...what I disagree with is the needless "dig" at companies that store and analyze large amounts of data, as if that somehow is invalid conduct.
The argument against building systems to amass huge databases of personal information has always been that the very existence of such systems would almost inevitably lead to abuse, through inappropriate expansion of the collection activity and through inappropriate uses of the resulting database. It's simply too tempting a target to leave unmolested.
From that point of view, storing and analyzing large amounts of data is "invalid conduct."
Current events are just history proving this out yet again.
Arguably the collection of large amounts of private data is a fundamental property of the internet and impossible to avoid. In a world of government back doors into hardware and software the difference between cloud and local is an increasingly mute point for most people; making privacy a technical improbability. If any connected device can be accessed how can invalid conduct ever be avoided?
The fundamental property of the internet is connection. Everything else is in how we use it.
The fundamental property of land is spatial relation. Using that, you can build a town of little houses, where everybody has a modest and equal helping of privacy. You can build a giant open agora, where everybody can see everybody's business. Or you can build a panoptic prison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
That is an extreme point of view that I don't agree with. I'd like to point out that these abuses weren't committed by the data holders but by the government, the same entity tasked with regulating data abuse, also as long as the user has control over their data and the ability to opt out, much of the potential threat is neutralized.
That is an extreme point of view that I don't agree with.
That's your prerogative, of course, but we're talking about the past now. It's not theoretical anymore. It has really happened, it is really happening.
I'd like to point out that theses abuses weren't done by the data holders but by the government...
You are drawing a sharp line between private enterprise and the government, but it seems like an increasingly irrelevant, imaginary distinction.
From a practical point of view, for the average user on the modern web, there never was such a distinction worth making, as it turns out. The "data holders" will rat you out to the government and the government will give orders to the "data holders" that they simply have to comply with. In many respects, the "data holders" may as well be another government office, from a privacy-minded point of view.
The argument against building systems to amass huge databases of personal information has always been that the very existence of such systems would almost inevitably lead to abuse, through inappropriate expansion of the collection activity and through inappropriate uses of the resulting database. It's simply too tempting a target to leave unmolested.
From that point of view, storing and analyzing large amounts of data is "invalid conduct."
Current events are just history proving this out yet again.