Software And The Death of Privacy 190
"I am not the first to point out that capitalism, having defeated communism, now seems about to do the same to democracy. The market is doing splendidly, yet we are not."
--- Ian Frazier, "On the Rez."
All week, we visit Web sites, Weblogs, mailing lists; we download software, buy books, check out movie reviews, visit news sites, order vitamins and DVDs; download MP3s; go to chat rooms; check in on ICQ, AIM. Each time, some program is tracking our every move, compiling elaborate marketing profiles, often collating the information with vast databases and selling the resulting information without our knowledge.
Privacy, as most of us have come to understand the idea, is over.
Except to the Unabomber or to a handful of Luddites living in the desert, the idea that we can keep our personal, financial and other information from corporations and governments is as outdated as the idea that the movie industry can jail all the people helping themselves to DeCSS software.
A growing array of software makes much of our individual behavior trackable - what we buy, what we read, where we visit, how we get our information. Companies that produce and deliver banner ads can track your clicks from site to site across the Web. They can cross-reference your personal ID with records listing your name, address, telephone number, e-mail, purchasing and browsing habits.
Amazon.com has pioneered recognition software programs that compile individuals' tastes and choices over time, a technology that's been adopted by supermarkets and hardware stores, who recognize us the minute they swipe our credit cards or take our telephone numbers.
ISPs (like AOL) and portals and search engines can record which chat rooms you enter, what news pages you read, what pages you've bookmarked.
Most Americans have no idea that marketers can store their user IDs in cookie files and track their movements so precisely and comprehensively. Were a government to attempt this, politicians and civil libertarians would explode in righteous fury. But when done this gradually, technologically, out of sight and in incremental, software-driven steps, it simply creates an astonishing new social reality: Those of us who go online regularly (this year, that will be more than 130 million people) no longer have a voluntarily zone of privacy.
None of us any longer has any clear idea just how much personal information about us has been gathered, or who might have acquired or stored it. Nor is it possible to imagine all the future circumstances - applying for jobs, graduate school or government grants; fending off a lawsuit, running for political office; tangling with a law enforcement agency or court - in which this information might haunt us or be wielded against us. In the name of marketing and writing cool software, we've voluntarily surrendered one of the most important human rights. (See USA Today story on DoubleClick, Web-tracking and Slashdot.)
No national politician has made the death of privacy a major political issue, nor is any congressional committee investigating it. The truth is, it's no longer an issue; privacy in the traditional sense doesn't exist anymore. In a world where we're all increasingly dependent on networked computing for work, banking, music, movies, research and personal communications, it's unlikely ever to return.
Privacy has historically been considered a fundamental element of individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson argued repeatedly that privacy from governmental or other intrusion into personal lives (he had British soldiers in mind) was a basic human right. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "the right to be left alone is the beginning of all freedom." Said political philosopher Jean Cohen: "A constitutionally protected right to privacy is indispensable to any modern conception of freedom."
The death of privacy has been so relentless, indirect and unintended, however, as to have gone virtually unnoticed. Reporters routinely pry into the most intimate details of the lives of public figures. Computers were collecting personal data on individuals even before the Net and the Web. Spy satellites overhead collect pinpoint photographs; government technicians pull cell and wireless calls out of the air; and police forces can even trace our auto trips as we pass through digitalized toll booths.
Since the use of the Net and Web is, increasingly, no longer an option but a necessity, we surrender our privacy --- usually unknowingly. Every time we go online, some marketer learns a bit more about us or our families.
According to the Interagency Financial Institution Web Site Privacy Survey, conducted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), all of the 50 largest financial institutions online collect three or more pieces of personal or demographic information about users. The FDIC says that only eight of the 50 largest institutions meet minimal privacy data standards. That is, they fail to explain what data is being collected, allow consumers to opt out, permit access to the information, provide secure storage for the data, and provide customers a way to contact the company regarding privacy issues.
Last week, American Demographics magazine reported that new "data-mining" tools being deployed in food markets are promising to track frequent-shopper behavior both in and out of the store. The magazine reported that 46% of Americans now "swipe and save", that is, they use frequent shopper cards and programs. These digital cards are used to store customer gender, identify and age, and preferences in everything from hygiene products to junk food. They are then sold or traded for information from databases gathered by other businesses. In this way, companies can gather increasingly detailed portraits of almost everyone who uses a bank, credit or other money card, all now digitalized.
In his book "Code; and Other Laws of Cyberspace," Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that the Internet will be regulated shortly, but not in the way we've feared. "Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control, not by the government, but by software programmers helping to track our every move."
Important aspects of privacy will be erased, he warns. Password - driven software will one day demand payment for every individual reader action, from copying a paragraph to reading something more than once. Free browsing, sharing and quoting from online works will be eliminated. This will also, Lessig warns, inhibit free speech. Once Net users realize that companies like America Online can trace their movements and tailor on-screen advertising to match their habits, people will increasingly be conscious of what they say and where they say it.
If so, the future Lessig foresees will catch most Netizens (including this one) off-guard, especially the belief that copyright and intellectual property can't really be preserved as the Net and the Web grow. We haven't come to grips with the idea that the technologies most of us see as liberating are destroying our privacy.
With the collapse of Communism, which featured powerful stage agencies like the KGB and the Stasi which gathered vast amounts of personal data on citizens, the idea of brutally repressive political systems already seems remote. For better or worse, national politicians in the United States bitterly compete with one another to see who can define government in the cheapest and narrowest way. Marketers are taking advantage of this comparatively benign political period to take until-recently unimaginable liberties with our personal freedoms. So far, the corporations collecting this information have seemed relatively discreet, especially compared to brutal governments. If you pay careful attention to the Spam you get online, it's sometimes possible to see who's collecting just what kind of information about you.
And increasingly, even these image-conscious companies show their teeth. Free music sites are being shut down; a Norwegian teenager gets hauled off to the police station for allegedly violating restrictions on DVD programming code.
As for governments, the geeks and nerds who've grown up on the Net have encountered almost comically clueless ones. When it comes to repression - as in the Communications Decency Acts and Congressional votes requiring the Ten Commandments in schools - our government has been about as knowing and menacing as the Three Stooges. It's easy to understand why people struggle to take it seriously. But that hasn't always been the case. Personal privacy is a monumental safeguard against abuse of governmental authority. The distance between corporate and government computers is a very short one.
For a malevolent government - the kind Jefferson worried about, and the reason the Bill of Rights was crafted in the first place - it would be radically simple to figure out who the "troublemakers" are, what forbidden books they bought, or what politically unacceptable movies they viewed (they wouldn't have to go much further than AOL/Time-Warner). Access to this kind of information ought not be passed around among corporations. If citizens wish to give up their privacy, they obviously have the right to do so. But they ought to be given a choice. Shockingly, it's already too late for that.
