Slashdot Mirror
Even After NSA Leaks, Government Still Trusted Over Private Firms
cold fjord writes "Computing reports on a U.K. survey: 'Governments remain the organizations most trusted by the public to handle personal data, despite revelations about surveillance and data collection schemes by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), the U.K.'s GCHQ and other governmental organizations around the world. That's according to research by accounting and consultancy firm Ernst & Young, which suggests that more than half of people — 55 per cent — say they're comfortable sharing personal information with central government organizations ... However, consumers are more wary about sharing their data with private companies. Just one-third told Ernst & Young that they're willing to share personal information with financial institutions, while one-quarter are happy to do so when it comes to their energy provider. Only one-fifth of those surveyed said they're comfortable sharing personal data with supermarkets. ... it was web firms that people were most claimed to be wary of sharing information with — fewer than one-in-10 said they were comfortable about sharing data with social networks, such as Facebook or web search engines like Google.'"
Meanwhile, a pair of researchers have assessed the NSA's data gathering scheme and found, unsurprisingly, that it's probably not very cost effective (PDF). "Conceivably, as some maintain, there still exist some exceptionally dim-witted terrorists or would-be terrorists who are oblivious to the fact that their communications are rather less than fully secure. But such supreme knuckle-heads are surely likely to make so many mistakes — like advertising on Facebook or searching there or in chatrooms for co-conspirators — that sophisticated and costly communications data banks are scarcely needed to track them down."
Interestingly enough, the number of people willing to share information with a provider seems to correlate directly with the likelihood that the provider will spam you with "targetted advertising" and "special promotions."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's far more likely that they simply don't have a choice. If I could choose between having a private company handle my data eg. Driver's info, Financial info I would choose a private company every time, but you simply don't get the choice.
I would be interested to know that the actual survey was, the questions were most likely loaded, It's quite easy to get the result you want from a well worded survey.
Let me ask the rock tossing, cave dwelling terrorist to take a good look at his Iphone and ask him his opinion on the subject....
He reported back that he has no place to plug it in his aftermarket charger, not even Apple can at get him with fire!
In other news; the Unobtainium['computer_insecurity'] market for government peddled corporate espionage is booming!
The private companies are collecting the data for the government.
Decades of filling minds with hate for everything not Government working as intended. Half the nation cashes Government benny checks at least monthly and the other half have a whole spectrum of bennies factored into their future.
The Powers That Be are patiently waiting for their subjects to get used to the on-going reality of NSA scrutiny. They know that as long as they keep those EBT cards refilled their dependents aren't going to stay angry.
So don't expect much from the "people." They're bought and paid for.
Yea, the government is supposed to work for the people. Sometimes it does that, sometimes it doesn't. Even the spying is supposed to be "for the greater good" as in preventing terrorism etc.
OTOH, private companies work for their shareholders and try to earn as much profit as possible.
NSA kept the spying secret and the information it collected was secret too. OTOH, if a private company was able to do the same spying as NSA did, it would turn right around and sell the information to the highest bidder. And probably would not act on any information about impending terrorist attacks, unless those attacks were aimed at the company.
Also, the government was elected by the people.
So, in the best case, the government is better than a private company (looking after the people). In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
We would trust private firms also if we could vote them out of business.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's about money.
These guys are making money with all that "Surveillance" paranoia.
Simple like that.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Ostensibly government exists to provide services. It's reasonable that one would have to provide information in the course of receiving these services. But, if a for-profit corporation is asking for personal information, it's almost assured to be part of a scheme to extract money from me.
Or to put it another way, there's only a very small chance government thugs will use my address to knock down my door, but a very large chance a company will use my address to send me spam. So I don't see why the result of the study is surprising.
Before you all flame me, I'm not American, and neither is this study.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Thats some interesting take on everyday legal gov use vs a vast domestic surveillance network. :)
People are happy too or have to interact with "central government organisations, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the NHS"
Kind of hard not to pay your tax, collect a pension, apply for benefits (e.g. help with heating bills), enjoy the benefits of the National Health Service.
Energy provider - again kind of hard not to pay your bill, seek a better rate.
Supermarkets - people do enjoy their rewards, discounts.
Thanks to Snowden and many other whistleblowers like him the UK can now more fully understand how their everyday net usage and other databases can be combined under sigint development.
Sigint development seems new from around 1994 via Ripa for 'targeted surveillance" now moving on as Tempora and Prism.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gchq-spy-world
We do recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora ?
