14 ms·

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

by pqtyw 2mo ago

wartywhoa23 2mo ago
I really hope this was /s.
pembrook 2mo ago
I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowing on a particular day. And they are legally entitled to hold a gun to your head or kill you if you don't comply. These are not the same level of risk. Yet more hysterical attention is paid to the former instead of the latter. This is dumb. Be more worried about governments. Read more history.
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  > is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed. Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_and_subsequent_class-action_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips are in cash) [2] https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/employers-are-using-your-personal-data-to-figure-out-the-lowest-salary-youll-accept https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/emp... [3] https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-Surveillance-Prices-and-Wages-Report.pdf https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-S... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination [5] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-uses-for-geforce-titan-gpus.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-us... [6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fu...
  - pembrook 2mo ago
    Oh the horror, they might try to lower your salary forcing you to find another competing employer! Meanwhile governments wield enough power to destroy the entire world 100X over, and are currently shoveling young boys into the meat grinder of war to be slaughtered by the thousands every day. As a left-leaning forum, HN has a giant blind spot re: government power vs. corporate power. I'm trying to point this out. Yes, companies can abuse their power. But their power pales in comparison to government power.
    - pqtyw 2mo ago
      > As a left-leaning forum Even if true it's almost entirely orthogonal. The "right" is usually only against government control, intervention and surveillance until they get into power. Then they double down on them. Also right wing parties/groups are generally better at controlling and silencing internal opposition (since they are lot better shutting up and falling in line when push comes to shove regardless of their personal beliefs). So they are usually a lot more effective at imposing these things.
- berkes 2mo ago
  Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under. By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data. But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs, monopolising, reducing taxes, etc. All of which harm you, personally. So, sure, worry about governments. But worry more about (big) companies. Read more history.
  - joenot443 2mo ago
    Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not. This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer. Read more history.
    - asdewqqwer 2mo ago
      Read Second Amendment. Also, governments consists of a large amount of human each acting for their own benefit. Assuming they can easily collectively united as a single force to use violence to harm all citizen (on the topic of privacy, it really is the case) suddenly is wild. On the contrary, for a limited government, it very likely will result in using the monopoly of violence to provide extreme capitalism style IP and private property protection which results in dominating power of large companies. On the other hand, every bit of history demonstrated you can never maintain monopoly of violence if you are really against people. Monopoly on economic is strong because it can be guarded by violence, while violence cannot be easily guarded by itself within a country (unless AI overlord really comes). Read more history.
    - berkes 2mo ago
      That government has the monopoly of violence against the company too. They can easily strongarm the company into harming me. With private security companies, private jails, private utilities, the harm both can and will do, is practically the same. And with the boundaries of "private" and "government" becoming more opaque (like private tech companies deciding who is to be detained and who not; who is allowed to access their money; or do their jobs, etc) the difference is even more theoretic. A government that has absolute power over a company/sector, can (and will, in my belief) use that power to make the company/sector do it's work. Making this company/sector just as dangerous as the company. If I get mistreated at an airport (of a democratic country), and the agents doing the mistreating are civil-servants, they (or their chain of command) are democratically held accountable. But if they are employees of Acme-Security Inc, granted the right of violence by the democratic government, there's nothing I can do, no-one to appeal to. Both cases are something I, an individual, cannot do anything against. I am mistreated anyway.
- belorn 2mo ago