This issue now permeates almost every level of American society. In the name or preventing violence, schools use computer software programs to gather information on potentially "violent" students, kids that teachers find disturbing or alarming. No one knows where this data goes - presumably to law enforcement authorities, where it remains in secret digital files for life.
The tragedy of technology is that we refuse, as a society, to consider its implications, from fertility drugs and genetic research to artificial intelligence to supercomputing.
While our political, educational and media institutions focus obsessively on exaggerated or meaningless issues like the spread of sexual imagery, or invoke the undocumented specter of media violence, larger and more fundamental issues like the loss of privacy go largely undiscussed.
Thus hard-won values slip away without much national discussion or debate. This genie is probably never going back into the bottle. Given the epidemic spread of data-tracking software, it's hard to imagine we'll ever have "the right to be left alone" again.
Privacy as a commodity (Score:2)
I haven't seen any companies willing to publish what they do with our data, perhaps that should be the law? Any ideas?
People don't care (Score:1)
I recently tried this law out after I had recieved some junk mail. From the address of the database company I looked up their phone number and called them to request them to restrict my information. When I talked to them they told me that they did not have any procedures for handling my request. The company had been selling people's addresses for at least ten years and I was the first adressee ever to have contacted them.
Seems like most people either don't care or they don't seem to know about these things.
The Death Of Privacy (Score:5)
Premature, for sound-bite effect.
Privacy CAN exist on the Internet, as it stands. It's very, very easy.
Re:Fight the man! (Score:1)
To most people, privacy beyond simple things like "not peeking in my curtains at night" is just not that important. They'd rather have the savings and the convenience. And "they" outnumber "us" to such a degree that "our" activities are basically lost in the noise. We have no effect on marketing and data collection at all.
How do I know this? Simple - if there were enough of us to make a difference, the marketers wouldn't be relying on it.
We can protect ourselves, but we can't protect the culture we live in. The culture we live in tomorrow is going to be irrevocably shaped by the presence a clicktrail through one's entire life. Yes, I can turn off cookies, fake up web identities, lie on surveys, and publicly mock advertisements. But that's not enough. For example: the Discovery Channel has six or eight splinter channels available only on digital cable. They are, in my opinion, the only channels worth owning a TV for. But here's the rub - the digital cable box sends a report on everything I do back to AT&T/TCI. They know what shows I watch, how late I stay up at night, probably even what ads cause me to change the channel. The only way I can keep them from knowing is to cancel my digital subscription and go back to analog, in which case I lose those channels. So my choice is this: submit to being monitored, or don't get the spiffy channels. And no amount of arguing or making up of false identities can change that.
How many more of those decisions will we have to make in the next twenty years?
The simple fact is that it doesn't matter whether we can come up with technical workarounds to tracking technology. Most people can't, and wouldn't care enough to try even if we were to show them how. And as far as the people who are doing the tracking are concerned, "most people" are all the people that matter.
-Mars
Re:Tired old rant (Score:2)
The company I work for knows when I come in and when I leave.
My bank knows where I go when I leave town.
The phone company knows who my friends are and where they live.
If I had a cellphone, like everyone else in this city seems to, the phone company would know where I was at all times.
If I used a cable-modem, they would know which websites I visited and when.
Privacy isn't dead?
-Mars
Re:Puzzling argument... (Score:1)
They're also constitutionally guaranteed to be able to walk across the street, but that doesn't mean you don't watch out for trucks. Besides, in most cases you're talking about people who willingly give up information. I allow the NY Times to know who I am because I want to read the paper. So give a bogus name and address if you want! It doesn't usually matter.
And people who are not knowledgeable, which is still most Americans when it comes to the Net, have no way of protecting themselves
That's where the lawsuits against these companies like DoubleClick come into play. Otherwise you might as well lobby for a Ministry of Privacy which, of course, would know everything about everyone.
Re:Katz once again jumps the gun on making claims. (Score:4)
The problem is: how many net users fall under the definition of "knowledgeable"?
We Slashdot users have a sort of tunnel vision in this subject, because most of us know what cookies are for, how can they be used, etc., so we tend to see this as less of a problem than what it actually is. But go out and ask the average citizen who just installed AOL and "just wants to use this net stuff". Their browsers have cookies activated, and they don't even know it. Nor they care. And they are currently the majority of the users.
And the same could be applied to many other technologies that one couldn't even imagine (not just cookies), over which we have much less control. For example, cell phones. (Disgression: some years ago the chechenian leader Dudayev (sp?) was killed by a russian missile while talking on a cell phone with Moscow authorities to discuss a possible peace treaty. When it happened, most media published that Dudayev had been traced "thanks to his cell phone"... and yet nobody made a big deal about it. Every newspaper seemed to treat the fact that They can trace you thanks to a cell phone as something completely natural. If that's what you can expect from the media that is supposedly responsable of educating the public...)
Re:real privacy (Score:2)
Isn't that rather inconsiderate towards the person running the FTP server? They would like to know your address so that they can contact you if you're hogging bandwidth or otherwise messing up the server for other users. You could create a new address just for this purpose, of course. But realistically, how many FTP sites are collecting addresses for spam or marketing anyway?
Heart beat (Score:1)
Yes, privacy is dying, yadda yadda. I can just flip on 60 minutes or surf to doubleclick.net for the 411 on that. How about contributing something meaningful - like how to protect it.
Jon Katz: Stating the Obvious (again).
You seem to be staying awake (Score:1)
Privacy policies.. (Score:1)
Perhaps a start is to not do business online with companies that don't have clearly stated privacy policies...
Smart but not easy (Score:1)
Not simple.. (Score:1)
The Truth About Jon Katz! (Score:1)
He's handsome, wise and a legendary programmer (though secretly)
Whoa guppy.. (Score:1)
I find this distinction pretty much of a stretch. People are what they read, buy and see. I can't see sloughing off the loss of privacy as insignificant because it only..for now..relates to products. Besides, history is unpredictable. Nobody knows how this information ultimately will be used..It's a huge loss for society.. And you can see from many of the sadly arrogant comments here that people are willing to give privacy up without much of a tussle. In fact, they have.
Over-written,b ut right (Score:1)
Yes, that's the point. (Score:1)
Almanac, more than 133 million people will have access to the Net. I find the idea strange that privacy isn't important, if only half the country loses it. And those not online can still be tracked, just in different ways.
Ah, the Nothing New Argument... (Score:1)
One of the favorite criticisms on
Greg is partly right this time. (Score:1)
Interesting that Greg wants to join the ranks of the "antiKatz" (what an interesting term) because he disagrees with a column I've written. Can't we just disagree? Ideas are intensely personalized here..I don't think it's healthy.
This isn't a fear tactic. This is a real issue, whether one agrees with me or not. Privacy has always been considered a fundamental human freedom and a lot of people - by no means just me -- are worried about it's erosion. I feel corporations are getting too big and are too poorly unmonitored. If that belief sparks an "antiKatz" I'll be happy to go down...
