The government doesn't need a warrant to browse data that it's already in possession of. Food for thought.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
310 points (79.0% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
2728 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This
Exactly this
The government doesn't need to know my search habits without a warrant
Maybe not a warrant, and IANAL, but government agencies aren't necessarily at liberty to share information amongst themselves. For instance, IRS needs a court order to share returns with law enforcement (IRC Section 6103(i)(1)).
But yeah...this seems like maybe not a super great solution...
Sounds like it really shouldn't have possession of that, although my sympathy is limited for fools who post their crimes on the Facebook
That's not the kind of data they're looking for, if you post it somewhere publicly available they already have that without a warrant or anything. The kind of data to be worried about is the kind that those companies collect about where you travel and when, and what kind of people you talk to through email or private messages. Even if you don't think there's anything incriminating in there, law enforcement loves to collect evidence that they think can be used to pin any crime on anybody, even if they don't know what that crime is exactly.
Good thing they already possess it all via realtime backdoors into every major tech company. The only thing that would change, is the (im)plausible deniability.
I agree, though. We're all in danger.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Note:
This article is more than 6 years old
Fuck nationalization of social media. Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard.
The idea that giving the government a monopoly on the biggest data hoarders is somehow better than having the capitalists own it is mind-boggling.
The government doesn’t need a warrant to search through its own data.
The last thing we need is to give the state more power over our lives, more insight into our lives, and more control over the narratives we learn.
Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.
If the government owns it, isn't it subject to FOIA and public records laws/disclosures?
FOIA is great and all, and so are public records laws and disclosure laws.
But the state is gonna state, and when push comes to shove, social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.
I’m not concerned about the ability to FOIA shit about Twitter or Facebook’s algorithm, as much as I’d like to know about how it targets the content slop to its users. I’m concerned about how it will consolidate power into fewer hands, and how state sponsored social media will be abused. And I don’t think FOIA would ever reveal that if it happened.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Oooooorrr.......Let's just break them up like we should have done a long time ago.
~~Or both!~~
edit: My enthusiasm was well meant but misplaced. On further consideration, I don't want government to control social media.
Yeah I don't want government or private monopolies. Competition in an open, well regulated market seems better.
Okay, which nation gets them?
Can we go with Egypt? I feel like they should get some more time in the history books.
This is actually an interesting proposal. In fact, many utilities went the way of nationalization like water and electricity. Searching the internet, socializing and ensuring a fair market are all also things which could in theory be nationalized given they fulfill a basic need.
Of course, as they are, they would grant whichever government they were given untold power over the entire internet and our lives. Which seems rather... unbalanced. Moreover, no government should retain that right given the internet transcends borders. No one owns all of it.
Letting the free market run its course with no breaks clearly didn't work particularly well either.
Perhaps a third option? Instead of one government ruling all of it. Perhaps they were to be owned by a supranational body where several governments can propose and discuss changes/regulation and keep balances on each other? UN style? Worthy of discussion.
If anyone has other ideas I'd love to hear them.
PS: (Also, when one suggests nationalizations such as this, one does not intend for a nationalized framework to be the ONLY one. Alternatives brought upon by the free market would still certainly compete with any such services.)
This is a complicated problem but the answer is likely ~socialism. The scenario you presenting is fix forward and try to retain the current economic status quo, which is imbalanced and rewards power and exploitation. We really should be living in a world where basic needs are guaranteed for everyone by a regulated market with multiple stakeholders keeping the process honest. Giving a single entity power generally doesn't last longer than a generation or two.
One very much agrees, the ideals of socialism are certainly interesting. The current model is a bit of a joke, but it is the world we live in, and we have to shift from the status quo if strive towards other ways of doing things.
But moreover, if the system isn't owned by an organized body whose members chosen by the people. Then who owns it? Who operates it? Who makes the calls on what decisions ought to be made? The people can demand change, but someone needs to heed that change and delegate workers to do the change.
Modern governments (mainly democracies), in THEORY are supposed be a representative of the people. The people vote for politicians that supposedly want the same they do. Law is written, bodies are created and demolished and so the wheels of society spin.
Problem is that accumulation of wealth opens the door by buying the mouths of democracy. If you have friends in mass media, half the work is already done. Humans are lazy and unlikely to act upon politics unless they are directly threatened (and even then, not that frequently)
Again, I agree. It's just hard to picture a different world. Power generally works best when it's distributed, but how exactly it's destributed is critically important, as well as the mechanisms that ensure that it its purpose is not so easily perverted.
First I'd propose a nationalization of internet services.
Without that is partly like being without electricity.
Yes, you'd survive but it's damn inconvenient in the modern way of life.
We need to split them, kill them, do whatever it takes to scatter the power they've accumulated.
They , as in people holding that power, want to nationalize them, because it simplifies the system they have already built for themselves.
Both Harris' program and such articles are all in the same direction. "Corps are fine, they just should be state-controlled and their services affordable".
No. People who want this are power-hungry fools, and despite their feeling of victory factually achieved and only waiting to be formalized, they will get fucked and this will fail.
Governments are bad; I get it.
But is it tiring to constantly mistrust the people we've put in charge of our shared resources or is it resignation to keep choosing the same people each time instead of the ones you CAN trust?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yup. It's time for some trust-busting. Amazon's logistics is great (though there is need for unionization of the employees) but their shopping site sucks. Kill the vertical integration so there can be different websites that use their logistics to deliver stuff. Many shopping portals competing with each other to allow people to quickly find products that don't suck and have those products be delivered within days.