The UK is now waking up to the reality of the "five eyes" sharing, along with a few nations who are extra good friends of the US, contractors, ex and former UK staff, ex and former UK contractors, ex and former five eyes staff and contractors...
Thats a lot of people with insight into junk GCHQ/NSA encryption standards, the telco systems and national databases...
So enjoy your http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden
"GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies"
"GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court."
"GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling"" - nice to have skilled sock puppets - just like we see on slashdot
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Maybe the NSA isn't focused on capturing terrorists, but instead; manipulating elected officials.
Because the government is not a whore. Yes, they collect data, too. But they don't turn around, spread their legs, and sell it to whoever pays $20 for it.
So, in the best case, the government is better than a private company (looking after the people). In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
You're wrong. The NSA has used its secret information to decide to kill American citizens, to kidnap them and torture them, to destroy people's lives.
A private corporation will do what, annoy you with a targeted ad? Hardly the same thing at all.
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
Currently there are laws against a private company killing someone. If such laws didn't exist, you would see private companies killing people more often than the USSR government under Stalin did.
Hell, there are illegitimate private companies that could be hired to dispatch someone...
It is there to protect them from us slaves. In effect, it is a private security company. Why would anybody trust that?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They would exist, but they would be very, very unpopular and probably less common than they are today. Killing people is hard and dangerous. In a free market, it would be very expensive for anyone good at it, and anybody bad at it wouldn't stay in business very long. That's why you see violent organized crime pop up when there is highly profitable contraband. The rewards, or at least the potential rewards, are great in those markets, so you can convince someone to kill for that.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Yeah, looking at the length of all of those TOS boilerplate pages, if you actually did read them, you'd probably do nothing but reading them. Since everyone pretty much just skips to the end, and it is well known and common practice not to read them, I doubt most of the terms are enforceable.
Further, many of them are for updates to products you've already purchased, placed in a click-through that holds the functionality you purchased for ransom. Those are almost certainly completely unenforceable, other than the first one where you presumably had an opportunity to decline and get a refund.
I'm no lawyer, though, so I guess we can assume there's probably some legal chicanery that they use to convince the law lords to give them all the power.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
over 50% of them (is the US) pay nothing into the system yet reap untold benefits.
1. The survey was in the UK so your US-based views don't apply.
2. That claim is based on the fact 50% pay no income tax, but it is false to extend that to "paying nothing into the system": In many cases, that means they pay every other kind of tax, including payroll, sales (gasoline, cigarettes, etc), state and municipal income taxes, and sometimes property taxes. They also pay in fees for various government services, such as driver's licensing.
3. Most of those that actually pay no taxes at all do so because they have the audacity to be children under the age of 16, or retirees who don't have any income besides Social Security.
I am officially gone from
We would trust private firms also if we could vote them out of business.
You can. Stop buying their products.
Now, try voting the NSA out of business. They are going to still be there regardless of who wins the next election.
The Study was done by sampling "whom" exactly? From TFA I see That's according to research by accounting and consultancy firm Ernst & Young, which suggests that more than half of people - 55 per cent - say they're comfortable sharing personal information with central government organisations, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the NHS. but I see no data on who was polled, what the sample rate was, etc...
99.28% of all statistics are manipulated to present a wanted message, 68.7% of those are made up on the spot, and 0.035% of them are actually correct.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
For as bad as the NSA and GCHQ programs are/were, there is at least some reasonable way to restrict them from damage.
For corporations, there's effectively no limit to the amount of damage they can do.
Yes, government-level info gathering can result in some pretty awful things - prison, in the least, for a limited number of people. A breakdown in trust of government as a whole, however, is probably the worst thing such pervasive intrusion can cause. BUT, we have relatively fast control over this kind of behavior. We (citizens) simply pitch a fit to our representatives, and a loud enough fit (aided hopefully by expose from people like Edward Snowden) gets results rather quickly (weeks or months). The NSA policies and practices are changing, as we speak. In the end, government is responsible to the people, and if enough of society says to change the policy, it gets changed.
Compare that to information gathering and use by a company. It's regulated by? Well, if you're lucky, the government. If not, then by nobody. And there's no oversight at all. They pretty much can do whatever they want with it, and there's virtually nothing the average citizen can do about it, even in large numbers. The company's management controls the data, and they're pretty much completely insulated from outside influence. Not even stockholders have much say here. And there's virtually no penalty for them misusing it. Take the Target debit card leak. It's a very temporary, minor PR problem. They're not on the hook for any damage they cause those people by mishandling their info. And that's a minor case - think of all the places where corporations buy and sell info for no benefit of the individual, profit from it, and usually to the detriment of the individual.
