people in power. Because of McCarthyism, and things like the Freedom of Information Act, we've found that the government can and does keep close tabs on any citizens who might be considered subversive. And because of things like genetic testing, we've found that a lot of people have been jailed for crimes they didn't commit. Put those two together-- don't you think there's a bit of risk there?
Oh, but wait, I should trust the government. I will, just as soon as top figures can look the cameras straight on and say, sincerely, "I am not a crook.". Yeah, that seems like a reliable test.
Funny you should mention this. Might I add that the US government is also guilty of this in the 19th Century? Remember the Hay Market Affair? What about all those other riots where government troops were called in to pacify?
As an atheist, the only faith I have is in mankind. Correction, had faith.
Damn straight you're gonna get flamed. You're a good citizen. Fine, I like that. I am too. So are most of my friends (I think). You say you've got nothing to hide. That's fine and dandy as well.
Have you ever broken a law? Any law at all? If you say "no" then you're not just a good citizen; you're a fucking Saint and should be praying or doing other good works besides surfing around on the boring ol' Internet.
Here's what I propose: Every automobile in the U.S. should be equipped with a speed recorder. Like a no-frills version of an airplane's "black box". This device simply records the speed of your vehicle every 15 seconds (geek tie-in: a year's worth of this data would need only a little more than 2 MB storage). Every month, owners will have to submit their speed records to "the bureau". Any speeding violations will be caught immediately and a summons/bill will be mailed to the owner.
Every year there are thousands of people in the U.S. that willfully violate speed limits that never get caught. This results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that are rightfully owed to cash-strapped jurisdictions. We should take whatever steps are necessary to make sure these criminals pay up.
Do you really buy into that sort of thinking? The problem I have with your way of thinking is this: In case you haven't noticed, each year more and more laws are enacted that give rise to new "crimes". You haven't been classed in with them, so you feel pretty good about yourself and have no problem with technological innovations being brought to bear on society as a whole in the name of rooting out "criminals". Lawmakers at every level are trying to turn more and more people into "criminals". Every year there are new things that you might have done last year, legally, but are now illegal. Some things *should* be illegal, of course, but it's getting out of hand - again, IMO. At some point there will be a law enacted that will prohibit something or other that you *do* do and then you *will* be a criminal if you violate that law. All of a sudden you'll be pissed off about it and, you know what? It will be too late to do anything about it because of the long tradition of "the people" to not give a shit about what's going on in their towns, states, countries and the world unless it directly affects their own small, limited sphere of existence. The example scenario I used above is something that will be eminently practical in the near future, if it's not already today. IMO, THAT would be going too far, don't you think? With every little increment that diminishes our dignity and freedom, we lose Big Time. It is becoming a trend; a mind-set, if you will. When government decides that it needs to lower the boom on every single lawbreaker, and starts to cast their nets on all sorts of indiscriminate fishing expeditions without exception then that government becomes, basically, a totalitarian state. I don't want to live in a place like that. The best way to stop it is to educate people and remind them (in the "free" world) of how much people have sacrificed over the years to secure and maintain our freedoms. So if this sort of data collection deal between the govt. and a private company doesn't bother you, please do freedom lovers everywhere a favor and think about the broader implications of this kind of mentality.
Many people who are against this kind of thing aren't breaking any laws either. But there are larger issues at stake even when a curtailment of privacy doesn't affect you (or me) per se. To everyone who says they aren't bothered by big brother tactics and survellance and data collection, because they've got nothing to hide, I suggest you all save some money by not using envelopes for mail anymore. Write all your correspondence on postcards. So what if everybody in the world can read your correspondence? You've got nothing to hide, right? Not yet, anyway.
Check this out. I don't claim to have a direct line to what the Founding Fathers of America were thinking when they shaped this nation. I don't care what over 200 years' worth of lawyers and scholars have for interpretations. I do know that the Constitution of the U.S. wasn't going to be accepted unless a hotly-debated Bill of Rights was immediately enacted along with it. The Fourth Amendmant to the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) of the U.S. reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As an educated person, I read that and I KNOW what it means and the overall thrust of what this sentence says is profound. Sadly, not everybody cares that much or realizes how important it truly is.
I have a story I want to share with you. It's a story of hope and the American dream.
Amway began in 1959 with two young entrepreneurs in the United States -- Rich DeVos and Jay Van Andel. Their concept for an innovative business opportunity, centered around person-to-person marketing, established itself as a leader among one of today's fastest-growing industries.
Today, more than 3 million independent business owners distribute Amway products in more than 80 countries and territories. Amway generates US$5 billion (FY1999) in sales at estimated retail through this global product distribution network.
Amway has changed my life. As a good corporate citizen, Amway is the success story America needs to model other enterprises on. Because I wrote Atlas Shrugged two years after Amway was founded and before it could become the noble human endeavor it is today, I could not at the time devote three chapters to telling you about the Amway phenomenon and how it can help you.
Anyone who tells you that corporations do not embody true libertarianism just hasn't experienced the Amway success story first hand. Sign up today; it'll change your life.
---
>It's a rare industry that allows you to treat
>your customers badly and get away with it
Not in an oligopoly.
Most u.s. industries are oligopolies.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
> Corporations don't abuse us
... As a stock owner and a consumer
You must not be a consumer.
Who hasn't been screwed by a company?
> People own
You don't own every company.
I mainly own index funds, but that doesn't mean
I have a say when Acme company decides not to
give me my rebate. Get real.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
well said.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
> Libertarianism is flawed
That is why its not treated seriously in
philosophical circles.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
> its this kind of nonsense
Unfortunately this is the Libertarian
party line. TRUE libertarians (Chomsky)
are known as anarchists (misleading, at best)
or libertarian socialists (equally misleading).
Anonymous posts are filtered.
> The corporation they work for, with its
> innocent and noble aim of making money, beats
> the crap out of people.
They only beat the crap out of people when
they couldn't get away with killing them.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
Right, corporations would provide for us.
The 'free' market tends torwards monopoly.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
> You can't get a bad report unless you don't pay > your bills on time Or your college fails to file the necessary paperwork for you school loan deferrment. Then giving up after fighting for a year to have the 'late payment' charge corrected on your credit report. Ever try to coordinate between two beaurocracies? Its damn near impossible. > As for denied housing, well look at cheap > location 'Cheap' isn't the issue. You need credit to rent. > As for Denied education, well you should have > studied harder Again, not the issue. The issue is credit. If you have bad credit, you can't qualify for any financial assistance. > Why hire someone that can't manage their money "I don't think you are investing your money wisely. YOUR FIRED! I don't care if your job was to cut the grass, YOUR FIRED!" See the flaw? > Personaly I perfer to hire people that have > failed once with thier own company Too bad. They were screened by HR for having lousy credit records. > corp can be held liable for the release of that > information Your dreaming if you think that law is going to protect your privacy. Who do you think defines 'outside the normal requirements'? Who is going to report it anyway?
Anonymous posts are filtered.
For you see, what they do out of the open is very very bad. So bad, that if I were to tell you, they'd kill me. Hey, maybe I should submit a story on that... 'Government will kill me if I talk', from the 'just-because-youre-paranoid-dont-mean-theyre-not- after-you dept'! Sure, yeah. I'll get working on writing that. This turned out being a little longer than I'd though. Oh well. Settle down, this won't harm you in the least. And if it does, you probably had it coming.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Half and half. Your tree analogy doesn't make any sense here, because your liberties are not being encroahced upon, unless you consider 'the right to keep all information about myself secret' one of your fundamental freedoms. This is not the government wanting to plant a tracking chip under my skin so they can keep tabs on me. As I read the article, it's essentially purchasing a warehouse of publicly available/purchasable information from a company that provides it as a service, instead of setting up the facilities to do it themselves.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Again, getting slightly off topic. Anyhoo, a government is all about control. When you pool your money and interests (pooling interests? OK) you essentially ask the government to control things you and your kind don't like. Don't like murder? Well, I'm going to pay to stop murder! That's a Good and Noble goal. Big Databases of publicly available information on citizens? That's Bad. Why? Control. And I don't like-- oh, wait, I do, that's why I like seeing murderers incarcerated. Oh well. Is it worth it if it can help stop one violent crime? How *do* you put a price on life? Frankly, I like my paranoia to be more outlandish, that way, you won't be able to play off of stupid people. Oh well.
