I'm not being harmed, but other good people are. But because it's not me, I shouldn't care? That kind of logic only flies in America...

And yet, no American that has posted has even mentioned or implied such a thing. Smh.

Um, except L. Spiro...

And even if he didn't, and even if I wasn't just making an opportunistic jab, the thread is about American citizens losing their rights, and it's pretty fair to say that America has a culture of selfishness, and that these opinions of indifference towards the loss of civil liberties are heavily popularized there...

L. Spiro is American......?

America. Selfish? We gave you freedom. We gave you free trade. We gave you cover so you wouldn't have to fight the War on Terror as long as we have. We're the most Christian nation the world has ever seen. What has a kangaroo ever done for you? Hmmm?

[spoiler]Obviously, I'm being snarky. [/spoiler]

Sadly the "I'm not being harmed, but other good people are. But because it's not me, I shouldn't care" logic is heard in many countries - not that that makes it right.

I'm somewhat against Google giving the information to the FBI without a warrant... but I'm really confused why we care about the government having access to the same information that big business already has. I care about the businesses and the government having the information - but I don't see why Google (and their affiliates!) should have information that the government doesn't, and be able to sell that information without informing you but refuse the government access to that same information.

If I choose to do business or share information with another private party, whether an individual or business, small or large, I don't see why it automatically follows that the Government should have access.

If Google was selling information that was personally identifying to individuals, then that's bad too. (In the UK at least, there are laws regulating this.)

True, there are arguments against big businesses having this info too, but two wrongs don't make a right, that's part of the same argument. Indeed, one argument against big business having such information is that it's easier for other people to get that info.

That's part of what I find so silly. People give all this information, and make it public, and then protest when the FBI wants to consolidate public information into one location.

Can you show me examples where people complaining about this are also posting private details publically on the Internet?

I find it funny that there are all these people going "All these stupid people post their private lives on the Internet, except me" - well, there are a lot of "except mes". I don't think the Government goes "Oh, we'll only take the info for people who post their lives to Facebook" - if they only restricted themselves to public information, they wouldn't need that information from Google, or laws like USAPATRIOT.

And don't you think the people complaining the loudest about this kind of thing, are going to be the people less likely to post their information publicly?

Not to mention that most Facebook posts aren't public.

Firstly, mostly good replies so far. No one got baited when I suggested that those bombers were guilty at birth—I hope that is because everyone though it was too outlandish to be true rather than because they agreed with it.

I am actually indifferent on this topic, but no one else is representing the other side so I am.

I took this stance because being indifferent on the subject matter seems to somehow be a unique perspective and it allows me to see something about the only side being represented here that those representing it seem not to see. I want to ask a very simple question: “Why are you against this?” But you have all already answered.
There is a conspiracy theory. There is too much control being granted to someone else. There is invasion of privacy. Etc. etc.

Asking “why are you against this” won’t get me past the outer shell of defense. So let me ask a deeper question. “Are your reasons for being against this realistic, or are they just an automatic defensive response to the initial (and entirely imaginary) concept of an invasion of privacy?”

I'm bowing out of this conversation, since this strikes me as an attempt to troll, rather than simply playing Devil's Advocate.

And we've provided many examples of why this is realistic: our (and others') governments has used the information it has gathered to commit violations of the UN's Human Rights provisions, and it is a very real possibility since it has happened before.

Here is how the world works:

• You the good citizens of the world pay your taxes,
• behave when asked to,
• go to work,
• be productive,
• be quiet(when needed/commanded to),
• participate in "free" debates,
• read the news(online offline),
• obey the law
• accept that the law does not count for secret services
• private information/private life are protected by the law
• However above mention does not count for secret service
• citizens of the free world are to accept everything mentioned above
• accept/expect legal actions are taken to make sure citizens of the free world accept everything mention above

Everything mention above is the groundwork for a binding contract between citizens of the free world and their local governments that are valid the very day they are born at or immigrate to a destination on this world.

Citizens of the free world have the right to accept this or complain, should the method of complaining be deemed not acceptable by the local government then legal actions shall be taken to silence or neutralize the complain, regardless whether the complain is file by a firm, organization, a group of people or an individual person.

You see this is our life and therefore Google will have to hand over these data, just like Google had to accept China's laws. Unfair? Yes but that is how life is.

Resistance is futile, the govs are too powerful. At least this unfair behavior makes sure some bad terrorists are taken down(I mean at least some good comes out of it).

Shouldn't it be a privilege to be assimilated into the collective? After all, one alone cannot attain perfection.

This reply is going to be somewhat generic and possibly preachy. I do think, however, that most of the discussion so far is somewhat specific and doesn't quite tackle the big picture.

In short - I think in this case resistance is futile (okay, enough Borg references...). As I personally see it, we're starting the squabble at the wrong end of the stick whereas we've already handed the bad end of it to the devil - be it to corporations, the government or both. While it's literally impossible to draw a line where civil liberties and one's right to privacy end, and a corporation's (ab)use of personal data begins, I personally am trying to keep an open mind and rather try to look into the future than get bogged down in the past or the present. The types of services social networks and search engines provide right now are simply not possible without an exhaustive database. To me it's not even a question of good or bad as to whether such (a) database(s) exist(s). What is in question here, however, is intent. Given the fact that intent is a geographically and socially relative value, the real problem hence boils down to good old fear and paranoia.

A silly example - back in the day The Net told a story (I'm not even sure if it would've been just theory, even back then) of how a person's life can be ruined in seconds by having access to a handful of fields stored in a database. That was in 1995, so it's not like this kind of fear is a new thing.