Puzzling argument... (Score:2)
The fact that companies don't get info on us 100 per cent correctly is besides the point. For one thing, they're getting better all the time. Does their info have to be 100 per cent correct before it becomes a problem?
Knowledgeable people shouldn't have to take steps to protect privacy that is constitutionally guaranteed them...And people who are not knowledgeable, which is still most Americans when it comes to the Net, have no way of protecting themselves. I think we can do a lot about it, BTW.But that's not for me to dictate.
Captain Obvious! Yes.. (Score:2)
Re:The answer is here (Score:1)
- Your primary computer isn't a Macintosh
- Your primary computer isn't a Sun or SGI workstation.
- Your primary computer doesn't have a DEC ALPHA.
- Your primary computer an x86-based PC.
- You don't run Windows NT on it.
- You don't run BeOS on it.
- You don't run Linux or BSD on it.
- You don't run anything other than Windows 95/98 on it.
- You don't want to run Internet Connection sharing.
- You don't want Virtual Private Networking.
- You don't play any IPX games online.
- In fact the only protocol you run is TCP/IP.
- You don't use AOL (like most net-connected Americans do).
- You are particularly bothered by viruses (no PC-Cillin for you).
So, the answer to lack of privacy is to run one of the least stable operating systems (Gads, not even WindowsNT!) on the planet, using only one protocol, no connection sharing, and not use America's most popular (not that I care about not being able to use them, my company's a competitor...) ISP. Ohhhhkay.Re:Fight the man! (Score:1)
My web browsers do not accept cookies, and Cookie Monster helps me with that. Personally, I have no traceable web presence. However, there are always sites that require a username/e-mail address.
I remember the good old days when cookies were a good thing, except the mass hysteria about letting a web page write to your hard drive (like Netscape can't do that already).
But I'll point out that there are some sites that use cookies for no reason other than conveniance. On my page [tdhosting.com] for example, I use cookies. I'm going to re-code it so that it doesn't *require* them to (bad implementation of a good idea), but the cookie my page sets is one of conveniance.
When you hit my page for the first time, you'll see a poem [tdhosting.com]. I used to have Invictus, but now it's The Raven.
After you read the poem (or scroll to the bottom), you click on the link to the main page. The link has an HREF="/", which is where you already are, but since the server sets a cookie, you get the main page of my site instead of the poem, and never see the poem again, unless you don't come back for 30 days, delete the cookie, or I change the poem.
Here's what my cookie looks like:
cdslash.tdhosting.com FALSE FALSE 951471364 Raven 1Pretty harmless, I think. I set a cookie Raven=1 if you've seen the poem already, and you never have to see it again (which, I think, is a good approach to splash pages). I'm going to re-code it so that any cookie-denying browsers have my cookie policy explained to them, and a link to the main page shown, but until then, my cookies aren't a privacy issue, they're a bad-requirement issue.
The ironic thing is that if I wanted to do it without cookies, I'd have to implement a tracking database somehow, which would be even worse. *sigh* Oh well. I'll just have to fix it up I guess.
~Sentry21~
Were Amazon first? (Score:1)
Re:Whoa guppy.. (Score:1)
I believe Guppy is right - corporations don't care who you are at all. There is no humane or personal interest there, which is at least partly why they behave so badly. They deal with numbers, (OK, consumption units), not people.
And Jon - yes, what I read buy and see is at least partly who I am, and if I read too much Ralph Nader & Noam Chomsky and watch too much John Pilger, or subscribe to the Socialist Workers Party magazine, maybe one day some bloated and poweful corporation will label me a troublemaker and cut off my internet access.
But you should not make the same mistake of depersonalising people.
Buy a house (Score:2)
Agent 32
Re:Its a TOOL. Not only for corporations (Score:1)
FUCK THA MAN
instead.
Its a TOOL. Not only for corporations (Score:3)
DeCSS - Sure, there was a biased and illegal interpretation of law to suit the MPAA. But did that mean an end to its dissemination? No, in fact, it had quite the opposite effect. This was due to the net and the power of one in this medium.
Technology will always be used for a variety of purposes, only some of which will be good, only some of which you will enjoy or approve of. But technology will always be in your hands as well. If there was ever a time when a single person, or a small active group could have a wide impact and audience, IT IS NOW. And this will only increase.
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD
The key to this new power and influence IS the individual. Dont wait for a non profit organization with your beliefs to crop up, fighting for freedom or against corporate or government ills. Start a list serv, make a site, sign petitions, search the web for resources that you could contribute to.
If you want to see change happen, the web is the best place to start. It is your information resource, and your medium to communicate with millions on a level basis.
Wake up people, not only has government and corporate power increased. Yours has too.
Use it.
Spam the databases (Score:1)
Yes, I'm a midget, transexual, she-male, who enjoys rugby and Chanel #5
I don't recomend doing this on your taxes though.
Getting paranoid (Score:1)
Let me think:
1. What can credit-card companies do with all the payslips: they know where you do your shopping!
2. You've got a discount card of your local supermarket? I do. The supermarket probably knows my shopping behaviour better than I do.
3. Even received the envelop with a questionair? You did return it? Yet another entry in the database.
4. Returned that fill-in form for warranty on a product? Yep, here we go again.
5. Ever done some work for charity? President of your local sport club? It's noted somewhere...
6. This list is enless.
There is a statistic for the Netherlands (where I live) that says that a name appears in 400 databases on avarage. Those who didn't realize that this is happening must have been blind that last 2 decades. The only thing the internet added to this is the even finer granularity.
Marco (with yet another public entry that can be traced).
Corporations aren't really interested in you... (Score:1)
One of the saving graces of our current system is that that corporations aren't really interested in *you*, though. When they track this info, they aren't interested in you, the person, only in how much food you eat, TV you watch, clothes you buy, etc... So far as they're concerned, you are just a unit of consumption -- your ideology and beliefs are irrelevant, except when they can be used to sell you Stuff (TM).
It's still an invasion of privacy, and still scary -- no one likes to live in a glass house. Anyway, Katz makes the point that government is losing power to the corporation -- but this doesn't have to change the fundamental nature of our government, just make it smaller.
Avoiding privacy loss (Score:1)
I seldom fill out forms on the internet which include my name, address, phone, email.
You can still have as much privacy on the internet as you are willing to have. Most people actually prefer the convenience of cookies to protecting their privacy.
And actually, collecting data about web surfers is a far cry from an actual invasion of privacy. The only data the "offending" parties can get is data the you GIVE them. If you worry about privacy, just don't submit any personal data over the net. The most anyone can get from you is generic data that won't point it's finger back to you (without a warrant, that is.)
Re:Related sources for hard facts (Score:2)
One important book which was ahead of its time is Oscar Gandy's The Panoptic Sort (Westview Press 1993). This is also well worth reading as a socio/political overview of these issues. The Panopticon, as you'll recall, was Jeremy Bentham's notion of a circular prison with a central guard tower from which all activity in every cell could be watched constantly.
