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.
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.
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.
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...
A private organization can exist for any number of reasons, and the means through which they get money from you don't need to involve you getting screwed. Believe it or not, a transaction can exist for mutual benefit.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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
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.
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?
In a marketplace, competition will, generally, drive the bad actors to fail and reward the good actors.
The problem with this is that "good" and "bad" are determined in the terms of the market and not in terms of the individual. You as a person are not a market. There is no guarantee that you get to become an actor in the market. There is nothing per se that causes the definition of good in the market to somehow correlate to the definition of good for you. The only way get some correlation is by the individuals to bound together and change the market rules until there is some fit.
People usually call this "having a government and laws and regulations and get them enforced."
If someone sings the high praise of the free, unregulated market, you can be sure that he either has no clue about this, or contrary, that he knows it very well and just wants you to give up the part of the regulation that caused to morph the market more in your direction and less in his.
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!
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"
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.