Face facts: This data probably won't impact your life in any way shape or form. Complain about something worth complaining about, like children starving in your home town! Unless you're a criminal this data will help the FBI target... Oh my, I can see why you're so uptight now =]
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
The Federal Government is the ideal buyer of this information. How better to devide up voting districts, set welfare limits, and keep a low level track of every citizen. If you don't particularly care for it, you can stop filling in the information you provide to get free goodies, don't sign up for givaways, never slide your visa card, etc. You provide the information willingly, what's wrong with someone else collecting it, and making a nice profit? You'd love it, if the governemtn was shelling out 30 million dollars to you! Jelerial
Hey Golias!
Pretty clever bit. I'm not sure how much is yours and how much is PJ O'Rourke's, but whatever...You get a little slippery here...
As for corporations, as long as they stay within the law, and are not using the power of the gun against me (which the government is), they can be as greedy and corrupt as they like.
Where do corporate charters come from? That's right, State Governments (who have pretty much the same power to kill as the Feds do). So your Corp owes its very existence to the Guvmint's power to kill. Your other two stipulations are awfully telling, too: The Law -- well that's the Guvmint, and of course, Corps will always go for the gun when they think their interests are seriously threatened. (Don't pay your credit card bill -- just be sure to run up the bill high enough so they'll consider it fraud -- get thrown in jail, try to escape, get shot...Same deal you described re taxes.)
Eventually you Libertarian's will wise up. Not that it matters; the rest of us poor dumb non-libertarians got you out-numbered a coupla hundred to one. But at least you'll be able to remind yourself its better to be right than it is to win!
EC
Hey Wreck!
You said:
So here is the reason that privacy is always a greater issue between the State and citizen, and between citizens or groups of citizens(including corps): the State can use force. Citizens can't. Isn't that distinction quite clear?
Yeah, that's pretty clear. See it from a lot of the Ayn Rand crowd (I have no idea where you fit in with respect to Libertarianism...).Maybe We the People who give the state its authority and power to kill oughta do something about that?
Might that be a good way to solve the problem? Then we can have a State and eat it too!
EC
Dumbfuck AC writes:
You look like an idiot point to CA as "power deregulation." It most certainly wasn't.
It most certainly was 'power De-regulation.' The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulated all aspects of electricity generation in Cali before DeReg, including price. After DeReg, much less control from the PUC (including price). From a highly regulated environment (State-sponsored Monopoly subject to oversight) to the less regulated environment now (retail rates, service guarnatees via the ISO, etc) qualifies as 'De-regulation.'
I'll try to head few counter-claims off at the pass...
The canard about artificially low retail rates and naturally high wholesale prices is exactly that, a canard. The high wholesale prices are a result of market manipulation by a handful of the largest players. The retail price 'cap' was originally a price 'floor' intended to guarantee the Utilities a pre-determined rate of profit for a pre-determined period. Power supply in the west was way Way WAY beyond demand for the last fifteen years (one of the reasons the De-Reg plan was hatched). The so-called energy supply crisis is way over-blown and mostly the result of plants (in California, but owned by out of state operators -- another result of De-Reg), being taken off line for maintnenace at inopportune times. One aspect of De-Reg not often commented on: In the Past, Utilities had to ask the PUC before taking a plant offline. The PUC could then coordinate maintnenace and maintain capacity across the system. After De-Reg, maintenance scheduling was left up to the market players. An interesting effect of the DeReg has been the increasingly rigorous maintenance schedule of Cali based power plants.
If you want to define De-Regulation as No Fucking Rules at all (or whatever..), go right ahead. I'm curious how it might work. Just try to pull your head out of your ass long enough to get the names and numbers right.
EC
You are assuming that there are no moral problems with corporations' single-minded drive to make money. Corporations do have a moral agenda: to make us consume more, which with our finite natural resources is in itself a very questionable agenda.
If policing were private, that would not have happened.
You mean things would be better like in the private prisons? Horrific abuses of power and inhuman treatment of the inmates to reduce the operating costs.
I've always wondered why they ask you for your name and address whenever you go in to buy a pack of batteries. I'm sure Radioshack has a nice profile on the average slashdotter. Now, you can expect more than just junk mail.
Why are they a problem? Not because of their actions necessarily. If they were small companies that no one listened to or agreed with, they would not be scary. They are scary because the majority of americans ARE agreeing with them by purchasing their products. That is scary. I haven't bought a CD since the whole napster and streaming fiasco started (except for a few used CD's). I can't break my movie habit, but I have been seeing more small run artsy flicks lately. Both are organizations that we the public can control by saying no to their products. How can you say no to what the government is doing? At this point, you can't. Us Libertarians want to shrink government down to what they are allowed to do based on the constitution. I believe, as a Libertarian, that the government really has no right to this data, and number two, to even spend the money on collecting the data.
If policing was done a la the Libertarian stance, the cops wouldn't be harassing blacks like they do now. The drug war would be over, and the only thing cops would be doing is watch for real criminals. The guy that was shot was unarmed, and in a privatized (not necessarily the Libertarian way) police force, the corporations would hesitate to shoot first because of legal ramifications. There are numerous ways to control a possible criminal - tear gas, tasers, etc. The reason the cops use guns? Permanent subjugation.
I'm a Libertarian (card carrying) and I don't see how this is a problem. It is only a problem that the government has the data, I could care less if a corporation has it. If they do, its my own damn fault. If the government has it, then its as good as permanent. But I try very hard to keep my personal information out of corporate hands. I don't use my health insurance for anything but dire emergencies, pay cash for as much as possible, and am very careful to opt-out of everything I have been put on. Sure, once you're on a list, you're probably there for life, but what bad is it doing? I have to admit, almost every list I am on I was put there because I allowed it. How many people read the fine print when they put their names down? Like that 10% savings at the grocery store when you use your frequent shopper's card? Ever think where that data goes? I don't even have a card, but I always ask the person behind me in line for theirs, and they always give it to me. Big corporations aren't the scare, its the government that's the scare. And the government bought this list because we allowed them to. End high taxes, and I think you'll end government programs that are allowed to purchase this information. Opt-out of all you can, and stop putting your real name on the dotted line just to save 5% or get something for nothing. My magazine subscriptions don't come in my real name either :)
I dont understand what the huge issue is. I personally dont encrypt anything. I dont worry about it. I dont worry about people who know what porn sites I go to, or what news sites I read. I dont care that someone tracks what computer parts I buy online, or what my typical path of bored websurfing is. I dont have anything to hide. If the government cares what sites I look at, why is that supposed to bother me? Let them buy the data, let them skim through it. Let them realize I'm harmless and move on. If they find one valuable clue in this that someone is doing something illegal, then I feel it was money well spent. The rest of us have nothing to worry about.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
define importance? if you were really important, everyone would already know everything about you. just because you're so damn convinced of your own importance doesnt make it true.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
If you're serious about protecting your privacy, I recommend the book, "How to Be Invisible : A Step-By-Step Guide to Protecting Your Assets, Your Identity, and Your Life" by J. J. Luna. You may or may not want to implement everything he describes, but it's good to know how to go about it if you want to. This isn't one of those books about how to manufacture a new identity, but rather how to keep private whatever you think should be private.