  The distinction is very much blurred, and there is much more profitable way to use data than getting people to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Companies can use it to determine voting patters and sell that to interested political parties. Government are made from political parties and can steer money to those parties, thus the data can now be sold indirectly to the government. Companies can use it to indirectly target competitors through their customers. Creating a monopoly is much more profitable than just selling more products. Gaining favors with political parties in the above strategy can also help here. Companies can sell data to governments of other countries. Just because your own government has laws that forbids it, it doesn't mean other countries has the same laws or will treat the citizens of your country as their own. Trade like this can also occur in multiple steps. Company sell data to country A, and country A shares/sells it to your own government. Your own government might finds this preferable to buy it directly as laws may not apply to data shared/bought, even if that data is about their own citizens. Selling personal data to the government is profitable, but there are also other interested parties. People in legal disputes may want information about the other side, or the juries, or even the judge. Companies that want to do industry espionage would want to buy information about other companies employees. Criminal organizations very much like to buy information about vulnerable people like the elderly. Again, the data doesn't need to be sold directly but can go through many hands until it finally reach the most scummy buyers, and the money will slowly trickle upwards to the seller. As long as someone collects the data and is willing to sell it to someone, sooner or later it will be sold/leaked to someone who shouldn't have it. That is the fundamental issue with companies collecting personal information.
- dinkleberg 2mo ago
  Exactly. And it is also incredibly short-sided and naive to push for more power for the government when you think it is just going to be used by "your side" for the issues you care about. When you want to wield those powers to promote your own ends against those you oppose, don't be surprised when those you oppose come into power and use those same powers back against you.
- protocolture 2mo ago
  >I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. I keep trying to explain to people that any data companies harvest, for whatever purpose, can then be accessed by the government, and that trying to draw distinctions in what is a big massive ouroboros is irrelevant. Even if you trust the company AND trust the government, the data exists forever, and no one can trust all future governments and all future corporations.
  - pembrook 2mo ago
    The root issue is still government having absurdly asymmetric power over you. If the government weren't legally able to use the toilet bowl cleaner companies data against you, it wouldn't matter. The problem is us giving governments the right to use this data against us (passports to access the internet, messages being under constant surveillance, etc.) In Europe we're happily handing over our rights every day so that governments have more power over us (supposedly to "protect" us from the big bad evil American tech companies). Except, Google just wants to make $100/yr off me instead of $50/yr by me voluntarily choosing to use them. Meanwhile, EU governments want to literally control what I think and feel and do, and take out $100,000 in debt on the backs of each of my children (we're at 115% debt-to-GDP in France) to fund this nightmare surveillance state.
    - protocolture 2mo ago
      >The Root Issue Look trying to separate them is foolhardy. Corporations exist due the limitation of corporate liability provided by government. There's no scenario where you have a corporation without government. A corporation will sell you out wholesale to continue having the right to make 100 bucks a year off of people.
    - ribosometronome 2mo ago
      The law can change. Which is why it's better if that data was not collected in the first place. Plenty of companies collecting data are operated by people who want to control what you think, feel, and do both for profit and based on their owners personal beliefs.
- wredcoll 2mo ago
  Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in encouraging you to shop at their stores more frequently with the information they gather, it's also true that other corporations are currently selling the information they gather to the government. And, of course, if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power, in the USA this would include things like state governors / attorneys, federal legislators, presidents, etc, all of whom have some level of influence over my information being collected and used. If I dislike what walmart is doing, my options are considerably more limited. I can lobby for a law to be passed against it or I can essentially wish for it to go out of business.
  - wartywhoa23 2mo ago
    > Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. False dichotomy, they are the same Lernaean Hydra.
  - neonstatic 2mo ago
    > if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power How has that been going? Did you manage to elect someone, who made a positive change? Let's be charitable - you can pick an example from your life that goes back up to 50 years.
    - wredcoll 2mo ago
      Sure, Obama (and friends) got the ACA passed which, among other things, forbade health insurance companies from refusing service to people with "pre-existing conditions" as well as also forbidding lifetime caps on services needed for treatment. Is it the best most perfect law ever passed in the history of humanity? Obviously not. Is it substantially better than what came before? YES. It's hard to explain just how screwed you were if you started getting hit by the "pre-existing conditions" disqualifier or your health insurance decided that they only needed to spend a million treating your cancer and after that you're on your own.
- jolmg 2mo ago
  > I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. A reminder that governments can buy from private companies. A company like Palantir can buy data from private companies then incorporate it into the software it sells to governments.
  - kvgr 2mo ago
    Yes and government should not be able to do this.

