The Problem With How We Think Of Surveillance 96
blastboy writes "Here's a great essay on Snowden, technology and the problem with how we think of surveillance. From the article: 'Why do we give them our data? For the same reason that prompted the protesters to pull out their phones amid a swirl of tear gas: digital channels are one of the easiest ways we have to talk to one another, and sometimes the only way. There are few things more powerful and rewarding than communicating with another person. It’s not a coincidence that the harshest legal punishment short of the death penalty in modern states is solitary confinement. Humans are social animals; social interaction is at our core. Yet the more we connect to each other online, the more our actions become visible to governments and corporations. It feels like a loss of independence. But as I stood in Gezi Park, I saw how digital communication had become a form of organization. I saw it enable dissent, discord, and protest.'"
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you give them your data. Well, maybe not you personally, but in general, we do. We insert Facebook in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to, and everything people do on FB was done without FB for a few decades online before that.
We put all our photos up on social network sites, instead of just sharing them with our friends, we share them with data mining companies.
Fill in your own example - there are thousands upon thousands. But yes, we give them our data. We GAVE those companies the power to data-mine us to hell. We MADE those companies succeed financially.
Captcha: consent. We gave them our consent, and routed all our communications through them. They took advantage of it, but what did we expect?
blame facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.
They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.
You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.
It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.
There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.