Mark Zuckerberg is engaged in human trafficking.
Google is also engaged in human trafficking.
Anyone who deals in your "data" is committing human trafficking.
Yeah, there's all the standard yammering about "private businesses" having the right to do whatever... but corporations are NOT private businesses. They are government. They stopped being private businesses when they made a deal to work with and for government, and to sell you out to government, in exchange for special favors.
Facebook is not a private business. Google is not a private business. They may have started out that way, but that's not the current reality. They are no more private businesses than the U.S. feral government is one. They are all government.
No, that doesn't mean I want them controlled with "laws". They don't obey the Constitution which was supposedly written to keep government in check, so why would any other "laws" restrain them?
I have no choice but to use some government "services"-- such as government roads. And, realistically, I have no choice but to use some "services" provided by these or similar human traffickers-- unless I choose to be a Luddite. Or Amish.
I mean, sure, it would be theoretically possible to avoid government roads. You could learn to teleport or build your own flying machine. Of course, government claims ownership of the skies, too. So if you fly to avoid the government roads you are using "the government's" sky. It doesn't matter if the claim is ridiculous-- they'll enforce it with death.
In the same way, you could technically create your own internet service-- from the ground up, not relying on anyone's hosting or anything else. But realistically? No, you probably can't. Not in any way to really avoid all the government-supremacists and human traffickers.
-
Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
Does a corporation become a part of gov't at the moment it agrees to cooperate in some venture such as gathering and selling data, or at the time it is "incorporated"?
ReplyDeleteProbably when it "incorporates", but the harm comes when it starts conspiring with government against your rights. But that's just my opinion on that. I understand there are "tax" advantages with "incorporating", too, and keeping money out of the hands of the state is always a good thing-- so it seems a bit fuzzy to me. At least until they start acting governmental.
DeleteNo, Facebook and Google are not, as a consequence of the operations usually associated with them, engaged in "human trafficking." Words mean things. You are not your data.
ReplyDeleteAnd religious people say "you are not your body", preferring to believe "you" are your soul/spirit instead. Your data is at minimum an important part of you in this era. So, maybe it's like they are trafficking human parts to malevolent aliens. Whatever they are doing, it becomes more clear it is wrong and harmful to everyone but themselves/government.
DeleteInteresting analogy.
ReplyDeleteYou're doing what the religious people you refer to are doing (treating an intangible as "an important part of you"), Information about you is not a part of you, important or otherwise, full stop.
That something is intangible doesn't mean it isn't real. Or important. If that's the case you're making I guess there's no reason for anyone to continue championing liberty-- another intangible which I consider to be very real.
DeleteIf I could be convinced that the spirit/soul was real (while being intangible) I would say the religious people are half right. You would be more than just your body, in that case. You'd be your body and your spirit/soul. Your spirit/soul would be a real part of you.
As it is, I don't believe that spirits/souls are real, so if I'm told someone has sold their soul, I find it humorous.
But my data is real, and people are actually selling it for real money and favors, intangible though it may be. It is real and consistent from copy to copy. They can put it on a storage device and carry it in their pocket. If they want, they could even print it out. They can use it to harm me and my other intangible-- my liberty.
My intangible liberty can be damaged by things that are tangible, like cages and walls, and by things which are intangible, like "laws" and my data. I'm not in favor of giving people a pass just because they are using an intangible tool against me.
I didn't say that intangible means not real.
DeleteI pointed out that information about you is not your property.
Information can be used as a weapon, as a tool in a war of attrition on the individual. Even keeping information on record can present a potential danger because it leaves an opportunity for it to get into the wrong hands. This is one reason why we have a right to privacy.
DeleteJust because someone visits a website does not give the site owner/operators a right to track you or your habits online or elsewhere. That's stalking, even harassment, and it is fundamentally wrong.
It is not much different than saying that because someone attended a BBQ at your house, you have a right to go digging onto their bank accounts and credit card records, follow them around and record what they do, etc.
I posit that when facebook or the like track all that data, they are making it fair game to stalk them. They are essentially setting the terms and conditions of the relationship with them and their customers/associates.
On a personal note; I've had a stalker problem for decades. It took a lot from my life, has caused me a lot of problems. I eventually, through some very obscure methods/strategy, figured out who. Then I went around and essentially stalked them all back. And lemme tell ya, THEY DO NOT LIKE IT.
Some of them are pigs and their friends from school, church, political circles, etc. Boy did I make them nervous when I started digging up dirt on them, pulling up all kinds of personal info, getting plate numbers,and/or cruising past their homes and their children's schools, wives workplaces, etc.
How does it feel, fuckers!
lol
Here, I think this is relevant.
ReplyDeleteYour hair belongs to you. The knowledge of what color it is doesn't.
Why bother? How is it your concern or business unless provoked or under some extenuating circumstances that should require you to worry about it?
DeleteIf you're focusing on someone's hair color and not your own business, you're probably in the wrong. And I don't mean simple curiosity that comes with normal human interaction, but rather going out of your way to secretly(even overtly) log every time they change their hair color, or if it lightens in the summer through sun bleaching, etc.
There is a difference between noticing someone's hair color and stopping them to ask about it, and getting into their business for whatever ulterior motives.
"Hey, I like your coloring. Where'd you get that done? Where can I find some for myself/daughter/beauty product business?"
...is different from...
"Subject has dark reddish color hair, but dyes it black with purple streaks."
But in neither case have your rights been violated. And if in the latter case someone sells that information, they're trafficking in information about you, not in you or anything you have a rightful ownership claim on.
DeleteCan information be acquired in a way that violates rights? Yes. Can information be used in a way that violates rights? Yes. Is acquiring or using information AS SUCH a violation of rights? No.
The difference is honesty vs dishonesty.