Because the company uses national resources, whether it be timber, water, toxic waste dumps, or the brains and talents produced by the education system. Companies do not exist in a vacuum and are indeed beholden to the public. It is only that, in balance, the public is better off with the concentrations of capital that it lets those concentrations exist. I think it was John Adams who said that.
Yes, beholden. A company cannot raize the land, because that would devalue adjacent land. It must act responsibly even though raizing the land might be in the shareholder's interest.
So, you see, the company has obligations to non-shareholders as well. Paying for use of resources is fine, but remember, monetary systems are contrived and have meaning only in that people agree to them. So, mere payment is insufficient because the company has on ongoing interest in keeping the monetary system operating smoothly. The company is required to do it's part for maintaining a sound monetary system.
Responsibilities do not end with at the close of a financial transaction, so the fact that you've paid your taxes doesn't mean you're absolved of your obligations to a community.
Lastly, air is a national (indeed, even global) resource. Companies are obliged to limit the amount of toxins they put into it.
I believe it was Royal Dutch Shell that flew in the death squad to machine gun local demonstrators in Nigeria.
'nuff said
The road of hope is this: Limit the government to the point that corporations can't hope to make money from it. Then the electoral process stops being worth buying.
The data-buying situation reminds me of the EPA requirement put on several cities to ban all non-Ethonal gas. Cities should be allowed to regulate their own fuel consumption, but the feds stepped in. Problem is, while Ethanol succeeds at reducing CO2 emmissions, it actually results in more of certain other chemicals, like O3. So, why did the fed do it? Well, it might have something to do with the Archer Daniels Midland Corporation ("ADM - Supermarket to the world"), which owns over 90% of the Ethanol-producing corn crop.
ADM spend a fortune on both major parties, and they plenty in return for their trouble. If we, the common citizens, were to join together and say "No, dammit... you can't do shit like this! Even though clean air is a good idea, the federal government should not be making decisions for our cities!" then there would be no point in ADM buying influence anymore. Unfortuately, anybody who stands up against this particular pork project is just accused of wanting to poison the air for the sake of "big oil".
I don't blame ADM for wanting to buy this kind of graft from the government. I blame the government for grabbing the power to offer the graft to them in the first place.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The Libertarian objection here is that the FBI is buying the data. Collect or buy, it is still the government action that one would be objecting to.
Also, this is aggregate data, meaning that nobody is identified, so who gives a flying fuck? Post it on a public website for all I care. It's just a bunch of statistics. Sheesh!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Libertarians just want a small government that does not trample on our rights.
I wish more people understood this subtle (but very important) difference.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Beholden? Did the companies not pay for those resources? Did they not pay the people they hired out of that education system? Is the education system not funded by taxes from their employees (and, to a large degree, by them)?
If they are not paying enough for the "national" (meaning "publicly owned", which also means "government run" resources they use, whose fault is that? It seems to me that you should complain to the people who are undercharging them for resources that your taxes paid for.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Or, as it was once put: "When government gets involved in commerce, the first thing to be bought and sold is the government."
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Yet another person who needs to learn the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist".
The books "A Parliament of Whores" (by O'Rourke), or "Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist" (by William F.Buckley, Jr., the notorious editor of National Review) would be a good place to start. Seriously, you seem to be confused about this point. Do some reading.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Responsibilities do not end with at the close of a financial transaction
Yes they do. That's what financial transactions are: closure of responisbilities. When I pay off my mortgage, my responsibility to the bank that loaned it to me ends.
so the fact that you've paid your taxes doesn't mean you're absolved of your obligations to a community.
I agree, because you do not pay your taxes to a community, you pay them to the government, so taxes only settle what is owed to the government. However, you can't pass laws requiring people to be charitable. (Well, you can, but I will always oppose them.) Check with any major charity in America, and you will find that the fast majority of their funding comes from corporate donations. They might not be contributing enough for your tastes, but most corporations are more responsible citizens than most individuals are in that area. What percentage of your income went to charity this year? I bet it is less than the percentage that your insurance company or the broker of your retirement account gave away.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Right. That's why I am a libertarian rather than an anarchist. I support the establishment of a limited government, which does not have unilateral power to knock my door down, but must respect the cotract which gives them the right to do so under certain circumstances (the Constitution).
But it is shortsighted to assume that the government will not make moves to expand its power, and will not act against your best interests.
The important difference between the government and any given business is that we are all forced to be customers of the government's services. This is why we need to watch the government much more closely than we watch McDonald's or Best Buy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Between two evils, I'd rather pick the lesser one.
Between the corporate world and the governement, that would be corporations. Disney and Microsoft can't force me to use their products. They exist only by our consent, and the day we all stop buying their stuff is the day they go away. With government, you don't get the choice of not being a customer.
P.J. O'Rourke (my favorite libertarian writer) once offered the "dead grandmother" litmus as a method of determining whether a government program should go forward. It went like this:
Government pays for programs with taxes, which they collect from everybody, including your sweet old grandma.
If you don't pay your taxes, you are fined; don't pay the fine, and you are jailed; break out of jail, you can be shot.
Therefore, everything the government does is accomplished by putting a gun to your grandma's head and forcing her to pay for it.
Using that logic, whenever considering whether to support a government program, you should ask yourself, "would I be willing to shoot my grandmother over this?"
The military? Yes. "Sorry grandma, but we are all in the same boat if those Canadians start storming over the border. Pony up like the rest of us!"
The BATF? No. "A bunch of redneck cultists have almost as many guns per capita as the average Texan... we need to roll in the tanks and firebomb them, grandma."
The National Endowment for the Arts. Hell no. "Pay up for the Maplethorpe exibit, or it's curtains for you, Grandma!"
As for corporations, as long as they stay within the law, and are not using the power of the gun against me (which the government is), they can be as greedy and corrupt as they like.
With corporations, the CEO is only choosen by stockholders and doesn't care about pleasing anyone else.
As it should be. Nobody else owns the company, so why should anybody else have a say in who they are trying to please?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org
Specifically this section of the site:s p
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.a
After reading the above information, do you still feel that corporations have no political agenda? If you still do feel that way, contact me. I have some bridges you might be interested in.
If they are not paying enough for the "national" (meaning "publicly owned", which also means "government run" resources they use, whose fault is that? It seems to me that you should complain to the people who are undercharging them for resources that your taxes paid for.
/.'er whose sig is a quote from Frank Zappa that more or less says that politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Try to not dismiss the source as an iconoclast and just consider that claim on its (considerable, I think) merits.
It would be more efficient to complain to their masters (the companies who loot our public resources) if it weren't for the fact that these companies don't answer to you or I and don't give a fuck what you or I think about anything.
It seems to me that most Libertarians fall into one of two categories: either they are woefully misguided as to the true nature of the relationship between government and the private sector, or they understand it all too well and pursue Libertarianism in a cynical manner. If you don't understand how totally, thoroughly and completely big business runs the government, you don't have an appropriate frame of reference when it comes to making political decisions.
There is a
--
Freeper Logic
If the government wasn't constantly meddling in the free market, then businesses would have no interest in corrupting the government.
Maybe if companies quit whining to the government and expecting it to enforce their contracts, the gov't wouldn't be so involved in the marketplace. Just hire *private* mercenaries to enforce your contracts. Surely you and your cousin can take a couple of shotguns and persuade IBM's standing army that they need to honor a contract with you when they don't want to. Is that the way you want to see business done? If you don't want the government "meddling" in the free market (which is not and never has been free,) stop asking it for anything: loans, subsidies, credits, breaks, programs, trade missions, laws, courts, all of which taxpayers paid for.
It's interesting that you freely admit that businesses corrupt government, then justify it so breezily. The moral equivalent would be, "If you didn't keep putting your face there, I wouldn't keep punching it." That is unacceptable. Are these businesses totally unaccountable? Are the people who run them exempt from the moral and ethical concerns that keep most of the rest of us in check?