True enough, the government might be able to erase your identity with a single click and a corporation might be able to buy the same with enough money, but the truth is that this kind of risk only arises because we enjoy and are unwilling to give up the benefits it provides. These benefits might be better in some countries and worse in others, but in the end the ship has sailed for pretty much all of us: we're all online. Kids nowadays start mirroring their social lives on the web at the age of 3 or 4; the sad truth here being that this kind of unhindered behavior is henceforth forever ingrained in us and it isn't going to change. The information isn't going anywhere. Ever*. We've already been assimilated. I feel sorry for every country where this information is being used to manipulate and persecute people, but that remains an inevitability as long as humanity as a whole doesn't start going with the times.

Hodgman has mentioned repeatedly on these boards that with the advent of massively parallel processing, in order to stick with the times, our only hope as software engineers is to rethink the entire programming paradigm and let go of many, if not most, of the increasingly antiquated methodologies and conventions used today, in favor of a completely new and in many cases alien paradigm. Well, the thing is - the same applies to the whole of society. People have been rebelling and talking out against governments and leaders since the dawn of time and this kind of behavior has been crucial in shaping a more liberal and democratic world. However - do we want to eventually become a Type I civilization? Well, globalization of information is a part of it - take it or leave it. No one said growing up wouldn't be painful.

If I had to list my fears on a realistic scale in terms of breach of personal information, then I'd go with:

3) the FBI (or any government agency) getting information from a corporation
2) a 3rd party buying or stealing information from a corporation with malicious intent (eg not just to spam my mailbox)
1) a 3rd party buying or stealing information from a government agency with any intent

Albeit the line between the two might be thin, there's a difference between misplaced malicious intent (aka "collateral damage") and illicit malicious intent (aka "a crime"). As a number of folks here have mentioned, belonging to a database with two billion other people doesn't usually solicit singling out unless there really is good reason. When it does happen, however, these people will sadly be nothing more than collateral damage. If you think being part of collateral damage is "outrageous", all you have to do is go back to any war ever fought on this here planet and rethink.

To me personally, this kind of paranoia is not worth losing my brain cells over.


* unless there is an apocalypse of some sort. A really thorough one.

I think the idea that people who are not suspected of a crime would be monitored "just in case" is backward and illegitimate. There are many instances even in recent history where those in power abused the ability to collect data to further their own political goals. How much easier to achieve such goals when the data is already collected!

The common justifications also need careful, scientific scrutiny. Does massive data retention result in more solved crimes? Recently the Danish police force said no.

That aside, I think that the existence of massive troves of such data can actually amount to a bigger potential threat than the sum of the justifications. The idea that the FBI or any group could realistically defend such database against intrusion seems unlikely. It doesn't even have to be a external breach, there are cases where individuals with personal motives abuse such data, for instance cases where civil servants lookup information about their personal rivals or love interests, or do the same on behalf of others. There was a recent well-publicised case of a police officer who apparently searched for domestic abuse victims and other vulnerable women, he apparently used this information to call to them for sex when on duty. This is only the sensational tip of an iceberg of similar behaviour.

Likewise with private companies. Massive data retention looks like a "no-brainer" option, why not collect everything? Storage costs are trivial nowadays... Who knows when that data will come in handy! But personal data does have a oft-neglected cost, the company's reputation now rides on their ability to protect the data from internal abuse, from being stolen, leaked or lost or even, as in this case, handed over to authorities on dubious grounds.

In this case specifically, I believe these secret, warrantless and gagging orders should be odious to anyone who believes in a fair, transparent and reasonable justice system.

Right now, we have a military complex whose top leaders are listening attentively to a guy who characterizes all Christians as "fundamentalist monsters" and labels any form of proselytizing within the ranks as "spiritual rape" and "sedition and treason". (They even have their own personal secret "Bat signal", in Mikey's own words, to be used whenever Mikey has something Christian he needs to oppose; how fucked up is that?) We have an administration that is willing to bring the FBI/IRS/EPA/OSHA bureaucratic nightmare machine down as a political weapon used against a woman who sought to set up an organization to ensure that dead voters are properly removed from the voter registration rolls so they can't be used to perpetrate voter fraud, as well as against any group that labels themselves conservatives. We've got Romney donors being targeted for audits based on their political beliefs and contributions. We have a President who compiles an "Enemies List" of people who oppose him, that includes anybody who has spoken out against or opposed in any way his pet progressive agenda; and that list is being used for punitive punishment.

So yes, I do have a target on my back. As does anybody who identifies as conservative or as Christian. And anyone who claims that there is no point to privacy protection is either a) hopelessly naive or b) part of the problem, a persecutor who is willing to use intimidation to silence anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Right now, we have a military complex whose top leaders are listening attentively to a guy who characterizes all Christians as "fundamentalist monsters"

[citation needed]

Right now, we have a military complex whose top leaders are listening attentively to a guy who characterizes all Christians as "fundamentalist monsters"

[citation needed]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

Any power given to law enforcement will be used. They get tasers -- they start tasing small children, old ladies and people that are already compliant.

Who doesn't break the law?

Smoking weed, a little income under the table, occasional check kiting, skirting sales tax with online purchases, parents lend you money for a house and call it a gift...

Then the minor indescrepencies -- some hyperbole on a resume, scouting out some prostitutes online, a bit of cyber-stalking, calling in sick to get a day off...

Look at how the authorities have prosecuted the drug war -- they chew up good people just to boost numbers and advance careers.

Eventually, this data will be used as a matter of course -- because it will be easy to do, and useful.