I'm in no way saying that government info gathering is good - we need to keep a close eye on it at all times. However, corporate information gathering and trading is infinitely more damaging to society, especially in unregulated places such as the USA. At least we have a reasonably ability to correct government oversteps - when was the last time you saw a company penalized (or heck, even substantially change its policies) due to mishandling of individual data?
Thanks, but I'll trust a representative government long before I'll trust a private, for-profit entity.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
And similar results in Canada.
Why?
Because they are spying on you, and selling your data to other countries.
Results matter.
Hint: Try getting rid of oil instead.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Alright, how do I, for example, vote Cisco out of business?
Or take Facebook. Even if I don't use it, other people do, and they don't like Facebook's privacy policies they see Facebook as an essential service.
That points the way to a better analogy. Most of us would allow that the NSA does certain essential services, we don't like the way Obama is running it. But we have a mechanism by which we can vote the NSA a new boss who would make it run differently.
So what we'd need to trust private industry more is a mechanism to vote out a private firm's management and vote in a new management. Since we can't do that without violating the stockholders' property rights, that means that private industry will always be less trustworthy than government, low as that benchmark might be.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Reasonable people don't believe that Angela Merkel is a terrorist. Instead talking about terrorism, it's more important to talk about how the NSA spying benifits us during trade negotiations.
Technically, I suppose it doesn't benifit all of "us"... Oh well. Sucks to be you I guess.
This cannot be good.
Americans do NOT generally trust corporations more than government; Americans tend to trust free markets, competition, and entrepreneurs more than government.
In a marketplace, competition will, generally, drive the bad actors to fail and reward the good actors. Government, operating without competition, feels no pressure to perform and tends instead to respond to the demands of the politically-connected. Unfortunately, many parts of the formerly-free-market economy have been so regulated and manipulated by government for so many decades (like the healthcare sector) that the free market looks bad and seems to provide the ammunition its critics need to replace it with something worse: big government (which made the markets bad in the first place).
Big corporations are no better than big government - and for the same reason: Lots of power concentrated in the hands of a few fallible/corruptible people. The big differences between them are [a] big business cannot legally jail you or kill you if it turns on you like big government can, and [b] if you have a problem with a business you can appeal to government, but if you have a problem with government you are stuck.
Unless participating in terrorism resulted in higher profits.
This is naive. Companies have done and do terrible things and the market does nothing to curtail it. After the Ludlow massacre Rockefeller was temporarily unpopular, so what did he do? He hired a publicist. People loved him, he suffered no criminal or financial penalties.
How about a more recent example? Coke killed several union organizers in Columbia in the nineties. As a result, they suffered through a temporary and ineffective boycott. No other repercussions, most people didn't even hear about it.
Alright, how do I, for example, vote Cisco out of business?
Stop buying their products, and convince others to do the same. If enough people agree with you, Cisco will either go out of business, or more likely, change their behavior.
But we have a mechanism by which we can vote the NSA a new boss who would make it run differently.
No we don't. Do you think that Romney would have done a better job at reining them in? Do you seriously believe that any plausible candidate in 2016 will be any better?
Four years from now, I think Cisco's behavior will have improved a lot more than the NSA's.
So far the only group I've seen drive by my house, take pictures of me without my consent, then post them on a public medium is Google, not the government. And that is why I will never speak to someone wearing Google Glass but I will tolerate CCTV cameras on street corners, because I'm fairly confident the footage from those CCTV cameras isn't going to end up on a public medium anyone can access.
Private companies are collecting the data for PROFIT. It just turns out that governments are clients (even forced disclosures are generally compensated...some very, very well). Government has a much more limited scope. 99.99999% of the time they're just looking for "bad guys," and the other 0.00001%* of the time some corrupt official is trying to profit off of it or you accidentally look like a "bad guy". The odds are still in your favor if the government is the one doing the collecting.
*note: this is a guess, but it's based on a random supposition that - in the last year - the governments we are discussing (US, UK, EU) have targeted less than 700 completely innocent people in any given year using the NSAs (or UK or EU equiv.) surveillance dragnets. If you have a list longer than that, then the percentage may be higher. Note that, in a typical year, the odds of winning $1,000,000 or more in the Powerball lottery with a single ticket purchased in each drawing is 0.0002%, so even if I'm off in my estimate by an order of magnitude, you still have a much better chance of becoming a Powerball millionaire than being accidentally (or intentionally, but falsely) targetted by the government. I can guarantee that Google, Verizon, and Facebook will sell any data you give them, 100% chance.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is hardly surprising. Government is supposed (please note the "supposed") to act for the general interest, which should (please note the "should") be aligned with citizen interest. Private companies work for their owner's interests, which are much less likely to align with the user's interests.