Governments exist (among other reasons) for the purpose of providing services that you just can't make money providing, but which are nonetheless necessary. When are Libertarians going to figure that out. I mean, really, it's not that hard to see.
--
Freeper Logic
You're confusing the industry with the workers. It's cheaper for American companies to have their products manufactured in China, Hong Kong, etc. than in Lowell, MA. If the owners of big clothing companies don't give a fuck about the people in Lowell, does that mean they aren't powerful?
-- Sigs are for losers
I know this was a troll (a brilliant one too, every sentence is pure genius), but I have to chime in:
... are owned by the people. The government ... is not. That is all we need to know.
Corporations
Corporations are owned by people, but they are not owned by the people. The number of American voters (if we limit the discussion to the US) is larger than the number of corporate stockholders. Much larger.
Our government sucks, primarily because the influence of money is far greater on the laws it passes and enforces than the influence of the voters. But it at least offers the theory, if not the practice, that each person's influence on the course of government can be roughly equal. Corporations by no means offer this, in theory or practice: influence is strictly limited to money. Those with the biggest block of shares win.
-- Sigs are for losers
This type of information gathering isn't necessarily dangerous. Using the database to find the address of a convicted felon serves society by helping the police to catch a criminal. It's tempting to watch the movies and get romantic notions about how the powerful government will hunt down the wrongfully accused, but in reality most convicted criminals really are criminals, and it's better for all of us to get them behind bars.
But this raises serious issues about the potential for digital dragnets. That's where, for example, the IRS does an SQL query on all people in the lower tax brackets possessing Ferrari's, and uses the results to build a list of suspects. Being in a lower tax bracket or possessing a Ferrari aren't crimes, but put them together and you'll have a high stastical correlation with tax evaders. At first it might sound innocent, but it amounts to a general search and seisure. It's kind of like searching the home of everyone on the block, just to see who might have drugs in their house. They invade the privacy of a lot of innocent people on the offchance of finding a guilty person. Before you know it, "they" know everything about everyone, people develop a fear of any information released through computers, commerce, or the government, and what we end up with is essentially a police state.
And then compound in the fact that the reporting agencies are prone to these little screwups, like assigning prison records to innocent people, and all of a sudden we have a bug-ridden police state, where anybody can be investigated without cause.
Personally, I'd rather not live in the kind of paranoia of this type of thing could create. Keep the info away from the government, change the law so they need a warrant to use it (and only for looking up individual suspects), or whatever. There's always a reasonable compromise.
> If you are an industry *cough* textiles *cough*
> and you can lobby the government to outlaw your
> competitors *cough* hemp *cough*, then at some
> point somebody's going to do it.
If hemp were so great, the textiles industry would have attempted to control the hemp market itself, rather than outlaw it.
Just because hemp plants have a psychoactive cousin that you wish was legal doesn't mean that it would be great if we all wore hemp underpants and wrote on hemp paper and ate hemp sandwiches on hemp bread with hemponnaise on them, you damn filthy hippy.
MY NAME IS POOT ROOTBEER
In Denmark the law specifically says that you cannot join two separate sources of data, and the sources themselves are subject to a clause of nescessity, that is, unless you can't do business without, say, the phone number of someone, you can't collect it.
There are no "default" exceptions, not even for the police and such, although it's possible to apply for one, and usually only a one-time permit is given.
And this goes for government agencies as well, which sometimes can be a problem for scientists - just recently it took somebody years to compile a correlation between cancer and the use of cell phones...
--
Don't make fun of my speling, english is my 2nd language...
I would be charged based on data that is sold to
NSA by corporation for ananlysis on population
wide scan? WTF.
Canada was caught collecting data on all of its
citizens into one huge database. It is illegal by
canadian laws. They said that they have destroyed
it. Yeah right. Its like saying oh we just made
this a-bomb and we will forget that we even made it.
Truth is popluation is growing, so there is more
chances for very bad people to be out there.
Governments know that they want to tie everyone
into one knot and rule - its easier to police a
state with strong arm, then reason with state.
Presently there is a struggle by governments
to tie everybody into that big knot, so they can
black mail anybody, thus spending less money on
policing, thus be more popular with general
populus.
this prompts the death of the web. If your data
is so freely circulated over the net, including
any authentication or indentification information,
whats to stop lazy government workers taking
shortcuts doing misjustice and getting away with
it? Things like where few FBI officers that rack
up huge bills trying to catch elusive drug
trafficer. Now they just have to snoop few passwords
do plant of evidence on few of people's accounts,
and haul innocent person's ass into jail for life
or even execution, so that they will not be
caught for misappropriation of funds.
That is why I don't trust *anybody*. My computer
is as secure as a fortress - sufficently secure.
I do not use webmail services, except one hosted directly on my machine and used over ssl-128 bit.
Education of general computing populus about
encryption methods available today, is paradyne
of computer educated , encryption enlightened.
It was nice living in free county. Where can get the same again?
. . .
. . .
I think the real issue here is just how ambiguous the governmnet / corporation line has become. Governments are no longer "for the people by the people" but "for the people to buy the people." It is this disparity which should concern most people. Interests, at least the primary ones, are solely control and profit, and not health, education, morals, etc. We find our humanity erroded on a daily basis, not because we want it too, but because (myself included) we're really too lazy to get informed and actually think about it. That's why there is so much support for entertainment. It is a pacifier. What you think The Simpsons is about? (Hint: What Maggie sucks on is paramount to the great cornerstone of modern civilization - yes the television. D'OH!).
yoink
If they find one valuable clue in this that someone is doing something illegal, then I feel it was money well spent.
If we had the power to enfore every little law stuck on the books by fundie wackos that the majority of the people disagree with and ignore on a daily basis (curfews, sodomy, and happy smoke comes to mind), the world would be A LOT worse than most of us can imagine. Imagine if this kind of technology was availible way back when! Just think of all the stupid laws we've had in the past... legal segregation, jim crow, prohibition, being drafted b4 you can vote, science = herecy, etc....
For a law to be enforced... it requires the consent of the majority, not the attack dogs of the few in power.
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
A lot of Nigerians would beg to differ... Shell ain't all that innocent... The one million dead iraquis who have died due to US bombing of their water treatment facilites and scantions which deny food and medical equipment, for the sake of western oil profits, might say something about that too. Bush 1 was an oil man, and our puppet Saddam was getting too big for his britches. While we're on the topic of Iraq- I'm pretty sure it was a corporation, not a commune, that made the nerve gas and guns we sold Iraq for its war with Iran back in the 80's.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas
Hmm... I wonder how GUSH-BORE got all its money for its campaigns the past years? And I guess all those corporate lobbyists who bribe our leaders each day are just doing it for fun.
Secodndly, the government is completely different from this. It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives.
Yea! Thank goodness we have the freedom to sit in gridlock for sevreal hours each day in the PRIVACY of our own cars... unlike those god-dammed commies in eurpoe who have gov't controlled trolleys and trains that get people where they need to go on time! ... I for one wouldn't mind political agendas that would improve our lives...
If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer
Yea, I'm sure a corporate police force would REALLY respect the human right to protest that all those progressives in the street who yell things like, "People over profit... Human need not corporate greed!" are exercising.
Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people
Yea... like the corporation that sued the Mexican gov't for preventing it to place a toxic waste dump in Mexico really gave a shit about the people who lived there... It's hard to get stock in a company and get listened to when you are Poor
Wipe the dust off your high school history textbook and flip back to the early 1900's... when kids worked 14 hour days in dangerous factories for next to nothing while their mothers were abused by sweatshop owners and their fathers were killed in steel plants. When coprorations were not regualated we saw much greater problems for the majority of the population than we do today. Not to say that our gov't now is worker friendly- but the point is, that even today, corporations have been consistant in their prioritizing of profits for the few over the protection of the enviorment and the health of the people.
