Schneier sums it up very nicely.
...It would be reasonable for our
government to debate the circumstances under which corporations
can collect and use our data, and to provide for protections
against misuse. But if the government is using that very data
for its own surveillance purposes, it has an incentive to oppose
any laws to limit data collection. And because corporations see
no need to give consumers any choice in this matter -- because
it would only reduce their profits -- the market isn’t going to
protect consumers, either.
Our elected officials are often supported, endorsed and
funded by these corporations as well, setting up an incestuous
relationship between corporations, lawmakers and the
The losers are us, the people, who are left with no one to
stand up for our interests.
It's roughly analogous to the old Big Three automakers and the UAW. Since the Big Three owned the US market through (roughly) 1970, they were willing to give the UAW a lot. (It was helpful that the white-collar folks got the same benefits as the blue-collars, too.) The only one without a voice at that lunch-table was the US auto buyer, and by no co-incidence, the US auto buyer was the lunch menu.
Things changed in the auto biz. They'll change in that spying biz, too.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
And this guy thinks it is worthy of emulation.
Post a Comment