The issues here are "supposed" and "should". Obviously people do not consider yet their government as oppressive. The question is what can we do if a government turns oppressive, once we let it have those great oppression tools.
If I don't like the present Administration, and I voted against it, does it go away? No - more people voted for it than against it. Much like your Facebook analogy. Your individual desire does not make or break any single institution.
But that's not the point; the point is - like you - we can choose to NOT interact with Facebook. No page, no e-mails, nothing (for the record, I never signed up for Facebook and have zero interaction with that company). Now try to not interact with a Government you do not agree with. You have no choice but to obey its laws, pay its taxes, observe its commands - or you end up in prison. Facebook, Cisco, and other corporations cannot change the rules on you and then force you to associate with them and live by their rules; only Government can do that.
Between Government and corporations, the former has all the power - which is why the latter gives so much money to those in control of the former, for their own benefits. But understand that if Government didn't have absolute power and sway over your life, corporations wouldn't give Government a second look. It is the power of Government that rules, and corporations try to influence it. But it's still the power of Government.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In the perhaps foolish hope that some of you are not content in your ignorance, I recommend reading the Federalist Paper 51: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/20/union-to-sue-construction-firms-blacklisting-allegations
Undercover police had children with activists
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists
"Derry interrogation centre hidden from torture inquiry"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/derry-interrogation-centre-hidden-from-torture-inquiry-1.1486059
The results of UK public, private, police, military, signals intelligence work can make for interesting reading over the years. In the past you had to take part in protests, be seen or be informed on. In a more digital age a lot more sections of the UK gov and private sector are been invited to look over files and submit reports or will have expanded information 'logging' powers. Recall what powers the UK gov wanted see used on the internet?
"Changes to council surveillance powers"
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/66244.article
A lot of councils, government departments and various quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation) where to get new telco related powers
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the worst case, it is exactly like a private company (looking after its pockets).
No. That is not the worst case. The worst case for government is when they murder millions of their own citizens. Like this, this, this, this, or this.
You don't think a private company would kill as well for their own ends?
The scale might be different, but in that case, what's stopping them is fear of the law. If not, what are the chances you think a corporation would poison the water supply or food supply of millions for their own short sighted ends?
And as evidence, I submit this one case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
You could make the argument that slavery was allowed by the us government, but it was also the institution of government that allowed it, and it was private companies making use of slavery.
I trust Google not to deploy corporate SecTeams to shoot me in the head. I don't trust the government not to deploy paramilitary police to shoot me in the head.
I trust the government not to send me spam. I'm pretty confident Google will sell my data to anyone for a a ha'pence a bit.
Most companies have several paid lawyers ready to go to bat for them. Most people have no chance of standing against that, unless they are very rich. How is this any different? Unless there is a class action lawsuit (which requires enough people to be pissed off enough and feel wronged to join), there is no recourse against a big corporation. Small shops, perhaps. Big corps are basically untouchable.
When the government can force a company to release data or just steal it clandestinely, cut out the middle man and just hand it over to them.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Even the newsclowns admit it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-dont-trust-government/
Pew figured out 80% have no faith.
Im guessing there is a higher number out there, uninfected with cranial rectumitis. Maybe so , maybe not. Either way, Im not surprised.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
That's because targeted ads are failures. You research and then buy a pair of shoes online and they spam you with shoe ads for the next month when you are no longer interested.
Even worse, Dell bombarded me with ads and 'coupons' for another laptop within a month of my buying one. The 'standard' user of a laptop replaces it roughly every 3 years. While there are certainly shoes that last longer, most of my purchases are for athletic types that last me roughly three months*.
*As running/exercise shoes. After that they're demoted to daily wear, then lawnmowing duty. Though lately they haven't been even getting that as I've taken to wearing my older/retired work boots. Safer.
I don't read AC A human right
I've found that the world makes a lot more sense when you stop thinking about governments as being "special", instead treating them as just another "corporation" (for lack of a better word).
Now, they are unusual corporations - usually not-for-profit, governed by the shareholders (citizens) with no publicly traded shares, and having secured a monopoly in a given region for many business sectors. Oh, and they aren't bound by normal business rules, but by different international laws. But in all respects, it acts like any corporation would given those conditions.
