Totally agree with you. I know people who refuse to vote, use doctors, etc, to "prevent the government getting data about them" - but are registered on Facebook, Google, carry a smartphone, etc. I don't understand how people can be so paranoid about the government, and simultaneously so trusting of large corporations.

I think people who have that view feel that corporations can't arrest you, can't seize your assets, can't restrict your travel, etc etc.

Let me tell them about two little companies called United Fruit and Standard Fruit... (now Chiquita and Dole respectively)

Like say, the East India Company?

The opposite condition also exists: I don't understand how some people can be so paranoid about large corporations, and so trusting of government. They are both merely human organizations with large powers, and subject to corruption. We should be wary of both of them.

The difference is that governments are made up of people who are voted in

That's hardly the case.

Firstly, examples of governments that have any people voted in at all are cherry-picked. Around the world, there are governments that are not voted in, or are "voted" in by a sham process which only has the external appearances of democracy.

Secondly, in democracies, a fairly common pattern is that the government consists of some seats that are voted in (parliament) plus some that are appointed (senate). The power is divided accordingly. (A minor point is that it is not uncommon for the leader of the elected party to appoint people for the uppermost staff positions: a so-called "cabinet" or whatever.)

Thirdly, government in the broad sense includes not only the parliament and senate political structure but all of the institutions of the government that actually get various things done throughout the governed region, and all the levels of bureaucracy employing large numbers of people. All of that staff is not elected; they are just people hired into positions and they generally keep those positions across government changes. That bureaucracy has considerable power of its own; not every single decision they make which affects you goes through a parliamentarian that you elected!

For one, as kazinator said in the sibling comment, even in the best democracies this is only true of a small percentage of government jobs - there are many powerful agencies and influential staff positions that are not elected and therefore not subject to the oversight of the people over whom that power is exercised.

Two, yes, many of the highest profile, and most powerful, positions are elected. And in practice, over time, this means that these positions have selected for people who are 'electable' - which has itself over time come to mean people who can raise huge amounts of campaign money. This is a deeply corruptible situation, if indeed it is not already deeply corrupted.

I agree with the idea that open public oversight is a powerful corrective, and is a major difference between private organizations and public ones with effective means for perceiving and removing corrupt officials. I think it is highly questionable to what degree the latter describes our current situation in much even of the democratized West.

He's a nasty one - my wife got a big box in the mail from Enfamil last week. "Congratulations on your new baby, here's some stuff to get you started!"

One problem. She didn't know that she had been pregnant and suffered a near fatal (to her) complication and miscarriage 7.5 months ago. Only a few parties were aware of this: My family (not posted on Facebook), two health insurance companies, the hospital, two pharmacies and the Ob/Gyn practice. Last week would have been the due date.

One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.

> One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.

I would suggest that that is not "failing to protect" private data, but "actively exploiting".