Gandy writes:
The panoptic sort is the name I have assigned to the complex technology that involves the collection, processing, and sharing of information about individuals and groups that is generated through their daily lives as citizens, employees, and consumers and is used to coordinate and control their access to the goods and services that define life in the modern capitalist economy.
The panoptic sort is a system of disciplinary surveillance that is widespread but continues to expand its reach. The operation of the panoptic system is guided by a generalized concern with rationalization of social, economic, and political systems. The panoptic sort is a difference machine that sorts individuals into categories and classes on the basis of routine measurements. It is a discriminatory technology that allocates options and opportunities on the basis of those measures and the administrative models that they inform . . . The panoptic sort is a system of actions that governs other actions. The panoptic sort is a system of power.
This is only the general thesis of the book; Gandy goes well beyond the usual ivory-tower theorizing to talk about practicalities in government and commercial use of databases and other technology. It's a useful companion to the books by Garkinfel and Diffie and Landau, who unfortunately seem unaware of Gandy's pioneering analysis.
-------
Re:Smart but not easy (Score:1)
No, it is not....at least not now. But, thanks to the 'dead hands' tapping away at 'puters both within and outside the
Think about this: before browsers, was there a usable internet? Of course. Was it 'really easy for most people'? Nope. But it is now, and that particular genie is now busting ass to keep itself out of the bottle.
Because the stakes are so high, the privacy 'arms race' will inevitably escalate, with each new 'mouse trap' forcing the creation of new and better 'mouse trap avoidance' software; sort of a DeCSS in reverse...and because the market demands it, it will be easy, safe and (relatively) cheap.
Re:The truth about Jon Katz! (Score:1)
RE: The right to be left alone (Score:1)
I had never heard this quote before, and I'm glad John posted it. What I would like to focus on now is much later in the article, where he says "The distance between corporate and government computers is a very short one.
Exactly right. This is one of the key issues we need to understand and be up in arms about. As corporate America seeks to gain an increasingly tight stranglehold around the influences which move government America (witness the unbelievably large contributions to election coffers on both sides of the political fence via "soft money", the unwillingness of the federal judiciary to open up their records (which would assist in insuring that a specific judge a "conflict of interest" by ruling in cases where he/she owns stocks, etc. ). Folks, that's all three branches of the government which can be corrupted by the money available to big business. IMHO we haven't faced an us (individuals from all walks of life) vs. them (big companies, extremely rich, powerful people (whose wealth is in those big companies) battle like this since the extremely violentm early part of the 20th century.
Wake up folks!! This is a war for freedom(s) that we can't afford to lose.
this is nothing new... (Score:1)
Now if I decide to buy a twelve pack of MGD instead of a couple bottles of Grolsch, and "THEY" decide to track it, then fine, fill up that server database HD space with a few more bits on me. I really have nothing to hide as a consumer, And frankly I welcome the day that I dont need to watch a tampon commercial if I am the one watching the Xfiles
But if I as an individual decide I need to have privacy, I wont be logged into AOL, banking online with WellsFargo, getting toilet paper with the SafewayClub card, buying gas at Shell with the Shell MilagePlus Credit Card, or even getting power from a groundline. As an individual I live differently, I have a few POBoxes with different names, use snail mail (because email NEVER has been secure) get power from generators, always pay with cash, barter alot for cash, and eat a shit-load of homegrown tomatos.
Privacy is still exactly where it was 10 years ago, its just that the tracking is more obvious, and more people are becoming aware of it. As far as "EVER GOING BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS" attitude
Get a clue, dont fool yourself
rm -rf microsoft*
Privacy was dying... (Score:2)
The death of privacy has been so relentless, indirect and unintended, however, as to have gone virtually unnoticed. Reporters routinely pry into the most intimate details of the lives of public figures.
That's right. And reporters were prying into those most intimate details long before there were computers or the web or to make their job easier.
Economic reality, not software, has made possible the death or privacy. If something - say f'rinstance the intimate details of peoples' lives - become valuable, people, governments, and corporations will try to obtain it, and then use or sell it. In the past, one had to be famous before details of ones private life became valuable. But the privacy-killing forces were still at work. They've just grown to the point where they affect damn near anyone who buys or sells anything.
This doesn't apply in other countries though (Score:2)
There are several fundemental differences in the cultural environment between the US and Europe that contributed to the demise of privacy:
* US = extreme paranoia by the government that extremist states will attack (Iraq, Cuba, etc.) This has contributed to the lack of strong encryption here
* US = no clearly defined constitutional right to privacy
Unless these are changed I feel that the US may become the most restrictive country in the world.
real privacy (Score:4)
This is all good advice in general, but a lot of it is irrelevant to the ways that modern corporations keep tabs on us. Encrypting all of your data -- via PGP, IPsec, SSH, or what-have-you -- is a smart thing to do but doesn't really interfere with the traffic that marketers watch. It doesn't alter your demographic profile or your click-through trail.
Moreover, marketers are already using other tricks to find out who you are. DoubleClick tracks you with a cookie every time you load one of their images. You don't even need to click through the ads for them to know who you are.
A modified list, focusing on how to stay anonymous to corporate interests:
It's not actually that easy. It is often difficult to get information that you need by registering a user account on a vendor's web site, or creating a big pile of cookies, or running some JavaScript applet, or doing something else to give up your identity. Tools like Cookie Monster and JunkBusters make it easier. But it's not easy.
Re:The Death Of Privacy (Score:1)
At best, we're evolving towards a world in which some people are able to maintain someprivacy by building up large electronic shields to protect themselves, while the vast majority have effectively no privacy at all. What the real social implications of this are remains unclear; privacy is a relatively new concept in human history, and it's entirely possible it won't be missed much.
Privacy from whom? (Score:1)
The US is, to put it mildly, ambivalent about this. Which is more dangerous, corporations who invade your privacy or a government which does?
Re:Fight the man! (Score:1)
Just to mess with them, I purchase one 'non-sequitor' each month. I know that they look at trends, but when instead of chips and beer and red meat, they see a vegetarian tofu meal, I just hope that it makes them think.
Let's face it. It is impossible to hide.
Identity Theft is the Other Theat (Score:3)
If you ever wanted to make somones life living hell, steal their identity, raun up a bunch of bills and then watch them squirm the rest of their life.
This has happened to people all over the United States and they are having a terrible time try to put their lives back together...
Isn't privacy almost exactly what it used to be? (Score:1)
The only difference between then and today is that today's know-it-alls haven't (yet) become gossips.
When I can go to amazon.com and buy a list of roblimo's book purchases, then it's time to worry. Of course, by then it may be too late to worry...
CBS 60 Minutes story from long ago (Score:2)
They got a man and wife to give all their cancelled checks for one year to a private investigator.
