In Switzerland there is a concept of the "private sphere" [1] and it basically implies that others do not have the right to pry into nor track that sphere. Each individual and family has their own sense of that sphere and of how large it is. Under this concept I cannot conceive of corporations monitoring and tracking people, then selling that information, as is currently done in the US. For instance, in Switzerland it is illegal to create a database on other people without their knowledge and consent.
It is stronger than the idea of "privacy" -- its intent is to completely isolate and protect parts of your life from both the political and the public, which includes the commercial. The right to property is part of it. Note that the Wikipedia description of French "vie privée" ("private life") [2] has deeper and more distinct grounding than the one on "privacy" [3] -- the latter claims that this is mainly a US/British legal conceptualization, but the idea of a private life that should be protected has strong historical and a different effective presence in several European legal systems.
"Polzer says it’s using a variety of proprietary techniques to handle the data in a way that preserves user privacy — although he won’t go into too much detail, claiming commercial sensitivity"
I don't have a whole lot to support my ideas here, other than a collection of my own ideas etc.
When your whole country is about 8.5 million people it must be difficult to ever go anywhere and be a complete stranger.
The USA seems to be such a huge land, both geographically and demographically, that I think it lends itself to a variety of groups exploiting others. I don't think The USA is a homogeneous whole.
Or, if there were a scale on which various countries could be placed to describe homogeneity The USA would be at the far end of one extreme of that scale.
I think that's why The USA seems to be such a hodgepodge of poor planning and action.
> When your whole country is about 8.5 million people it must be difficult to ever go anywhere and be a complete stranger.
I know it's not HackerNews material, but: LOL.
In a country with 8.5 million people it's not like you're living in a village with 5000 people where you know everyone. I think that once you have more than about 1 million people it's quite feasible to have perfect anonymity.
More than that, in Switzerland they speak 4 different languages (German, French, Italian and the Romance language Romansch). The communities are quite separate, it's entirely possible for your average French Swiss to not have much to do with his fellow German Swiss countrymen.
I don’t think the OP was being completely literal, and your point about language barriers is well taken, but in the context of America, Switzerland is the state of Virginia in terms of population (and about 40% of Virginia’s land area).
In that context, Swiss national politics is more akin U.S. state level politics, where there tends to be much more cohesion.
Actually, as a fiercly federalist country politics are very much comparable to a lesser corrupt US. In fact parts of the US system were implemented with the founding of the Swiss Confederation. Namely the two houses.
The principle of governance is to push as much power as possible as locally as possible. Communities and cities as well as cantons (states) in Switzerland have a lot of leeway in handling their affairs. As long there's no violation of higher principles. For example a violation of the federal constitution.
> parts of the US system were implemented with the founding of the Swiss Confederation
Specifically, on the California constitution. (The Swiss system improves on California’s referendum process by making the referenda texts non-binding as law, but binding as instructions on the legislature.)
You're inventing a past influence of California as a model for other parts of the world.
The Swiss constitution of 1848 is modeled after the US Constitution [1], not after such a thing as a Californian political model -- especially since California was not admitted to the Union until 1850... popular initiatives (not just referenda) were adopted in Zurich before spreading to other Swiss cantons and then being also adopted at the Federal level.
Come on. Switzerland has the same Federal structure, with 26 States, and municipal governments. Even the educational system is split at the State level, with barely any Federal intervention!
Maybe you should learn about other countries before claiming that your personal experience in the US is absolutely unique or completely distinct.
Oh, wow. Thanks for the link. [for those who don't grok German] That was a court decision at the State level (Bern) which claims incredibly that since the GPS tracker shows only where a vehicle is located it does not violate the protection of personal data since a person can walk away from the vehicle and no longer be tracked... I expect it will be either fixed by additional legislation or appealed to the (Federal) Supreme Court.
Home network security never took root in America because so many see themselves not as an exploited nation, but as temporarily embarrassed porn stars and reality TV stars. - Adapted from Ronald Wright
It is stronger than the idea of "privacy" -- its intent is to completely isolate and protect parts of your life from both the political and the public, which includes the commercial. The right to property is part of it. Note that the Wikipedia description of French "vie privée" ("private life") [2] has deeper and more distinct grounding than the one on "privacy" [3] -- the latter claims that this is mainly a US/British legal conceptualization, but the idea of a private life that should be protected has strong historical and a different effective presence in several European legal systems.
[1] http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/f/F16104.php
[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vie_privée
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy