The talking point that private industry is tracking you as well is tired, and ostensibly smart people should stop trotting it out. Meta and Apple can't arrest you or secret you away to a foreign country -- at least not yet. That makes the distinction a difference.
The better talking point here is that once the data is collected, you must assume the government can get to it, always. Who actually stores it (a public or private entity) is an irrelevant implementation detail, and people pretending otherwise are being foolish.
Sure, but how is the government simply obtaining the data directly not an escalation? A subpoena at least requires an additional step and ostensible checks.
Sounds like the way they're obtaining it without a subpoena is by simply purchasing it from a commercial data broker, though. If that's true, I'd say the real problem is that a broker is willing to sell virtually anyone this data with essentially no oversight – a problem that's sadly existed for quite a while already. One of their buyers being the government isn't the first-order problem there.
Absolutely, but that doesn't erase the fact that the government gathering the information directly is an escalation. They know they can subpoena it -- that presents a hurdle. They're opting to end around said hurdle.
What does "surveilance capitalism" mean in your opponion?
Just some companies which collect unfathomable troves of data but have no incentive to clamp down individuals or manipulate democracies?
I just spilled my rhetorical counter argument...
You are right, the distinction between public or private abuse of power is futile in the end, but this doesnt mean we should put a blind eye on private corporations doing the dystopian ground work, by eg. relativizing all this with a "It could be worse. It could be the government but thank god its only palantir bundling the data, so no f'ing issue here. Calm down smart people!".