The PI loved it, he wished he could get that detailed information on all cases.
Does your bank return cancelled checks?
Open up the spigot. (Score:1)
Like it or not, information that we enter into a website or reveal to the power company, phone company, grocery store or other organization is not private.
Individuals rarely have a sense of the bargain involved in information interchange. When I give a bookstore my address to ship books to me, the bargain is that they will have my home address, and they will use it to ship me the books. Likewise, when you use your credit card, you are implying that you expect your purchases to be tracked, at least for billing, if nothing else.
In this age of diminished privacy it is important to draw a distinction between information which is and should be truely private and other information such as mouse clicks, home address, posts on slashdot, or taste in music, which may not be private if you allow outside agents access to it.
The privacy debate may just end up another tower of babel, if individuals don't police their own information.
John
A different view (Score:1)
You Let This Happen
All this data didn't just appear. Those companies got your email address somehow didn't they? You had to fill out a form somewhere, you had to click the "Submit" button or what have you. If you keep cookies turned on, and javascript chuggin in the background, that's your own fault. And as far as "less informed" users go, their ignorance is what these information-gathering companies thrive on. If they don't know better, then that is their fault. Everyone acts like this data about them just "materializes" somewhere. You clicked on the ads, and you filled out the forms. I don't get spam, you know why? Because I don't give my email address anywhere I don't think is 100% safe. But Joe-Shmoe user don't care, he'll give his to anyone with a form and a 'Click Here' button. That's his ignorance. That's his fault. Blame the companies, blame the internet, blame the media.
If you don't want the supermarkets to get all this information on you, don't sign up for the "value" cards. They want to know this information, just as companies like DoubleClik do. It helps them out, it makes them money. And I can just see someone trying to explain to a company such as DoubleClik about how they should respect users, and not calculate all this information about them. And I can guarantee they'll laugh you right out the door. And they're laughing now: all the way to the bank.
I know this isn't going to be the most well-recieved opinion, but its true. Data doesn't appear, you are responsible for you. Your privacy starts in one place, and that's right where your standing. If you don't want them to know, turn the crap off, and don't fill out anything. Then you have nothing to worry about. If your ignorance causes you to be on a list somewhere about where you went last week and what prono you like, then educate yourself, and whine later.
thanks
Evan Erwin
Systems Administrator
The Citizens Bank of East Tennessee
The answer is here (Score:1)
eh (Score:2)
And at least corporations are composed of actual people. As for the personification of natural features, who is to say whether it would actually level the playing field away from corporations? Who is to say whether the marsh would or would not rather be developed into a condominium? Surely the marsh can't speak for itself, and why should we favor the opinion of the environmentalists over the developers? Why should we assume that the marsh would favor preservation instead of development? Perhaps the marsh sees development in the same way a human child sees accademic development; surely we shouldn't let children remain ignorant, so why not marshes? Maybe they don't like being so smelly.
My belabored point there is that changing the principles of standing according to Douglas's proposal wouldn't actually benefit the legal system any. We'd just be back to square one where we try to figure out which of two competing human interests should be favored.
Brandeis, not Douglas! (Score:3)
The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most prehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Yes, Douglas used Olmstead to support his landmark Griswold v. Connecticut decision, but to allow that fact to transfer the authorship of this quote would be the same as allowing me to usurp Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind" quote by quoting him when I myself step onto the moon decades later (what an interesting prospect!).
As for Douglas, while I appreciate many of his authored or concurring decisions, there were times when he behaved either repugnantly (Hirabayashi v. US: Japanese-American internment camps are A-OK!) or terminably sillily (Sierra Club v. Morton: Rivers and streams and mountains ought to have standing conferred onto them so that they themselves can sue people in court -- the ultimate (and misguided) form of personification).
Re:Andover is tracking people too (Score:1)
Not everyone tolerates assholes as willingly as CT&&Hemos.
-russ
Re:Stupid moderators (Score:1)
-russ
Unicard -- the End of Privacy (Score:2)
Stupid moderators (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Fight the man! (Score:1)
As to invisible friends - I started doing this a few years ago. Robert Dexx showed up and started doing all my net stuff for me.
As to my store club cards - I've got the cards, but I don't fill out the applications (this can be done if you tell the cashier that you don't have a card, but would really, really like one and could she activate it now so that you can get the points from your current purchase and don't worry you'll fill out the form and take it over to customer service right away.)
-Dexx
"And ten billion sushi dinners cried out for vengeance." -Good Omens
Thank you, Captain Obvious! (Score:1)
Now when can we see a joyous article about the death of Jon Katz' net access? If I wanted to read drivel like this I would go stop by the local Junior High School.
Privacy is only as dead as you let it be. If you want to keep your life private, make use of IP masquerading. If you are cautious, you can severely limit the amount of data you give away (that's right, you're giving it away, they aren't sneaking into your house and going into your wallet..)
I think we need to form a petition to discontinue Jon Katz' articles on
Am I mistaken or have I seen Senor Katz' articles on Salon in the past? He fits in well there, with the exception of Andrew Leonard, there are nigh-unto zilch in quality articles there.
I wouldn't be so vicious about this but I don't think he (Katz) even tries to write quality articles. If he does, more's the pity.
...dave
Re:Captain Obvious! Yes.. (Score:1)
I should expect that you would just dismiss me out of hand and not offer any actual rebuttle.
The fact remains, if you wish to protect your privacy, you can do so. No one is in a black car following you around, sitting outside your house with one of those radiation devices that lets them see whatever is on your monitor (the name of the damn things escapes me.), etc. etc.
Granted this requires a lot of caution (as i said before), but it is entirely possible without holing yourself up in a shack in the Yukon.
If you want the convenience of ordering things on-line, then it's unavoidable that you send your data to the company you're buying goods from,.. if you don't want your info spread around, deal with reputable companies, if you must do it at all.
I really don't care who has my address, phone number, name, et cetera. It's when they can make use of that information in malicious ways that I have a problem, and it's these malicious activities that need to be stopped (ie, telemarketing, e-mail spam, junk mail..)
I'm glad you like the title, if anyone deserved it, certainly, it's you.
...dave
(P.S. to the AC who had this sig in usenet in 1991, I'm not sure where I saw it but it very well could have been you...)
What can we do? (Score:1)
I see chaos as the answer. Not anarchistic chaos but creative chaos. If they all want to know, to what websites we're surfing, what interests us customers and the like, hell, tell them!
Okee, this rather sounds like a troll, so let me explain. Of course you don't only tell them where you really surf and what you do on the internet but give them as much data as you can. It doesn't matter if the data actually is plausible or not. Just feed them with data.
For example: Cookies are great for that. Why not load it into your favourite texteditor and mess around with all those information? See it as like sending postcards from places you've never been.