DeleteDishonest methods suggest nefarious intent. What are you doing that you need to be sneaky about it? Why the need to hide your intentions? Why must you maintain a position of having the element of surprise?
This is how it qualifies as intimidation, harassment or entrapment.
I am not exactly satisfied with my response. I feels incomplete and inadequate. I'm going to think a little more about it and how to better articulate my point. I'll get back to you.
DeleteKnowledge of your hair color isn't unique and isn't likely to be used to harm you, and is only one data point (datum). It's irrelevant and harmless. It's like knowing you bank at Statists' Bank of Californistan. Yawn... so do thousands of others.
DeleteHowever, your "data" is completely unique and highly likely to be used to violate your rights, and collecting it for that purpose, or for the purpose of selling it or exchanging it for favors, is something no one has a right to do. This compares to knowing where you bank, and finding out your account numbers, routing numbers, login passwords, etc. Is this information for sale or trade if you collect it about someone else? What if you call yourself Facebook?
Your data-- as in the whole enchilada, not disparate bits and pieces-- does belong to you.
I have to say that your argument on this is even worse than your "I get to violate other people's property rights as long as I do it under my jacket" thing.
DeleteI have to do this in pieces because it won't allow that much text, so bear with me...
DeleteAnything can be exploited as an instrument of abuse, to include any/all information about someone(even hair color). Honesty is key because it renders an unfair advantage over someone as difficult or impossible. I think it falls under entrapment laws in a lot of places.
This is why there are laws against things like recording someone without their knowledge. As a minimum standard, you must have a periodic beep every so many(7 I think) seconds when audio recording, and you must have a sign notifying of video recording if the camera is not obvious.
It is the same basic principle as concealed vs open carry laws. Open carry is to make the element of surprise (an unfair advantage) difficult or nearly impossible.
I mentioned my being stalked and harassed for a long time. So I will use that as an example of abuse with information.
One primary method they use is to gather information about me(of almost any kind), either in an open or public setting, or even a private one such as conversations in/around my home. ...then relay/echo/repeat that information back to me somewhere else. And almost always by using a proxy of some kind, whether it be a person who is a stranger, or maybe text or internet or whatever is available.
The basic gist of it is to let me know that I am being monitored all the time everywhere, and without me knowing of the source or origin of whoever is behind it, as well as without any stated intent or purpose. (kind of like "keep-away with a ball - you know the game) It is an extremely intimidating method that has been used by the KKK, secret societies, the FBI(COINTELPRO) and intelligence agencies, just to name a few. It is specifically designed to be virtually unprovable, untraceable, and scary as hell. It is essentially a means of exerting control over someone and harassing the shit outta them without getting caught, ..a means of isolating them and disrupting their life to the point of complete debilitation.
...to be cont. ...
...cont....
DeleteThey have been doing this to me for about 20 years. And I am not alone, as there are literally thousands of people all over the place who have voiced their knowledge and frustrations about being subjected to it.
My response has thus far been to simply play along and exude a bunch of chaotic crazy nonsense while I gather information about each individual or facet/medium being used. Then I dig deep in order to figure out how it is connected together.
For example; I encounter this person at that place, ...then a few months or weeks or days later, I encounter another one, then another at a different place(which could be almost anywhere). Then I go digging into everything and anything I need to in order to amass a data base, always looking for any/all possible connections between them. Then I do whatever I have to in order to test them as to confirm their involvement before acting on it. As I don't want to falsely accuse anyone.
It worked. It took me a long time and a lot of bullshit, but it eventually paid off. Decades later, I start showing up at people's houses or sending them emails or whatever, asking them WTF are you doing?
Most times they act scared and avoid me the best they can, or sometimes play stupid or whatever. But they're busted and they know it, and they know I am PISSED OFF about it.
But one key aspect of that is the psychology behind it and the position it puts you in. You don't know who it is or why they're doing it. If you dismiss it as no big deal, if you do not consider it as a potential threat, then you leave yourself vulnerable. Thus you must respond as if it is a potential threat and act accordingly. If you circumvent, then you have to go all out of your way to avoid it and your life is extremely disrupted. If you stalk potential suspects, you could go to jail. If you assault or kill them, you go to jail. If you call the cops or try to file charges, you cannot or will not receive legal assistance because there is nothing to substantiate it. If you tell on them or complain to the authority at hand (like an employer or such), you are the problem, a crazy paranoid lunatic, and will lose your job. If you try to expose them socially, it's the same result, and you're ridiculed via whatever social circle.
This is how information, even shit like hair color, is used to effectively ruin someone's life as it has mine.
TK,
DeleteIt's always possible I'm wrong about anything and everything, but I just can't make your argument fit reality as I see it (which could be wrong as well). I'm sincerely trying, and will continue to do so.
Because I have such great respect for you and your opinions, when you disagree with me it's a sign I need to think more deeply and try to find a way to agree with you. If nothing else, this has forced me to do a lot of thinking.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteYou're guilty of participating.
On several/a few occasions, I have watched you use this blog to make cryptic or ambiguous references to things/information that could only be obtained by physically stalking/following me around or otherwise getting into my business.
Since you are so far away, I know you are not the one doing it directly. It says that you have been used as a proxy participant.
An example that comes to mind now is using the word "gutter mouth" ...which is really referring to the name "Gutermuth", which is a key contextual reference to specific events/circumstances.
I think another one was, if I remember correctly, a suggestion to get dental work before meeting my nonexistent daughter. You don't(or shouldn't) know anything about my dental status, nor should you know anything about my nonsensical comments about a possible daughter. ...unless, of course, you and/or associates were following me around the internet or eves dropping on my private conversations.
Give me time and I will think of a few more.
We may agree on a lot of things politically, but understand that I do not like you at all because of this and consider you an adversary.
I think I'm done here. See ya.