Ending world hunger, getting rid of nukes, ending global warming, healing us for free when we are dying, and getting us efficently where we need to go ARE NOT PROFITABLE. They are, however, things that we need to work for or else we might not be around much longer. A world where compassion is more more imporant than greed would mean that less people would die, and more people would be happy. I find that helping people gives me a greater joy than drowing their screams to the trendy beat of top 40 hits. We can get more done if we work together, for each other, than if we work against ourselves at our own expense.
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
This line bothers me. How do you get a bad report. You can't get a bad report unless you don't pay your bills on time. And even if you do have a bad report you can add to your file the reasons.
There's more to your credit report than just your credit history, and there are any number of good reasons for errors to exist - from identity theft to simple clerical errors. Further, you can generate bad credit by merely applying for credit, and being turned down.
If you got the bad rating through no fault of your own, you still are punished for having it. You're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
And if that's a libertarian principle, I want nothing of it.
Toodles,
Nephs
Please do not confuse the libertarian political philosopy with the corrupt, hypocritical Libertarian Party. Under the libertarian philosophy, a corporation has no better right to infringe on one's privacy than does a government. The Libertarian Party, however, has no problem with authoritarianism as long as it is non-governmental. They have published supportive articles on the fascist Microsoft Corporation several times in LP News, just as an example. For more info, please see this webpage: http://libertarian.pitas.com
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
There are two things wrong with this. Let's unpack some assumptions, shall we?
1. Corporations do not have 'aims'. Corporations, legal fictions notwithstanding, are not people- they are the tools of people. Specifically, corporations are a legal shield from liability for the actions of the capital of the people who control the company, as well as the control of the capital others invest in the company (making it functionally theirs).
2. To the extent that we can imagine corporations to have aims, they are not noble. Corporations want to make money, but the desire to make money is not noble in itself- in fact, the desire of the individuals who make a living by making themselves dependent on these corporations often find that their personal ethics are in conflict with the "noble" moneymaking aim of the corporation, so they engage in activity that they would never engage in for their own sake for fear of losing their jobs. Ask any salesperson, any pr person.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
I'll agree with this statement, except to the extent that corporations *do* have an interest in politics and hurting people when their bottom line is in some way affected by it. Which is pretty much all of the time. See the debate over campaign financing, see the DMCA, see the Sonny Bono copyright extensions, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, paint company defenses of the safety of lead paint back when Gale Norton was a lobbyist for them, etc, etc.
in short, we should live in a society of limited government. If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer. Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
1. How do you figure? I'd say your assertion could use some support.
2. Do you suppose that if the government contracts out prisons, that putting more people in prison will be profitable? Is making a profit still noble then? Will the invisible hand of the economy find an ideal economic point between the supply of prison labor and the demand of the few consumers outside of prison? Is this better than our 'unlimited government?'
3. If the most cost-effective way to maintain order is to strip citizens of their rights and kill the troublemakers, do you suppose that the nobility of the profit motive will make it ok for corporations to protect their profits? What could be more noble than making an honest buck and keeping the cycle of consumerism going so that the only thing that makes our society work is capital?
Just wondering,
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Corporations don't abuse us. We abuse oursleves by keep buying thier products. Government abuse us by forcing it's will on to us.
People own Corporations more so the Government. As a stock owner and a consumer, I have say on what a corp does. If I doesn't like what a company does, I don't have to buy thier products. I can support someone else. I'm not a slave to a Corporations.
However with Government, I am a slave to them. If I don't pay my taxes, they will take everything from me. I can vote, but I'm one of 280 millions, but I'm still a slave to government will.
If a corp has data of me, it doesn't hurt me to much. However, with the long arm of Government, who know what they will do with it. hell they might break my door down for the hell of it becuase I have an extra grand to buy a laptop and they want to know where that money came from!! Not to mention, I'm paying them to do this, and I can't do anything about but cast my one vote.
The scare thing is a majority of Americans think government should be able to reach farther into thier private life. They think government should have this power so that they can feel safe from pornographers and drug dealers. To paraphrase a famous quotation: A nation that values security over freedom will soon have neither. We're headed down that slippery slope...and we may not be able to turn back.
MarNuke
The journey is better then the end.
Yes, the law says that government agencies cannot gather information on American citizens more than necessary for the agency to do their job. There are, however, several exceptions to the law. Most are for intelligence gathering operations (which the FBI conducts), as well as law enforcement investigations. (Yes, this is exactly the same reason why the FBI can redact material that's been FOIA'ed. They're allowed to restrict giving away that information too.)
So while you may think what they're doing is unethical, if they're are gathering this information as part of a law enforcement investigation (i.e trying to locate a particular suspect or are find the person who committed a specific crime), they are perfectly within the law.
So stop whining and get the law changed...
There are several problems here...
I'm sure plenty of people have already commented on the DMCA, patent and copyright stupidities, and the hundred other ways that corporations do have political agendas.
Two key things to remember: First, corporations are not in business to protect the interests of the individual, even if the individual is their customer. They exist to make money. If they can make more money by screwing the consumer than by protecting him, as they often can, then the consumer gets screwed.
Second, corporations do not have a record of non-abuse. Quite the contrary. The tendency in the world seems to be that whoever has the power abuses it. Sometimes that's the government, sometimes it's the corporations. The worst of all cases seems to be when the government and the corporations are both powerful and opt to work together (rather than keeping each other in check). Unfortunately, the case cited here seems to point to the government and the corporations (or, at least, a corporation) working together, contrary to the interest of the public.
History is replete with examples of corporations abusing power. If the oft-cited, current examples of the RIAA, the MPAA, the DVDCCA, etc. aren't enough for you, then take a look at such historical examples as Standard Oil, or any of several others during and just prior to the Roosevelt (Teddy, not Franklin) administration. Or, look outside the United States. Be sure that you can find several examples (generally worse than any of the ones we Slashdotters tend to complain of) in Latin America. See, for instance, several of the banana companies, or the copper mining corporations in South America. Or, look at Nike. The examples are out there, and the record is clear if you bother to examine it.
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Let us not forget Duhbya's oil buddies! No political agendas there I gather?
The really scary thing is that a one-time troll has enough karma to get the +1 bonus. What the hell is up wit dat?
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
The aim may be innocent but the pursuit typically is not. A corporation is an entity with a single purpose - increase profits. Since a corporation does not have a conscience, does not have a set of morals and cannot experience remorse or guilt, it is free to use whatever means are necessary to acquire profits. It is easier to dump toxic waste products than to clean and process them properly. It is easier allow consumers to be harmed or die as a result of a defective product than to issue recalls. The only accountability they have is under the law.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
Nonsense. They advance any agenda that will maximize their profits. They favor any ideology that advocates less governmental regulations.
And they certainly do harm people and more largely, our whole culture. In order for companies to sell their products they must convince you that you need their product. Marketing in this day and age has become particularly insidious. Rather than convincing a consumer that their product is superior to others they prey on the insecurities of the public. They convince people that they are not cool, not sexy, not valuable without their product. They convince women that they are fat, ugly and worthless unless men desire them. They convince children that they will not be cool or liked if they do not own/consume their product. They exploit sex to sell Doritos and hair shampoo. They exploit families to sell unhealthy meals of fat-saturated hamburgers and fries cooked in vats of grease. They exploit individuality to sell you something to be different, because hey, everyone is being different. They exploit treasured classical music to sell airline tickets. They exploit inspiring speeches that have changed the social conscience of our country to sell telecommunications services. Credit card companies exploit naive incomeless college students with $10,000 credit limits so they can "establish good credit". And you're trying to tell me they are not advancing any agendas?
OPEN - YOUR - EYES
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Corporations having data about you is one of the consequences of freedom of speech.
Got friends?
I wrote that earlier. What if we implemented this? Then tracking data like these would be much harder
Got friends?