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

by pqtyw 2mo ago

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

wartywhoa23 2mo ago

I really hope this was /s.

pembrook 2mo ago

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowing on a particular day. And they are legally entitled to hold a gun to your head or kill you if you don't comply. These are not the same level of risk. Yet more hysterical attention is paid to the former instead of the latter. This is dumb. Be more worried about governments. Read more history.

like_any_other 2mo ago
> is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed. Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_and_subsequent_class-action_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips are in cash) [2] https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/employers-are-using-your-personal-data-to-figure-out-the-lowest-salary-youll-accept https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/emp... [3] https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-Surveillance-Prices-and-Wages-Report.pdf https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-S... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination [5] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-uses-for-geforce-titan-gpus.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-us... [6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fu...
- pembrook 2mo ago
  Oh the horror, they might try to lower your salary forcing you to find another competing employer! Meanwhile governments wield enough power to destroy the entire world 100X over, and are currently shoveling young boys into the meat grinder of war to be slaughtered by the thousands every day. As a left-leaning forum, HN has a giant blind spot re: government power vs. corporate power. I'm trying to point this out. Yes, companies can abuse their power. But their power pales in comparison to government power.
  - pqtyw 2mo ago
    > As a left-leaning forum Even if true it's almost entirely orthogonal. The "right" is usually only against government control, intervention and surveillance until they get into power. Then they double down on them. Also right wing parties/groups are generally better at controlling and silencing internal opposition (since they are lot better shutting up and falling in line when push comes to shove regardless of their personal beliefs). So they are usually a lot more effective at imposing these things.
berkes 2mo ago
Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under. By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data. But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs, monopolising, reducing taxes, etc. All of which harm you, personally. So, sure, worry about governments. But worry more about (big) companies. Read more history.
- joenot443 2mo ago
  Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not. This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer. Read more history.
  - asdewqqwer 2mo ago
    Read Second Amendment. Also, governments consists of a large amount of human each acting for their own benefit. Assuming they can easily collectively united as a single force to use violence to harm all citizen (on the topic of privacy, it really is the case) suddenly is wild. On the contrary, for a limited government, it very likely will result in using the monopoly of violence to provide extreme capitalism style IP and private property protection which results in dominating power of large companies. On the other hand, every bit of history demonstrated you can never maintain monopoly of violence if you are really against people. Monopoly on economic is strong because it can be guarded by violence, while violence cannot be easily guarded by itself within a country (unless AI overlord really comes). Read more history.
  - berkes 2mo ago
    That government has the monopoly of violence against the company too. They can easily strongarm the company into harming me. With private security companies, private jails, private utilities, the harm both can and will do, is practically the same. And with the boundaries of "private" and "government" becoming more opaque (like private tech companies deciding who is to be detained and who not; who is allowed to access their money; or do their jobs, etc) the difference is even more theoretic. A government that has absolute power over a company/sector, can (and will, in my belief) use that power to make the company/sector do it's work. Making this company/sector just as dangerous as the company. If I get mistreated at an airport (of a democratic country), and the agents doing the mistreating are civil-servants, they (or their chain of command) are democratically held accountable. But if they are employees of Acme-Security Inc, granted the right of violence by the democratic government, there's nothing I can do, no-one to appeal to. Both cases are something I, an individual, cannot do anything against. I am mistreated anyway.
belorn 2mo ago
