Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
Again, the difference is that Loki and others see (correct me if I'm wrong guys) is that we willingly enter into this info being garbled up by using their services. I can walk away from Google and Verizon. But I can't walk away from the Federal Government. What Google (as an example) and I decide to do together is OUR business (That sounds kinkier than I wanted), what I (and 300 million other Americans) am searching for is not the Government's business until they get a warrant. Vacuuming up the data before hand 'just in case' I do naughty things is no different than intercepting my mail, photocopying it (but not looking!), storing the copy for later, then when I get naughty (or just accused), getting a warrant for those letters in storage. Is this what we want?
Government can only access what Google keeps (aside from direct tapping, but I'm under the impression PRISM doesn't do that). So when you use Google's services, you willingly accept that the government can access it with a warrant, which they did. Apparently it falls within the law, so you could have known the law, and basically agreed to this happening. In fact, considering they store everything, it is still the same as what you described, except Google owns the storage instead of the government. Like the quote says, it's useless to protect your privacy from the government if it's not protected from anyone to begin with. Hell, why would it be legal to sell information to commercial parties but not to the government?

Anyway, while I do understand the difference, they can still abuse the information, and have even more of it. Abusing the information in the way Loki's article suggested is illegal for government officials just like it is for any citizen. There's no real difference between a Google employee leaking something and a government employee leaking something (no difference in the effect, at least: it's still a leak). You say you can sue them, but first you're going to have to know who leaked it, and prove that, etc., just take a look at the Plame thing the article mentioned - IIRC that lead to a whopping single conviction that was commuted. And private companies don't seem much better, it took News Of The World a long time to get in trouble with all the nasty stuff they were doing. It is silly to think, while assuming government will only use your info in nefarious ways, that companies won't. They are also self serving, after all (and open about that). And that's before mentioning hackers who could get the info, too.

Also, with regards to willingly agreeing to the privacy agreements - most people don't even read it, and it changes often, and you have to be a lawyer to know what it exactly means. I don't oppose to a legal minimum of protections, with each company deciding for themselves how they protect the privacy on top of that minimum. We have similar protections in a lot of places, e.g. labour safety laws (you agreed to the job, but there's a legal minimum safety), then again you probably oppose those too.
Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
Er, yes? Class action lawsuits exist for this very reason.
You have a piece of paper as a 'contract' between your government and yourself too, it's called the constitution, if they break that you can sue. So if you're okay with private companies having this power, surely you are okay with the government doing the exact same until they are rebuffed by the courts?


Is what GGT is saying right, that telecom companies cannot be sued? Source, please.