Except that, until the 1914 Harrison Act, there was no "drug problem" in America. You could go in and buy a rifle and a bag of heroin in the same trip without anyone blinking an eye. And people did, from time to time.
I'm not sure where you got the '80%' of all violent crimes are committed on drugs' thing from either, but do you include alcohol in there or not? And what counts as 'being under the influence of drugs'? Does having a beer four hours beforehand count? If that was the case, and considering the ubiquity of alcohol at meals, I'd be surprised if the stat wasn't higher.
-Seraph
It's rather simple why libertarians think the way we do: Governments can use force to collect the information they want and do what they want with it, but any corporation that has information on you has it solely because you consented, either tacitly or explicitly, to give it to them.
It's illegal not to fill out the census. Meaning, you can go to jail, or be given a fine, or whatnot. You can't get a job without a SIN number, because if you do, the government will fine your employer and you.
On the other hand, it's perfectly all right not to use hotmail or any other service that requires you to fill out demographic information forms. It's perfectly all right to change your browser so that it doesn't accept cookies.
Of course, the day the laws says that you _have_ to accept cookies on your browser or else you'll go to jail, then we'll be against that too.
-Seraph
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
True corporations are out to make money. And they don't give a damn on who they step on to get it. They would love it if we were to just give them money for existing, or if our sole purpose for existing was to support them. We all want to make money, there's nothing wrong with that until you start breaking moral and ethical boundaries.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
Mmmm. Sure, they don't. Some large corporations actively participate in politics. Campaign donations are just one way to look at it. Lobbying, there's another form of politics that they do. As far as political agendas they are varied. Restrictions on imports/exports, making tougher environmental laws so people have to use their products, making it illegal to use some distributions. Having laws made to restrict OpenSource stuff. We've seen stuff like this before, and corporations _are_ behind this to make the money flow easier.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
Who's to say that it wouldn't have happened if a police corporation were to try and enforce socially unethical or immoral acts on the people are you sure they would sit around for it? This shooting of an unarmed man could have happened by any corporate cops. The only difference would be that people would be angry with the corporation than with the government.
Data being available publicvally is good, as long as it is not abused.
The only problem with this is that it will get abused. Think of all the information that companies (ie Amazon, etc) collect and how upset people get when they sell that information to other companies. Personally, I don't want my information widely available. Not because I'm a crook or anything, but I fear identity theft. It happens all the time, and is easy to do if you know how.
Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people. The government does not and is not. That is all we need to know.
Is that really all we need to know? If so then we're screwed. We need to become as knowledgeable as possible. We need to know and set our rights. Also, corporations may have a record of non-abuse, but when have they ever been as powerful as today? They wouldn't exist without today's society with the power that they do weild.
Just my 2 kopecks worth
Actually, I hate going to Qwik Lube. The guys there have cold hands *shiver* and they don't always wash up between cars *gag*. :)
Got a full tank of hot grits and a penis bird in the glove box.
*sigh*
My garage keeps a record of every oil change, tire rotation, and filter change I've had with them. When I go too long without regular maintenance, a computer program automatically sends me a letter to tell me it's time to come in.
"Oh, horrors! But your maintenance history is private. It's no body else's business what kind of oil you have in you."
Bleah. This is the 21st century. Life is much more complex. Each of us has literally hundreds of important dates and events to keep track of. Sure, I could stick a reminder note in my Palm, but why use up the memory when Quik Lube is so willing to use their own?
I like those little reminder notes. I don't mind sacrificing a little privacy if it keeps me from throwing a rod on I-10 during rush hour.
"But," you say, "there's a big difference between oil changes and some big evil corporation knowing what milk I buy!"
*snicker* See how stupid that sounds?
Sure, they have your personal information. What keeps it from being evil is the simple fact that most personal information is incredibly mundane and useless to anyone but me, just like my oil changes.
Face it -- to the rest of the world, the big evil government, and the big evil corporations, YOU ARE BORING. You are mere bytes in a database somewhere and the only interesting aspect of your existence is the question of where to store the backup tapes.
Got a full tank of hot grits and a penis bird in the glove box.
> I would like to stimulate my orgasm nerve for continuous orgasms.
Where is that nerve? Is it perhaps right next to your dumbass?
Virg
Here we go yet again. I've heard the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" comment so many times, and each and every time it's from some "good, upstanding citizen" that never has a problem with the loss of privacy because they never rock the boat. I've always found that people like this consider anyone with a social agenda as a subversive, and that police should have far-reaching powers to enforce their vision of what America "should be", completely rejecting the idea that freedom applies to people who don't cotton with their ideals and belief system. Do you define union leaders as "subversive"? Some portions of our government do, and have since the thirties. How about political leaders? Are you really going to tell me that Martin Luther King, Jr. (who had an enormous FBI dossier and was regularly followed and harassed by federal agents) can be called, "some fucked up anti-government militia pyschopath"? You seem content to let government officials do whatever they want as long as they agree with your view of America. Perhaps you should try to understand your country's Constitution better before you talk again. The concept of personal privacy was so central to the concept of freedom to Founding Fathers that they took pains to write it into the Constitution itself. It would be good of you to consider why they felt it was so important to do so, and then be glad that they had more vision than you seem to be able to muster.
I like my children to be able to attend school safely, too, but I have trouble seeing why the FBI needs access to my credit report to ensure that.
Virg
Care to explain your reasoning here?
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Do you think the government is 100% racist FREE? What about afirmative action? Isn't that racist? Racial profiling... isn't that racist too? Racism is everywhere dude no matter if you are white or black, or whatever.. you have to live with it.
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
I knew the US Intelligence Departments, were incompetent, but....
It frightens me when DoubleClick is doing a better job.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
> are owned by the people. The government does
> not and is not.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Dude, I really fell for that one! I didn't realize your article was satire until I read that line!
Uhh.. it was satire, wasn't it?
Magnus.
bdlinux13, you make your post as if to argue with the parent post. However, you've just agreed. His point was that a private police force would still have racism problems, and your counter, that "racism is everywhere dude" only confirms the point: a private police force would be just as miserably bad as a government police force.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Anyone know of an unclaimed island in international waters somewhere? It's time for Sealand II...
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Honestly, if the cops were chasing after the REAL CRIMINALS as you say, we would be up to our eyeballs in petty theft, burglary, and other non-viloent offenses SO FAST THAT YOU MIGHT END UP HAVING TO GET A GUN TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY FROM EVERYONE COMING AND TAKING IT FIVE MINUTES LATER. It proliferates the idea of "ah, screw it" when it comes to things like drunk driving, speeding with a bus with kids in the back, dangerous negligence, etc. The gig with the libertarian no-drug enforcement issue is that drugs are bad. I mean this. 80% of all violent crime is committed under the comission of or influence of drugs. Drugs are the core reason why we kill each other right now; youmight be able to handle drugs, most people can't. That is the unfortunate fact. Deregulating them will cause pandemonium. More dropouts, more stealing, more desperate street killings, even if legal. Keep in mind that drugs make you into a person that loses inhibitions or behaves in an abnormal way. You don't need to be in that state when you find out that your wife wants a divorce. Cops are good people, they are protectors. Most cops are not crooked, so don't assume that they are. The officer in Cinci probably thought that he was reaching for a gun. If he shot someone intentionally in the back, he WILL GO TO JAIL. In Indiana, a state trooper went to jail for killing a man in a vehicular accident when he was angry and driving in a negligent fashion. HAVE SOME FAITH. And keep in mind that a cop got shot at in Cinci the other day, probably preventing looting and other petty crimes that you say they shouldn't be enforcing.
2) The (federal, at least) government is collecting this information in order to help them in doing things which, far more often than not, they are not authorized to do.
I still can't find the opt-out checkbox on this 1040 ...
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
That was hilarious.