The individual may be easily trampled by either, though only government can legally take all your stuff, tell you how to live, or even kill you.
Not really. Take a look at things today: big business has little to no trouble co-opting said government to do just that at its whim.
And the simple fact is that "Free markets" are a myth, an ideal abstraction, not unlike total vacuum, absolute zero, and a perfectly spherical cow.
In practice, if there are no controls on business, the ones that get there first will put them into place to keep competition from forming. We've seen it happen before, which is why we started getting the government involved in the first place. Both cases, in reality, break down with the inclusion of the human element.
While governments have more power, they also have many more constraints on how they use those powers. Which is ironic, since the government writes the rules for themselves while corporations do not.
(Note: I'm talking about governments in nations that respect civil liberties, which includes the UK and the US in spite of recent revelations. While the type of spying going on is certainly disturbing, it is nothing compared to governments that routinely intimidate, imprison, or even execute their opposition.
Governments around the world have killed millions of their own people, not to mention those of other countries. US government puts more people in cages than any country, ever. Most are in for doing something with no victim, except perhaps themselves. They are not guilty of force or fraud or any direct harm to anyone. The US government runs GITMO, and tries to say torture is ok. There are Executive Orders from the president that enable detaining anyone, in principle, without due process of any kind and indefinitely. Government, when it goes south, just borrows more money or prints it or takes it from the citizens and they have no choice but to pay or be thrown in a cage. The have racked up such a bill that it would take at least two generations to pay it off. And for what? So they can spy on everything we say, all that we do, every where we go in physical world and online treating us like we are all potential terrorists or innocent until proven guilty or troublesome cattle? Is that what the people trust?
Business on the other hand can do none of these things.
So WTF would any sane person trust governments more than businesses?
If you saying that the only reason that people trust the government more than private firms is because the government is more likely to get caught, that says far less for any trust in government than it does for just outright paranoia.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But such supreme knuckle-heads are surely likely to make so many mistakes — like advertising on Facebook or searching there or in chatrooms for co-conspirators — that sophisticated and costly communications data banks are scarcely needed to track them down
The Boston Marathon duo were supreme knuckle-heads and the NSA still did not discover them. So even the knuckleheads aren't found with their surveillance.
This one lacks specificity.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The best way to make a profit is by pleasing your fellow man unless you're the government and in that case you just need to make promises to please your fellow man, get elected and then do what ever the f*** you want for 4 years.
ayottesoftware.com
Spread the word ShanghaiBill, spread the word!
ayottesoftware.com
Any corporation that would try to arm themselves with tanks and missiles would go bankrupt very quickly. It's just not profitable. Profit comes from pleasing your fellow man, not killing him.
ayottesoftware.com
The simple fact is that "free markets" are not self-sustaining. That is why they do not exist.
To be self-sustaining, you need negative feedback to ensure that perturbations will return the system to a stable point.
Markets are based on positive feedback - "Nothing succeeds like success". You start a business, you become profitable, you leverage to get lower rates from suppliers, which gives you more profitability so that you can then afford to buy less-profitable competitors (or see them go under), you continue to grow until you can afford to buy government. Along the way, you denigrate such trifles as superior quality and customer satisfaction because they're no longer critical to making a profit. People don't buy your products because they're wonderful, they buy them because they have no real choice. "Nobody ever got fired for buying Windows".
The best way to make a profit is by pleasing your fellow man [...]
That's why corporations have sued their customers, knowingly sold lethally dangerous products, knowingly polluted the environment and spent millions lobbying to minimise workers rights and minimise their salaries.
The best way to make a profit is to be a monopolist and/or rentier. Which is why all capitalists strive for those outcomes.
Now try to not interact with a Government you do not agree with.
It's called emigration.
it's far from surprising people "trust" their governments...over 50% of them (is the US) pay nothing into the system yet reap untold benefits.
The only people who "pay nothing into the system yet reap untold benefits" are corporations and the rich hiding in tax shelters.
No-one living on welfare is "reaping untold benefits". They're "reaping" survival.
That's why corporations have sued their customers
Unsustainable. Great way to reduce the number of customers. It'll never work. In addition, this is usually done with the help of government by using the government police and government jail.
knowingly sold lethally dangerous products
Unsustainable. How long do you think that will last. When people get bad service, they tell up to 100 people.
http://www.unitiv.com/intelligent-help-desk-blog/bid/64134/New-Survey-Shows-Unhappy-Customers-Spread-the-Word
knowingly polluted the environment
Government pollution through war dwarfs all other pollution. Pollution is a violation of the non aggression principle and it should be dealt with by force. Are you saying that you don't approve of government because of all the pollution that they produce? Educate yourself. http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
and spent millions lobbying to minimise workers rights and minimise their salaries.
