Are you more concerned with government surveillance, or private data-mining?

[Fake Boris]

Since Google's new privacy policy is effective today, let's discuss this.

Foucault once made an extremely valid and fruitful point: since the primary function of governments is to enforce property rights, the government is effectively competing with private interests selling the same "services". Case in point, the first police forces in London behaved in a similar way to private insurance (and private firefighter services), until they were "nationalized".

Let's compare to the current situation using the following axioms.

1) Developed economies have evolved from primary, then secondary and finally tertiary activity
2) It would then follow that the most valuable productive capital is neither fertile land, nor manufacturing facilities, but the actual ability to contract with tertiary sector workforce.
3) The best way to benefit from a contract is to withhold information while receiving one's consent, unless otherwise prohibited by law to do so.
4) It would then mean we are seeing a competition over enforcement of property between government and some corporations, a competition exhibited by the whole legal grey area and changes in privacy policies.

Whomever wins will be the next "government", but very possibly in a form that we would not traditionally consider one.

Who is going to win?

[giblets]

What property is Google protecting by watching our activities?

[PLATO]

All data mining without expressed consent violates the right to privacy. No matter if it is government or private.

google is no longer my preferred search engine and I will have nearly all my profiles poinying to a non-gmail address before the week is out.

[kentonio]

I think it's taking the theory too far. Despite the economic movement towards information and service economy, the core of property rights remain the right to safe person and physical property. Despite the example you used of the London police of years back, we are never going to return to that kind of model for the very reason it became obsolete in the first place. You're quite right that because of the amorphous nature of information, enforcement of rights there has become a very grey area but I'd expect it to remain so rather than to eventually fall under the remit of either government or private interests. At the core of government however remains physical rights, and those aren't likely to change any time soon.

[Jon Miller]

All data mining without expressed consent violates the right to privacy. No matter if it is government or private.

What determines that right?

JM

[The Mad Monk]

Roe v. Wade.

[Lorizael]

Hah. That was going to be my post.

[giblets]

Also, I don't think the government really competes with the private sector. London doesn't have private police and firefighters any more because London residents are being forced to pay for public police and firefighters.

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, I don't know how it would impact London. :\

[kentonio]

London doesn't have private police and firefighters any more because London residents are being forced to pay for public police and firefighters.

Don't worry, they genuinely don't mind.

[Fake Boris]

Also, I don't think the government really competes with the private sector. London doesn't have private police and firefighters any more because London residents are being forced to pay for public police and firefighters.

I am disappointed that you and others seem to be missing the point, so let me word it differently.

There is no other way to define the right to property than by saying something along the lines of "the right to property is the ability to enjoy its benefits, i.e., absent this ability, absent is the right."

By that definition, in a tertiary economy, a contract for a given service most closely corresponds to the definition, since the contract, implicit or explicit, corresponds to this ability.

Assuming a relatively high level of rule of law in modern liberal democracies, then, the closest thing to "enforcement" of property rights becomes your own skill at getting one's consent.

I will define "information discrepancy" as a major component of this skill/ability.

This would in turn mean that competent data miners, at some point will be, in a derived way, "property rights enforcers".

[giblets]

I am disappointed that you and others seem to be missing the point, so let me word it differently.

There is no other way to define the right to property than by saying something along the lines of "the right to property is the ability to enjoy its benefits, i.e., absent this ability, absent is the right."

By that definition, in a tertiary economy, a contract for a given service most closely corresponds to the definition, since the contract, implicit or explicit, corresponds to this ability.

Assuming a relatively high level of rule of law in modern liberal democracies, then, the closest thing to "enforcement" of property rights becomes your own skill at getting one's consent.

I will define "information discrepancy" as a major component of this skill/ability.

This would in turn mean that competent data miners, at some point will be, in a derived way, "property rights enforcers".

Your definition is a bad one. The right to property is being entitled to enjoy its benefits, not simply having the ability to benefit from something. Skill at getting someone's consent does not make them your property.

I don't see how Google's large stash of information makes it a "property rights enforcer" like a private police force.

[Fake Boris]

Your definition is a bad one. The right to property is being entitled to enjoy its benefits, not simply having the ability to benefit from something. Skill at getting someone's consent does not make them your property.

I don't see how Google's large stash of information makes it a "property rights enforcer" like a private police force.

1) You don't understand what a right is. Not that your definition doesn't exist, but it's plain wrong.
2) Nothing in what I said implies that people are your property. People are not your property, but the labor you buy from them is.

[Fake Boris]

I think it's taking the theory too far. Despite the economic movement towards information and service economy, the core of property rights remain the right to safe person and physical property. Despite the example you used of the London police of years back, we are never going to return to that kind of model for the very reason it became obsolete in the first place. You're quite right that because of the amorphous nature of information, enforcement of rights there has become a very grey area but I'd expect it to remain so rather than to eventually fall under the remit of either government or private interests. At the core of government however remains physical rights, and those aren't likely to change any time soon.

I feel this is the strongest objection to my theory. My hypothesis is that under rule of law, physical safety becomes a secondary concern that paves way for more refined conceptions. As such, the truth of my thesis would shatter with a real-world collapse of the system.

[giblets]

1) You don't understand what a right is. Not that your definition doesn't exist, but it's plain wrong.
2) Nothing in what I said implies that people are your property. People are not your property, but the labor you buy from them is.

You don't understand the difference between a right and a mere privilege. You also haven't explained how Google's large bank of information makes it a rival of the government...