Alright, the government knows about me. I'm hardly shaking in my boots, because the information that they can get privately is no more verbose than what they could get already by running a credit check and talking to my mom. These would be their first two courses of action if they ever suspected me of pulling anything funny. Of course, nobody would begrudge the government the ability to phone up somebody's friends, their bank or their employer in the case of something prurious -- it's this ability which helps protect us from the truly troublesome elements. So why do we have such a huge problem if they're grabbing simple info about us before hand?
Simple. We're afraid of being profiled. If the government makes a list of angry loners, most of us would be on it, especially the goatse.cx kids. The things that we prize -- free software, free speech, high technology, geeky knowlege -- are red light topics. High school shooters play D&D and video games. Terrorists support "libertarian" ideals.
So I don't feel we should attack the government's right to collect information. I feel we should attack the use of profiling of any kind. There is too much basis and therefore prejudice in law; that's why unarmed black men get shot and why goth teenagers are roped into sensitivity training. Forget Gattaca...the government doesn't need DNA to alienate us. And if we don't halt this propensity, we'll suddenly find our rights to support fringe subjects slipping out from under us.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
If someone can't see the problem with a private sector group secretly selling personal information they've got issues.
;)
However to be fair, the FBI wouldn't neccessarily need to use the private sector to gather information, as they could just check out DMV records, credit records, etc., with or without a warrant.
Oh sure cry up a storm, they MUST have a warrant to get these records, but you have to understand FBI agents, are people with the same resources without as anyone else. e.g. FBI agent calls his ex classmate who works at DMV, "hey do my a favor, and get me this information." shit happens.
So I wouldn't cry up a storm thinking the spooks are turning to private sector companies for information as a standalone method. I do however have issues with the company giving the information away, the FBI is nothing more than an agency nothing more, sure they have power, but if people took the initiative to learn a smidgeon of law, you would know the FBI isn't all that. In fact fuck em
Now the CIA... (whoa)
Ghost in the Shell
360 degrees of Karma
The Branch Davidians did send out some of their children, after arranging for relatives to be waiting to take care of them. The FBI took the children and put them in foster homes instead. So, no more children leaving the compound.
Stupidity does carry the death penalty in the long run, and I consider any religious fanatic to be very stupid. But the gov't doesn't have to work to speed up the process.
Some non-gov't approved info about Waco here. (Follow the link at the bottom to a very big pdf file.)
>With a bad credit report, you can be denied employment, housing, and education.
This line bothers me. How do you get a bad report. You can't get a bad report unless you don't pay your bills on time. And even if you do have a bad report you can add to your file the reasons.
As for denied housing, well look at cheap location. You might have to drive farther each day, but that's the price you pay for messing up your credit.
As for Denied education, well you should have studied harder. Say to hell to the rest of the world and study. ( I wish I did that )
As for employment, It make sense to me. Why hire someone that can't manage their money, help you manage your firm and grow your firm. Maybe they would hire you if you place the reasons for you failures into your credit report.
Personaly I perfer to hire people that have failed once with thier own company, they never make those mistakes again and give you pleanty of warning when they see the signs.
>Corps hold great sway over your life already. I'd say greater than governments.
Some do, Insurance companies will not ( in USA ) cover your health without your SS#, Also I think with auto's also. Now, are you aware that you can request your medical file from the insurance carriers? Most people don't even know that they have them. Did you know that in certain cases you doctor might be held liable for giving that information away?
Problem in USA is that we DO NOT value our privacy. I have yet to hear of a case that has a large monitary value in regaurds to privacy. If someone knows of one please post it, I would really be greatful.
>There is no FOIA for corps, and no right of the public to know what they do.
Incorrect, any corporation, organization, or business that keeps a detailed file on a citizen of the USA, that is outside the normal requirements for that bus., org, corp can be held liable for the release of that information. That's why credit reporting companies are being held more liable for there reports. But again the fines for those mistakes are minimal, almost can be considered as a cost of doing business.
Some religious groups have files on people and have had to turn them over during investigation. The problem is do you desire to be in that groups sight's if your not sure abour it?
The only group that "might" not have to turn them over is your doctor and your lawyer.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
>You might be denied a loan for a house because you had problems paying off your student loans, even though you made the last payment 3 years ago.
Not the lenders fault is it. You did it, you live with it. That's why there are programs for higher risk people.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
>Or your college fails to file the necessary paperwork for you school loan deferrment. Then giving up after fighting for a year to have the 'late payment' charge corrected on your credit report. Ever try to coordinate between two beaurocracies? Its damn near impossible
Nope not impossible, If you value your credit file, You will apply whatever time that is needed to resolve the problems. Don't forget that you have the right to an error free credit report. So fight for it.
>credit to rent
Well, not in the poorer areas. They will take whomever in the poorest area. Or you could come up with 1 year advance rent ( NYC apartments sometimes require people to have an income level 30 to 60 times higher than the rent, otherwise you don't get the place).
>I don't think you are investing your money wisely.
I never said that, nor did I imply "investing" I said " Why hire someone that can't manage their money " Managing money is very difficult, Investing your money is easy, good long term fund solves that problem. Money Management is the hardest thing to do. If fact, you can be a so so equity trader, but with great money management skills you can out perform the averages.
>Personaly I perfer to hire people that have > failed once with thier own company Too bad. They were screened by HR for having lousy credit records.
Nope most people that have lost a business and are working for me, filed their paperwork properly and have no blemishes on their credit report.
The law does protect your privacy but as I stated this in my last post " Problem in USA is that we DO NOT value our privacy. I have yet to hear of a case that has a large monitary value in reguards to privacy."
If your not willing to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Work hard to make sure they listen, then sooner or later they are going to walk over you.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I happen to agree with most of your post. As I stated in my original post(or in other post), I believe that there should be extreem penalties for parties that distribute very fualty information. I for one pay a yearly fee to know:
1) whom is accessing my credit report.
2) know who is sending and adding to my report.
3) red flags that show up in my report.
4) my file report from the big 2 reporting credit companies.
I've been doing this since my first credit card, and I'm still with the same reporting company.
Sometimes when I see a party that I don't know, I call up the reporting company and they give me the phone # of the accessor, then I follow the path back. If I don't know the final party, I start writing letters and sending faxes. You would be surprised at how quickly they respond. And since I have some knowledge of the legal system I advise them of their respective right's and inform them that I will sue. It get's my report fixed right away. ( if there are to many inquires that might flag a problem). This type of problem cost me about 4 hours worth of work, but my credit is valuable so some upkeep is worth it.
I would advise people that they get a credit watch company. It cost only $39 or $49 per year. A very worth while investemnt, to keep your mind at peace
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
So who reads the original article anyway? Certainly not most of the people who post here.
Big Company aggregates personal data. Big Company sells data to government. Data is stolen from said government by spies working for an Evil Communist Power. Evil Communist Power uses knowledge of consumer purchase habits to destroy economy of aforementioned nation in which said Big Company resides. Rinse, repeat.
Sometimes I think the sort of paranoia people exhibit about this sort of thing is funny. But then I remember that sort of paranoia is what makes this country great. There's a reason the President can't just do something without getting it past Congress and making sure the Supreme Court doesn't shoot it down. And there's a reason that Congress can't just do something without getting past the other two branches. This country was set up to be paraniod. Even the founding fathers were paranoid that one branch would be too powerful, so they gave the other two branches power to disallow anything the other branch may try. And in that same spirit, the citizens of this country are paranoid. We don't want things to happen quickly and efficiently in DC. As much as we bitch about those lazy SOBs in DC not doing anything, that's really how we want it. And that's the way it should be. Whenever a privacy story like this concerning the government comes out, there is a huge uproar and this leads to hearings and reports and all kinds of things being done. I think this is sort of the American way of guaranteeing that nothing gets too extreme. Thoughts?