This is what the principia discordia talks about (I'm not sure, but how can one be sure about discordian principles anyway). Generate as much information until noone can tell whether a fact is true or false.
The principia discordia can be found here:
http://www.discordia.ch/principia/
Re:Need clarification (Score:2)
209.207.224.40 - - [2/Feb/2000:13:33:59 -0500] "GET /pr0n/favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 217
I can track that IP address, and know who bookmarked the pr0n.
Post's Rebuttal to Lessig [was:Re:Smart...] (Score:2)
Professor David Post wrote "What Larry Doesn't Get: A Libertarian Response to Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" [temple.edu] just recently. It's quite a good read*.
While it hasn't gotten nearly the net.hype Professor Lessig's work did (Post is not from Hahvahd, after all, I think he's from Temple) but I think it's well-done. (I'd be interested in any Lessig rebuttals to that Post rebuttal, though.)
JMR
* I assume that my mention of the dreaded "L. word" will cause downward moderation, and I also don't care.
Fighting Back at the State Level, NOW! (Score:1)
http://prodigy-news.excite.com/news/zd/000131/0
The geist of the article is that the states are fighting where the federal government has rolled over and exposed itself. Laws are being devised and passed in VT, CA, and NY (why only these three?) to protect the citizens from having their information shared between companies. As far as the article goes, this relates to affiliate companies. This not information selling, but information sharing.
You have to realize that this is a battle that has begun and it can be won by us, the lowly tax-paying, VOTING citizen. The article mentions that a VT congressman is being pressured by the banks to not pass the law. If the law passes and they don't have the information they want, then they will have to raise their rates and fees. And do not forget the flipside is that these businesses are the ones that are filling your congressman's purse. Does his purse need to be that full? If no, vote against him!
Most of you reading this are of voting age, and sorrily I have come to realize that it isn't you don't vote for the right person, but sometimes it is necessary to vote against the wrong person. (Sometimes you get lucky and there is someone you want in office.) The elections are coming up. Do a little homework, surf the net and read the paper, and find out who is concerned with protecting your privacy, or who is more concerned with selling you out. This is not going to happen at the national level where it should be. If it happens at the state level though, it will prompt those higher up Sens and Reps to wake up and do something for the whole country. Remember that your vote does make a difference when the person represents you to the state. And the politicians need to feel the pressure of their constituents, not the companies.
I don't care how you do it, but go out and do it. Write a letter in five minutes, find his or her address on the net in two minutes, and mail it for all of 33 cents. Or call...takes five minutes. Or email, takes two minutes. How much is your privacy worth to you in dollars and minutes?
(Note to IL readers. Gov. Ryan has been featured many times for being a sneaky sh%t while Sec't of State. How much of your info at the DMV is only there? Do you really want this guy as Gov?)
Katz's day (courtesy of A3): (Score:1)
Re:Katz's day (OT!): (Score:1)
<BR><BR>
Jon, wake up and smell the Lack of Privacy (Score:1)
It is true that you are being tracked, even by companies which say they have privacy restrictions on your data. A recent study in California found that the overwhelming majority of medical web sites have privacy statements saying that they won't keep info on you, but they do track you and collect your name, email, phone, and anything else they can get, and pass it on to third parties.
It is a real problem, but Jon is not describing it correctly. Let someone else post these things, ok? Don't go for that last shred of egoboo, let the real facts speak for themselves and let us draw the obvious conclusions.
Re:Privacy is dead - good riddance (Score:2)
Yes; that's one reason we have an advanced civilization and they had a primitive one.
What we do need is reciprocal transparency - we need to know what corporations, governments, and the Men In Black are up to.
Sure, and I need a warp-speed runabout that fits in a parking space, a couple of babes Jello-wrestling for my affections, and the missing lines of Coleridge's "Kubla Khan". That doesn't mean that I base my plans around the expectation of getting them.
Get out there and videotape someone important.
Enjoy the resulting harassment, problems at work, tax audits, etc. resulting from the inevitable government abuse of the information-gathering capabilities you endorse.
And for a more interesting view on privacy, check out David Brin's The Transparent Society - worth a million Katz articles.
Only if you're one of the many on Slashdot (not quite including myself) who considers Katz articles to be worthless if not downright detrimental.
As was pointed out at great length and detail in previous /. threads, Brin displayed profound clue deprivation concerning counter-surveillance tech and the unwillingness of governments to abide by the laws they make for the rest of us.
/.
Re:Uncle Mickey wants you! (Score:2)
They've done a good job of camoflaging their prisons.
/.
Re:Privacy, Technology, Freedom state of the union (Score:2)
People want the freedom to engage in any peaceful (definition: not infringing upon the rights of others) activities, privacy, and security. There is nothing at all contradictory about this; for obvious reasons, non-peaceful activities are inherently non-private, as the victim (or his friends) will find out about them from their direct impact.
This somebody moderated up as "insightful"?
/.
Privacy in the aggregate vs. Individual privacy (Score:1)
What is worrisome is the collatoral ability to create an individual profile from the available data can result in someone finding out not only my shopping habits, but my bank balance and whether or not I like to look at pictures of naked teenagers peeing on each other.
Tired old rant (Score:2)
Anyone that thinks the net has stopped evolving and the Web browser is the pinnacle of the information food chain is sorely mistaken. The economics of the entire Internet are about to be upset radically by software that puts end users back in control of the information flow on the net. Until now, they've only had meager tools like Web browsers to work with. Once everyones' desktop includes some peer to peer software, strong agent capabilities, and richer media formats, the whole click and surf metaphor will be dead. And it'll take all the spammers, advertisers, profilers, and cookie vendors along with it.
Just wait and see. And in the meantime, please stop playing this broken "privacy-is-dead" record. It's simply feel-good fear mongering on your part, since it isn't really true.
Re:Privacy, Technology, Freedom state of the union (Score:2)
Re:I WANT to be profiled... (Score:2)
Do you really think that all these companies are dumb enough to spend millions on advertizing that doesn't influence buying? Forget it. The ad companies even have a target demographic for people who think they're too smart for advertizing to affect them.
We are programed by our genes and by our environment, nothing else. Every bit of information that goes into your mind programs it a little bit. You have the opportunity to choose your programming; choose carefully.
Suggested further reading: Adbusters [adbusters.org].
Re:Uncle Mickey wants you! (Score:2)
The military-industrial complex has grown into the government-megacorporate complex. It's getting impossible to tell where one ends and the other starts.
Re:Captain Obvious! Yes.. (Score:1)
You have stated the obvious and thrown the observation to the dogs who have torn it apart very well. Unfortunately, in their gleeful tearing, the dogs have offered no obvious solutions (yet).
Hopefully a keen insight or two will emerge from the yappings of the pack. In that case your statement of the obvious will have helped us to see where the not so obvious solution may lie.
Captain Obvious Indeed!