Of course corporations will use government to do their dirty work. The government literally has the biggest guns and the cheapest way to gain access to the these guns is to lobby. Buying the guns would be way too expensive and not profitable. When governments disappear, so does lobbying and the guns.
The best way to make a profit is to be a monopolist and/or rentier. Which is why all capitalists strive for those outcomes.
If monopolies are bad and the government is a monopoly then why do you think governments are good?
ayottesoftware.com
Unsustainable. Great way to reduce the number of customers. It'll never work.
Your theory is noted.
In practice, media companies seem to be doing OK.
In addition, this is usually done with the help of government by using the government police and government jail.
Government does not force anyone to sue anyone. Companies choose to sue their customers of their own volition which is, I believe, counter to "pleasing your fellow man".
Or are you trying to argue that Government shouldn't be enforcing the law ?
Unsustainable. How long do you think that will last.
Long enough to kill more people. Again, I believe, against the spirit of "pleasing your fellow man".
Government pollution through war dwarfs all other pollution.
This is what we call a red herring fallacy.
Of course corporations will use government to do their dirty work.
I'm glad you agree it is corporations who instigate the action. Once more, I believe, actions that aren't focussed on "pleasing your fellow man".
When governments disappear, so does lobbying and the guns.
Of course. Without Governments there to protect, there's no need to get them to attack on your behalf - you can do it directly.
If monopolies are bad and the government is a monopoly then why do you think governments are good?
This is what we call a straw man fallacy.
If one trusted the government prior to the revelations provided by the NSA leaks, why would they not still trust the government? Think about it, we provide the information to the government, the government therefore has access to this data and presumably are the only ones who can view it. the NSA is the government... i would expect that government agencies can view data i provide to a different agency... therefore, knowing that the NSA is logging you changes nothing.
the only significant difference is now, we know that if you put data on another carrier, the NSA will still see it... so regardless of location, your data is going to be viewed by the government.
Do you think there's anywhere that would take him?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And when said Government decides to revoke your passport? A corporation cannot stop you from traveling; the Government can.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, but plenty of corporations still did business with the Nazis including IBM which sold them computers and punch cards to increase their efficiency of rounding up and killing Jews
It is like that in my country. If you have one job and do not do anything that would require you to pay more or less taxes than normal, then you do not even have to fill a form.
If you have to fill it (I do, as I have two jobs and normally I pay too much tax, so I have to fill it to get my money back), then it comes pre-filled with the values that the government knows about (I only have to read it, see that everything is OK and then click a button to submit it).
And when said Government decides to revoke your passport? A corporation cannot stop you from traveling; the Government can.
Passports are required to enter countries, not leave them.
What's your scenario for a Government revoking passports ? I'm sure I can come up with something equally corner-case for private industry behaviour.
See Edward Snowden. Heck, just have a Federal law enforcement agency request it and the State Department will revoke your passport. Meaning all that has to happen is a Federal LEA decide you're a person of interest or "under investigation" - no charges - and you can have your ability to enter another country eliminated.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Unlike Private Firms, Govt can print dollars.
Casteism
See Edward Snowden [wikipedia.org].
Last I checked he'd left the USA.
Meaning all that has to happen is a Federal LEA decide you're a person of interest or "under investigation" - no charges - and you can have your ability to enter another country eliminated.
And in what situation are you expecting this to happen en masse so the whole country is locked down ?
The question raised was what to do if you don't want to "interact" with a Government you disagree with. You know, something similar to deleting your social media accounts.
Finally, if you're being genuinely persecuted by your Government, you can seek asylum in another country. No need for a passport to enter. Most countries have land borders to multiple other countries, so it shouldn't present an insurmountable obstacle.
I didn't say that companies wouldn't kill people. I'm saying that it would be uncommon relative to now. Paid killers largely come in two flavors: the military and organized crime based upon contraband, which is a result of government actions. The former creates a lot of cheap death and numbers that easily outweigh the number of contract kills, and a number of people with skills that aren't useful in much else other than contract killing. The latter creates people with similar skill sets as well. Increasing the supply reduces the cost, and cost plays into one of the most common reasons for paid killing outside of wars and drugs: insurance fraud. It doesn't make sense to pay someone a million dollars to collect a 200K policy, so the market is greatly affected.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.