No matter what we do, the government/corporations/lobbies/authority/etc always seem to find a way around it. And then we find a way around that. It's a cycle that repeats itself until they win.
should be able to own their own information. I mean, these companies are making big bucks off of me. And i don't see one cent of it. I might not mind entering into a contract with a company, if I was paid, say, 3 for every dollar that they made. I think that if the big corps can pull the intellectual property bs, we should be able to, at the very least, own our own data.
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with corporations collecting data about people. Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money. They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people. They use data to benefit people - through focused marketing. With information, they can give us the products we want.
Secodndly, the government is completely different from this. It exists to advance a political agenda and control every detail of our lives. It has a moral outloook, and if your morals are different you are screwed.
In short, we should live in a society of limited government. If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer. Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
Data being available publicvally is good, as long as it is not abused. Corporations have a record of non-abuse, and are owned by the people. The government does not and is not. That is all we need to know.
What do you mean there are safeguards? We have the Constitution, but when's the last time they paid any attention to that??? Only the government can bust into you house (legally) waving guns. Big companies cannot do that without getting the government to do that for them.
The rioting is not a result of "we hate the government" sentiment, this is a result of perceived racism of the Cincinnati Police Department by the African American community. Imagine what would happen if the business community of Cincinnati decided to employ a private security firm, and the rent-a-cops had this nasty habit of only fatally shooting black suspects. Most likely you'd get rioting in the streets. Your private vs. public distinction carries little weight.
Hmmm... where to begin with this? Oh yeah, the reason many corporations have a record of non-abuse these days is because they are cowed into line by those irritating government regulations. Even then some stuff slips through the cracks.
Remember the Cayahoga River? Those benign tire manufacturing corporations polluted the river so much that it CAUGHT FIRE. Even though the factories are closed, I don't think to this day the river has fully recovered.
Or what about the angelic Nike corporation? In Southeast Asia where they have less government regulations to be concerned with, they hire child labor to work in sweatshop conditions just so you can have Air Jordans.
Read a little history to see the plight of farm workers, coal miners, and factory workers in the earlier part of the 20th century to see where corporations have abused people in the absence of government regulation. It's true that an individual corporation doesn't have much power over society at large. But it is true (depending on the industry) that corporations hold a lot of sway over the people they employ, and a conglomerate of companies/massive monopoly can greatly affect society as a whole.
If you're looking for examples dealing solely with information trading, don't you think a corporation interested in cutting costs would love to get a hold of your medical records? That way, they can fire/not hire people based upon existing conditions, history of illness in the family, or genetic makeup? Rent the movie "Philadelphia" for an example of this.
Yes, a small subset of the general populace known as shareholders. And if the shareholders all live in New York City, and the poison dumping factories of the corporation live in Podunk, Nebraska, their concerns will tilted more towards the companies' growth and price-to-earnings ratio rather than the townspeople's rising cancer rates. And the people of Podunk have no recourse at all.
Not only that, but a large reason why the corporation system works is because of the presence of government. Investing would be a VERY risky business if not for insider trading laws and the required openness and truthfullness of Securities & Exchange Commissions filings. Do you see people investing BILLIONS of dollars in a company when there is no guarantee that the information the company gave about the prospects for growth and potential risks are accurate? Or even their balance sheet?
Government shouldn't rule our lives, but it does have it's place.
This
I don't know if you meant this as a troll. If not, my mind boggles that someone could still believe the premise that you shouldn't worry about your privacy if you have nothing to hide, and that governmental intrusion in your life only harms you if "you had it coming".
This is the first step toward fascim. A dog chained to a tree feels completely free until he tries to go one step past the chain's limits. The previous poster will have a rude awakening the first time he tries to take that next step.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Invisible Agent
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
It would be wonderful to see http://www.cpfbi.com/ defaced in some amusing way. Possibly just redirect the log on link to goatse.cx
--
Yes, the nick is flamebait
Has anyone found any information about what this information is and why the government is interested in it?
IANAL, but if this information had any law enforcement value, couldn't the govenment simply get it for free through the court system?
I suspect that if any of you actually saw the information the government is buying, you wouldn't even be interested in it.
*sigh* back to work...
Chemicals into the table? Dear god man you sound like a skin care advert where the presenter keeps saying there are no chemicals in this product... then what is the product made from?
So, Bad Chemicals then, we're agreed? When a big bad corporation puts big bad chemicals into your water supply you would have as much recourse as if they had killed your grandmother -- and don't you forget it. There is no right to poison you and the ones you love (hell, if you talk about "chemicals" being evil one would assume you'd be a sucker for the "and ones you love" line) and Libertarian Philosophy defends this. We're bitches, but you're an idiot. So we're even.
Lefties believe in big government - Righties believe in big markets. Libertarian's dislike locking out competitors for the same reason they hate monopolies as if removes choice. Libertarian philosphy is about choice. Lefty is about removing choice and protecting you from yourself.
Unmuzzled power corrupts, unmuzzledly.
Check out Choicepoint's government web site.
Their privacy policy appears to be slash dotted (link is to google's cache of it).
ChoicePoint obtains personally - identifiable information only from sources known to us to be reputable. These sources may include courts, public record repositories and consumer reporting agencies. ChoicePoint places high priority on the reliability of its information sources. In fact, the Company carefully reviews its sources' information practices, and does not utilize sources that violate acceptable collection practices or that fail to provide accurate, complete and timely information.
It's great that they're so considerate, huh?
However, taking the opposite track and absolving corporate practices of data harvesting as innocuous equally fails to recognize a danger. Though Ayn Rand's often-times eloquently expressed ideas carry much persuasive power, they are a little too simplistic when applied to many concrete situations, this being one of them.
Speaking generally, the corporate and governmental expressions of power are not nearly as monolithic as you would have us believe. Multitudes of examples abound: the Exxon Valdez, Shell's collusion in the oppression of natives in Nigeria, the Union Carbide chemical explosion in Bhopal (due to extreme corporate negligence, not purely accident).. and not to mention the combined malfeasance of the tobacco industry, the environmental impact of heavy industries, and the questionable labor tactics of the sweatshop contractors employed by clothing and footwear manufacturers. On the flip side, Government also creates: subsidies for energy research & development programs, the space program that spun off so many technological developments that are now used in commercial products, and not to mention the percursor of the Internet, DARPANET.
Specifically, in this case, I think that operating myth in your argument makes it easy to gloss over (or at least not consider) the potential negative power for corporations to yield with data about private citizens. What if an insurance company cross-referenced data to come up with a profile of a person that indicated an "unhealthy" lifestyle (which some people would include being gay under), or worse yet, the existence or predilection towards a medical condition? Thousands could be refused coverage - hardly qualifies as using that information to better serve the consumer. Albeit, this example doesn't involve the deprivation or violation of institutionalized rights per se, but the very moment a subsection of the population sharing similar characteristics is willfully excluded from something afforded to the rest, IT BECOMES POLITICAL (whether it was intended that way or not), and your neat distinction collapses again. And, exclusionary tactics comprise just one angle - there are also the politics of targeted marketing. Low-income and low level of education? Better yet, not a native speaker of english? Here's a loan offer (don't bother to read the fine print - its says how we're going to jack you). In many cases a fool undoubtedly makes a deal with the devil - but, the devil is still the devil.
You're right - there are a lot of nasty things that the government can do with personal data. But to assume that it is only the government that is threatening, and propagating that idea, fails to miss the larger point: organizations, be they private or public, shouldn't be exchanging personal data of their constituents/customers without their permission. PERIOD.
To paraphrase Foucault, power, at its core, is ALWAYS politcal - economic power is simply a specific incarnation.
Because I didn't do it. I respect copyright, you know...
Government and corporations are simply two sides of the same coin. Does anyone remember the military-industrial complex? That's simply a particular view of this general issue. They're the same thing, kids. If it makes you feel more secure to put them in separate boxes, then go ahead; if you're looking for a legitimate answer, don't try so hard to think of them as separate dynamics.