-M
Ian Frazier (Score:1)
--
I always knew... (Score:1)
U.S gov already is communistic (read and see) (Score:1)
1.Abolition of private property (You don't own your land UNLESS you have Allodial title)
2. Heavy progressive income tax. (30% isn't heavy?!)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Estate tax)
4. Confiscation of property of all emigratns and rebels.
5. Central bank. (Federal Reserve)
6. Government control of Communication and Transportation (FTC, and Driver's License)
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture. (Governments grant business license's)
8. Government control of labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
10. Government control of education (Public schools.)
Hmm, seems like our democratic US is already on the way there
Sad isn't it.
Nothing will change (Score:1)
Privacy is not impossible! (Score:1)
This is why I believe people should go and read about EROS (www.eros-os.org), an OS that can SOLVE this problem, if ONLY enough of the well-known GPL effort goes into its implementation. It is not YAO (Yet another OS), it is 'The' OS design. Putting EROS aside and ignoring its design is giving up on ever having real security. EROS has a secure design that achieves the once considered impossible - it can mathamatically prove security (of the software system), which I find quite amazing.
What EROS needs right now is for GPL programmers to go and start hacking.
Save the privacy, save security, develop EROS!
Related sources for hard facts (Score:5)
Re:Not Just the Usual Suspects (Score:1)
You're still letting the spammers have at you. (Score:3)
--
We start defending ourselves instinctively ... (Score:1)
I always dutifully fill these forms out. To tell you the truth: I don't have a problem with this kind of forms, and I always try to comply with the rules:
Name: azuirozehjkl
First Name: aomjiazeruio
Address1: azozeruiozeuiro 32b
Address2: auirozeuirozeuioazer
City: ezuioreioapzeuir
Zip: 732837
Country: Greece
Phone: 7890798078978
Fax: 8977899078789
email: c_u_nt@hotmail.com
I've been doing this for 2 years now, and it has always worked. The rules are:
* What you give up as "name" and "first name", that is, what you want to be called by this company, when they refer to you, should be alfanumeric.
* "Address1" and "Address2" should be alphanumeric ane should be the place where you want them to send ordinary mail for you.
* "Zip" usually zip is validated against the idea that it should be numeric.
* "Country" should be a country, and part of the list of countries as registered by the UN General Assembly. There are only around 200 valid countries. You must enter in this field what country you feel associated with, in a way that you feel you can truthfully disclose to third parties. For example, I am Belgian, but I quite often feel truthfully associated to Greece, the Bermudas, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kazachstan, and a few other countries. Therefore, I reveal my association to one of these countries to the company requesting "Country". Note that there is usually no "Country Association Code or Category" to be filled out. Usually companies do not require you to qualify this association.
* "Fax" and "Phone" usually must be numeric, but of no particular length.
* "Email" must contain the character @ and . I can guarantee to you that c_u_nt@hotmail.com is usually considered valid, and I testify under oath that it is indeed the address to which I want the company to send messages to me.
I testify under oath that I have truthfully and faithfully filled out the online form above to the best of my understanding.
Misuse of Information (Score:1)
If we are ever unfortunate enough to fall under such a tyranny, the rulers would be able to do their work with or without computerized data bases. Just read your history books.
Katz once again jumps the gun on making claims. (Score:2)
Sure, companies have made an attempt to track us, but it is quite obvious that they haven't gotten things 100% correct, or else they'd know not to target me with ads about stuff I don't want. ^_^
Incidentally, that is why I always deny a cookie when I don't know what it is for, especially when it is obviously coming from the Add Banner Script.
There are steps a knowledgeble person can take to prevent too much information, besides what we wish to give, out. Also, Doubleclick looks like it might be about to face several lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
Our privacy is still protected, if we are willing to stand up and fight for it.
This "woe is us, we can't do jack about it" from Katz is exactly the wrong attitude to have. We need to actively fight it by doing everything in our power to shield ourselves. Not whining about it.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:Browser mods (Score:1)
Thread #1 (02.02.2000, 10.22):
Connecting to slashdot.org Port: 80
GET
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, image/xbm, image/png, */*
Cookie: user=[don't want anyone stealin' my cookie #]
Host: slashdot.org
Referer: http://slashdot.org/
User-Agent: browser
Thread #1 (02.02.2000, 10.22):
Response: 200
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21
Pragma: no-cache
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/html
and output that to an open MPW shell. So if a site does something I don't like, I see it happen and stay away in the future. Pre-emptively, I disable the usual crap (only
Not a "mod" exactly, and not "easy," but I've never gotten a single spam message from anyone, ever (at least not at my "real" email address), and doubleclick's got nothin' on me. Just choose your browser wisely, and learn how to use it before you go randomly firing bits around the 'net. Behave like you would in "real life," because it is real life.
Cooperative lying for protection? (Score:2)
Of course, the really potentially damaging databases are the ones which the government keeps on you (and seems to be willing to make available to anybody that asks). I guess the only recourse for that is legal.
Katz is exactly wrong this time. (Score:1)
I am temped to join the ranks of the antikatz. He has written insightful articles in the past, but his current editorials are schlock.
I am becoming quite sick of the theme, "we are all underdogs who are helpless against evil corporations who want to deprive us of our american rights."
We are not the underdogs, and we are not helpless. Katz has used mp3 and deCSS as examples to argue that large corporations are going to squash individuals. I interpret these events as demonstraiting that individuals are more powerful than ever. Corporations know this and are so scared that they are making examples of people.
I'm not surprised that corporations are using this fear tactic, but I'm quite dissapointed to see Katz exploiting it in another bleading heart, flag waving editorial.
I'm especially sick of his flag waving. I'm not even american.
Jon is also partly right. (Score:1)
World War IV? (Score:1)
Corporations are using tracking software as a feedback mechanism to asses advertising effectivness in a retail control system. This gives them powers that were formerly held by governments(through propaganda) over the people of the world regardless of the country they inhabit.
One might say that in the past countries went to war with one another for economic and material gains(food, wealth, land) but in todays world why not choose a multinational corporation to attack. A war between countries seems like an outdated concept. Especially seeing as global corporations are often richer than many countries in the world.
I wonder what role governments will play in these battles, I guess it will depend on strongly on where we spend our money. If we give 20% to government through taxation and at most 20% to any large multinational things might be ok. But once the amount of our personal income going to a single multinational exceeds that going to our government we could be in trouble.(The exact numbers are probably off a bit due to government and company overhead but you get the idea).
I WANT to be profiled... (Score:1)
Targeting ads at me doesn't force me to buy some. I and I alone am responsible for my purchase habits, not some mega-database. People need to take personal responsibility for their lives instead of blaming everything on the nearest mega-corp.
In fact, this may even make our world more efficient as advertisers only have to pay for ads that have relavance to their viewers. In turn, they'll keep some of the cash, but some will filter down through decreased prices as competition will doubtless force. And what they keep I can still partake in through salary (if I work for one of the mega-corps operating thusly) or stock dividends if I choose to invest.