Pull out the Cloud services from Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Probably should have some standard APIs for cloud services so to make it easier to switch between them which means they will have to compete instead of just locking people in to their particular service.
Social media just needs to be regulated like the phone companies are. Required to interoperate. Don't like what Elon Musk has done with Twitter? Move to Mastodon, Threads, or whatever and still be able to communicate with your friends that are still on Twitter. Create a common social media API standard that the biggies are required to implement so they can't use the network effect as a barrier to entry. Moving to a different social media platforms should be like changing to a different phone company. You don't have to be on the same phone company that your friends use, so why should you have to be on the same social media platform that your friends use?
Maybe update the CDA so that if their algorithm recommends something, they face the same liability as traditional media does when they publish something. Sure they shouldn't be liable whenever a random user posts something, but if their algorithm is recommending that post to millions of people, it doesn't seem any different from a newspaper printing an article saying some bullshit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Nationalizing Facebook is a terrible idea. 1a would turn it into an almost unmoderatable hellhole Twitter would pale in comparison to.
Ever seen the discussion on a government Facebook page where they're not legally allowed to block trolls?
load more comments
(3 replies)
~~Using anti trust laws to ensure a free market~~
Giving ownership of the monopolies to the government... whose leaders are funded by said monopolies....
This is a dumb idea even for politicians.
How is democratizing dumb again?
Government bureaucracy. Social networks should be as close to direct representation of the people as we can get, like the fediverse.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Seems like it would be better to have government buy-in to federated platforms. There are some governments that have moved their official announcements to Mastodon, which is a good start.
What the Fediverse really needs to ensure longevity is government and journalist support.
Ahem, No. We need something better. And nations should respect their citizens' privacy and digital security. Not exploit it. 99% of any of those companies is about harvesting people's personal data and show them ads. We need the other 1%: offer some useful services. Nationalize Free and Open Source Software, Proton, Nextcloud and healthy social media platforms. Not Facebook and Google!
I think since we're living in capitalism, what we should do is force some competition. Make them interconnect and open up so the people can choose which company to use. Like with E-Mail or federated services. That should apply to instant messengers and social media.
Best would be if they nationalized these systems and then migrated them to their FOSS alternatives over time.
I'd say that's overly expensive and complex. Since almost everything with these companies is about the ad selling, harvesting and using the data and tieing the users attention. The state would adopt something that is mostly concerned with that. And they'd struggle with their role influencing political views with the algorithms that now belog to them. And it'd be pretty much an Orwellian dystopia once the state starts getting into the advertisement business. What we consider a "product", the social media platform or mail service is just a means to have users. It's a tiny fraction of what these companies do. And it's an expense to them, not what they make money with.
I think it's far easier and quicker to start fresh. Have something that has good features baked in from the start. And not adapt a business, settle >90% of what it's about and change the product 180 degrees so it's about something entirely different. I mean everything Google programms is with the idea in mind to sell ads. They'd need to change pretty much everything about that program code. And we already have some good alternatives to some things. And the EU for example already funds some Free Software. I think if we were to educate people, regulate online services in a good way and offer proper alternatives, the rest follows automatically. IMO nationalising an ad selling business comes with severe issues, as I lined out earlier. And if we did it over, we could also learn from the past and address issues like filter bubbles, unhealthy behaviour, being overly addictive and whatever is baked in to the current generation of social media and almost impossible to get rid of.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon? If somebody posted that on Google, Facebook and Amazon, I'd say, “well, they seem to not know better”. But posting that in the noncommercial Fediverse? Why?
I found the idea interesting, just something to think about as these platforms continue to develop.
Lol. What a ludicrous idea.
How high do you want your taxes to be, for a start?
How high do you want your taxes to be, for a start?
High enough to cover proper healthcare and education (including higher education) for everyone. Personal wealth should never be a factor when it comes to education and healthcare.
Right. But do you realise how high they would have to be to nationalise multiple trillion dollar companies?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Back before the media decided it wasn't a competitor but rather a potential profit source. I do think the government does need to have it's own alternatives (obviously not identical more on this one day) for other reasons, such as for it's own media releases, but more internationally coordinated appropriate & considered legislation is probably better.
The genuises on PCM supported this and would try to push it occasionally because it would make YouTube be universally covered by the 1st Amendment so they could spread Nazi propaganda to children even more easily.
The only thing worse than a monopoly is a government owned monopoly
You prefer your monopolies to not be democratically accountable?
I prefer no monopolies, but if it's something that is a natural monopoly, I certainly don't want it by a for profit foreign company.
Maybe the answer is to split these guys up by country and each government decides what they do with their chunk. We'll see which works best.
Independent not for profits, straight up nationalised, private still(baby Bell), publicly owned and privately run, etc etc.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
How about just making them actually pay an amount of taxes commensurate with the burdens they apply on society?
Not Ello!
Jk, I was the only person I knew with an Ello account. I know more people on lemmy and mastodon and fediverse stuff than I did on Ello. It didn't take much to predict it wouldn't work out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What people think when they haven't heard of the Fediverse.
lol that wouldnt happen though
- Google: plenty of other search engines exist right now, if this argument had been about gmail or Android, I could have understood it better
- Facebook: yeah we can tell this was written before the rise of the fediverse because the solution there is completely obvious to anyone reading this...
- Amazon: maybe because of its cloud services? In terms of e-commerce Amazon is literally just one online shop out of many, I at least do not buy from Amazon especially more often than other online shops.
view more: next ›