Hacker News Reader

Comment by OutOfHere | Hacker News Reader

As true as that is, I think the people should still worry 100x more about government surveillance than about commercial surveillance. Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need. In contrast, government surveillance, with or without cooperation from commercial entities, is trying to lock you up for victimless crimes or on flimsy evidence because they have run out of real terrorists to fight. The government's data collection is vastly larger than of anyone else, all paid for by you with your taxes. Encryption, cybersecurity, and minimizing data retention are the primary ways to fight it.

View on HN

> Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need.

This simply isn't true. Commercial surveillance is a means and method of inserting itself further into your workflows or lives. Just think of all the health and identity related 'features' being rolled out (and celebrated), and how governments are readily capitulating to them. It isn't far fetched or tinfoil to consider that these commercial entities, at some point in the future, can become the arbiters of decisions that affect you.

This isn't even about commercial vs government surveillance, they are equally dangerous, and of both you should be equally wary; governments are far more careful with actions, even with malicious intent, whereas commercial entities with deep pockets are often abstracted away sufficiently to escape blame or consequences. However, governments that delegate to commercial for decision making means that there is little to no difference in the 'type' of surveillance.

Minimizing your own ecosystem lockin is extremely important.

> health and identity related 'features'

But it's easy enough to just opt out of all that. I don't use fitness or health wearables. I don't have my DNA or ancestry analyzed. I don't use online/telehealth services. Hell I don't even visit the doctor very often. I don't trust healthcare at all because it's very easy for them to use "scare" marketing to get people to pay for all kinds of stuff that (a) they don't need and (b) has very little real benefit and (c) that in most cases is for conditions that common sense and a little self-discipline can avoid.

You're free to think that doctors and health organizations operate on some higher plane of morality but the truth is they are businesses and need to compete for customers just like any other business does.

When the government is allowed to buy information which would otherwise require a warrant, private surveillance becomes government surveillance.

Exactly, there is no difference. In fact in some ways it is worse because the government can say with a straight face they aren't collecting your data and monitoring you... they just pay someone else for that service.

Yep, and I keep harping on that one simple point. If that data is collected at all, it will be used. Even with laws protecting it. Look how HiPAA has become something of a joke now between regular breaches and app everything, which skirt as much as they can.

They lean on social media companies to violate your 1st amendment rights and then buy from them to violate your 4th.

This should be the top rated comment. This [1] is the tactic that is used by government agencies to actively work around protections afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/26/constituti...

> Commercial surveillance is only trying to sell you something you don't need.

Besides the maximimization of revenue, the profit motive also dictates the reduction of risk. Consider any application for insurance, membership, coverage...

>government surveillance, is trying to lock you up because they have run out of real terrorists to fight

"Government is surveilling/fighting you because who else" is easily applicable to $EvilCorp monopolies, because its tautological.

I assume that all data the commercial providers have on you, the government can access too if they would like to. Probably the government is even happy they can "outsource" a lot of data collection.

This exactly.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks like this.

Actually, much of the commercially collected evidence is not strong in court if it is admissible in court at all. One can simply reject it claiming that it is a mis-association, but only if there isn't further objective data that conclusively ties one to the collection. In practice, usually the government finds evidence that is more directly incriminating, and the the commercial evidence is then secondary to the case.

It would be nice if it were true, but it's absolutely admissible via whatever employee of the commercial source they bring in as a witness to testify that it is super duper reliable.

If it were as simple as "selling things" then it would be fine, the problem is it doesn't stop there, it is not about offering things for sale, it is about manipulating you into buying by any means necessary. You are not immune to propaganda.

Commercial is just Government by another name. walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Is granted duckhood by the Ur-Duck.

No, I'd actually much rather the government be the one doing the tracking than private companies beholden only to greedy shareholders and their whims.

I mean, I'd rather nobody track anyone but that's no longer a reality, so if we're picking sides here I'm definitely pro-gov't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com