The distinction is very much blurred, and there is much more profitable way to use data than getting people to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Companies can use it to determine voting patters and sell that to interested political parties. Government are made from political parties and can steer money to those parties, thus the data can now be sold indirectly to the government. Companies can use it to indirectly target competitors through their customers. Creating a monopoly is much more profitable than just selling more products. Gaining favors with political parties in the above strategy can also help here. Companies can sell data to governments of other countries. Just because your own government has laws that forbids it, it doesn't mean other countries has the same laws or will treat the citizens of your country as their own. Trade like this can also occur in multiple steps. Company sell data to country A, and country A shares/sells it to your own government. Your own government might finds this preferable to buy it directly as laws may not apply to data shared/bought, even if that data is about their own citizens. Selling personal data to the government is profitable, but there are also other interested parties. People in legal disputes may want information about the other side, or the juries, or even the judge. Companies that want to do industry espionage would want to buy information about other companies employees. Criminal organizations very much like to buy information about vulnerable people like the elderly. Again, the data doesn't need to be sold directly but can go through many hands until it finally reach the most scummy buyers, and the money will slowly trickle upwards to the seller. As long as someone collects the data and is willing to sell it to someone, sooner or later it will be sold/leaked to someone who shouldn't have it. That is the fundamental issue with companies collecting personal information.
dinkleberg 2mo ago
Exactly. And it is also incredibly short-sided and naive to push for more power for the government when you think it is just going to be used by "your side" for the issues you care about. When you want to wield those powers to promote your own ends against those you oppose, don't be surprised when those you oppose come into power and use those same powers back against you.
protocolture 2mo ago
>I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. I keep trying to explain to people that any data companies harvest, for whatever purpose, can then be accessed by the government, and that trying to draw distinctions in what is a big massive ouroboros is irrelevant. Even if you trust the company AND trust the government, the data exists forever, and no one can trust all future governments and all future corporations.
- pembrook 2mo ago
  The root issue is still government having absurdly asymmetric power over you. If the government weren't legally able to use the toilet bowl cleaner companies data against you, it wouldn't matter. The problem is us giving governments the right to use this data against us (passports to access the internet, messages being under constant surveillance, etc.) In Europe we're happily handing over our rights every day so that governments have more power over us (supposedly to "protect" us from the big bad evil American tech companies). Except, Google just wants to make $100/yr off me instead of $50/yr by me voluntarily choosing to use them. Meanwhile, EU governments want to literally control what I think and feel and do, and take out $100,000 in debt on the backs of each of my children (we're at 115% debt-to-GDP in France) to fund this nightmare surveillance state.
  - protocolture 2mo ago
    >The Root Issue Look trying to separate them is foolhardy. Corporations exist due the limitation of corporate liability provided by government. There's no scenario where you have a corporation without government. A corporation will sell you out wholesale to continue having the right to make 100 bucks a year off of people.
  - ribosometronome 2mo ago
    The law can change. Which is why it's better if that data was not collected in the first place. Plenty of companies collecting data are operated by people who want to control what you think, feel, and do both for profit and based on their owners personal beliefs.
wredcoll 2mo ago
Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in encouraging you to shop at their stores more frequently with the information they gather, it's also true that other corporations are currently selling the information they gather to the government. And, of course, if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power, in the USA this would include things like state governors / attorneys, federal legislators, presidents, etc, all of whom have some level of influence over my information being collected and used. If I dislike what walmart is doing, my options are considerably more limited. I can lobby for a law to be passed against it or I can essentially wish for it to go out of business.
- wartywhoa23 2mo ago
  > Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. False dichotomy, they are the same Lernaean Hydra.
- neonstatic 2mo ago
  > if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power How has that been going? Did you manage to elect someone, who made a positive change? Let's be charitable - you can pick an example from your life that goes back up to 50 years.
  - wredcoll 2mo ago
    Sure, Obama (and friends) got the ACA passed which, among other things, forbade health insurance companies from refusing service to people with "pre-existing conditions" as well as also forbidding lifetime caps on services needed for treatment. Is it the best most perfect law ever passed in the history of humanity? Obviously not. Is it substantially better than what came before? YES. It's hard to explain just how screwed you were if you started getting hit by the "pre-existing conditions" disqualifier or your health insurance decided that they only needed to spend a million treating your cancer and after that you're on your own.
jolmg 2mo ago
> I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. A reminder that governments can buy from private companies. A company like Palantir can buy data from private companies then incorporate it into the software it sells to governments.
- kvgr 2mo ago
  Yes and government should not be able to do this.