Granted, I'm not that happy having the government have that type of information, but that's a whole different rant.
--Jason
Re:Privacy policies.. (Score:2)
> with companies that don't have clearly stated
> privacy policies...
And what exactly does that mean?
Anyone can write up a privacy policy. noone
is ever going to say in big letters "Give us
your buisness and we will resell your information"
The question is whether they do it or not. If
I do buisness with companies X Y Z and then
suiddenly start getting adds in the mail from
company W...how do I know who spilled the beans?
Recently I discovered that my own bank is selling
my contact info. i found out when due to a mixup
at the bank, my fathers mailing adress got changed
to be the same as mine (dunno how they did that)
and I started getting his account statments.
Shortly after..,.I began recieving credit card
advertisments in his name, at my adress.
Now I am sure that if I call my bank they will
have a "privacy statment" and will swear that they
do not sell the names of their customers. However,
I KNOW they do.
Re:Fight the man! (Score:2)
> but I don't fill out the applications
I don't even bother...
lately when I goto the store (Star Market usullay)
when the cashier asks if I have a card...I say
no...
then she picks up her own card and scans it!
Has happend several times from several cashiers.
I don't know if they are suposed to do it but...
they do.
I get the savings...they don't get my name.
oh...and I pay in cash.
-Steve
Multiple rights to privacy (Score:4)
1) Someone must gather information about you. The fourth amendment used to have some meaning here, but fear of crime, drugs, terrorism, Russians, not collecting taxes, etc. has given the government much more power to investigate, track, search, and seize. Also, passive surveillance in the name of safety, productivity, and marketing has become part of the landscape, online or not. We must assert the right to not be recorded or reviewed by *anyone* without our *uncoerced* permission or a warrant.
2) This information must have the potential of affecting how you live your life. Your phone number and email address don't really count. Your buying habits, credit history, social security number, salary, medical history, and day-to-day movements certainly do. We must assert our right to withhold information that is not required to do the business at hand.
3) Someone with the power to use the information to impact your life must obtain it. What is most infuriating is the literally hundreds of dollars paid for information about me, that is never paid to me, and worse, is paid to those who I entrust to keep it private (the state DMV, my bank, my credit card provider, etc.) We must assert our right to dictate how information about us is stored and distributed.
4) There must be an opportunity for the information-holder to wield their power. The ability of an employer to review credit history or medical history is rife with potential abuses, and irrelevant to a fair hiring decision. Similarly, if I'm not relying on them for financing, why should a car dealer or realtor or furniture sales clerk have access to my credit history? We must assert our right to decide who has access to our information.
5) The information must be wielded. The horror stories of identity theft, credit bureau errors, and discrimination demonstrate that great damage can be done to our lives for little reason, and without our even understanding why. We must also assert our right to challenge the information and the decisions that result.
Unfortunately, we are usually too unaware and apathetic to keep these rights from being abused.
Fortunately, some law does exist for each of these rights, but is spottily enforced, and often inadequate.
Fight the man! (Score:2)
I fight back! I don't recieve targeted junk dead-tree mail because I don't own any "club" cards, Air Miles(tm), discount cards or such. I don't fill in store surveys or questionaires no matter the incentive!
My web browsers do not accept cookies, and Cookie Monster helps me with that. Personally, I have no traceable web presence. However, there are always sites that require a username/e-mail address.
For those the answer is simple - I lie! For other sites that require a valid e-mail account, I have throw-away e-mail accounts on Hotmail, Hushmail or Yahoo.
And I check! Regularly, I go to search sites and look myself up. If I find myself, I contact the place where my info originated and ask them to remove it! - this only happened to me once!
When all else fails, I make someone up! My imaginary invisible friend has a web presence! Look him up sometime!
Technology impact on society (Score:2)
The folks in the /. community know these impacts because the majority of our lives surround technology in one way or another and we protect ourselves to a degree. But to the average Joe on the street, they really have no idea. And Jon hits on the fact that it is already too late to correct the direction we are heading. I wouldn't want to slow down technilogical advances in any way, however I am disheartened with the lack of ethics and uses of some of our technilogical advances. so I guess we take the good with the bad. Sort of like the firearms analogy; The gun doesn't kill a person, the person firing the gun does. So are guns bad? Is technology advancement?
Never knock on Death's door:
Really, Mr. Katz? (Score:2)
Its pretty funny that over half of the American population does not use the internet... but somehow it is a necessity. Even by Katz's estimate only 130 million Americans will use the 'net this year --- still less then half of America's 272,639,608 people (CIA World Factbook). For the majority of Americans, and the vast majority of human beings, the internet is NOT a necessity.
We can only hope that some day this technology can be used justly, for the benefit of ALL people --- not just the rich among us. Justice should be as much of a concern as privacy, if not more.
Not Just the Usual Suspects (Score:2)
This means that if we want to protect our privacy then we need to take action. Contact our legistlatures and demand that they pass laws protecting our privacy, let others know how their privacy is being sold off. Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries started a war to protect our freedoms, and it we must keep fighting to keep them.
-Hephaestus_Lee
Privacy, Technology, Freedom state of the union... (Score:5)
You can either have
(1) Freedom to do whatever you want, subject to the visibility and scrutiny of others (no privacy)
(2) Freedom to do whatever you want in complete privacy, with the risk of people using the combination to commit crime and take advatange of you
or
(3) No freedom whatsoever, total privacy, and total security. (Anyone caught doing something wrong is punished)
For those of you who say learn the technology tell me you already knew about the Reliant Digital Intercept System being sold to law enforement agencies by Comverse Infosys [cominfosys.com]. This thing has the ability to monitor multiple simultaneous voice conversations and automatically flag and record only "interesting" calls, based on voice recognition and pattern matching. Pretty scary!
Just my $.02...
Technological Freedom (Score:2)
Most of these users have little or no idea that they are constantly being tracked and audited for their usage patterns and choices. In my office, one user mentioned that they'd heard about some company called 'Double-sumthin' that was collecting user information through web-ads. When I gave this person a layman's explanation of what was happening, they were utterly indignant and several people in surrounding cubicles stuck their noses. All of them were upset, and immediatly asked me to turn off these 'cookies' on their machines, and I've already heard from another department's MIS staff that there have been complaints from users. However, these people are not about to reduce their ease-of-use online to deny marketing weasels their statistics. If we really want to limit the ability to track usage and patterns on a user-by-user level, we need to eliminate the ability to do so at a network wide level. Intel's GUID implementation is a dangerous tool, if not a downright immoral one. Double-Click's recent admission that they have been stockpiling user data just underscores the need for an accepted 'minimal level of anonymity'.
Not just for those of us who know enough of what goes on 'under-the-hood' but for anyone who mistakenly believes that they are free to use the internet without undue invasion of their privacy.
Well, that's a rant...