Slashdot Mirror
Motorola's Getting To Know You
LordNimon was the first to write with "ZDNet has an article on how Motorola is demanding all of the private consumer data from each of its dealers, or the dealer will no longer be able to sell Motorola products. The article is unusually thorough for ZDNet. It includes comments from big Motorola customers who consider this data to be confidential and are furious over the plan. It also mentions that Motorola refuses to comment on the privacy aspect of the plan, or even acknowledge that there's anything wrong with it!" A very thorough look at behind-the-scenes marketing forces.
Different societies tolerate different levels of intrusion. This means not just privacy, but any kind of intrusion against the individual.
The problem is that it's not just a matter of corporation vs. individual. It's also the govt. vs individual. Individual privacy is against attack from all kinds of organized powerful entities, including BOTH the govt. and the corporation.
For instance, in Australia, mass DNA screening of an entire town was carried out to catch a criminal. This was viewed as generally acceptable (there is no bill of rights in australia). On the other hand, when Australian companies gather data, there is widespread media scrutiny and suspicion. In Australia, govt. regulation of public lives is considered acceptable (they have censors to control what people watch or read) but there's a very high level of caution regarding companies.
In the UK, there is generally a much higher rate of govt. intrusion in electronic communication, a level that would be unacceptable in the US. ISPs are also held responsible for content, even in newsgroups, after the Godfrey vs. Demon case. This means more monitoring of content, since the ISP is liable, and in general, a greater intrusion into individual communication.
In the US, govt. intrusion is generally viewed with great suspicion. The one exception is police attacks on certain sections of society (because the anti-crime sentiment is strong, so people are willing to tolerate the cops busting a few doors and shooting a few people if it's to reduce the crime rate). OTOH, corporate abuse of individual lives is considered acceptable, because people have been indoctrinated since birth that if companies do something, they should be allowed to do so since the market will regulate itself. In days past, this meant that US companies could use DDT (now banned), operate nuclear power plants more freely (now regulated), use asbestos (now banned), or sell banned chemicals like DDT to third world countries (still allowed - it's good for exports).
Generally, these things all depend on how much a society permits its individuals to be powerless against the govt. or companies. In the US, it's a difficult proposition, since companies have bought out both major candidates. But there's still a high rate of suspicion of intervention in individual privacy, which results in some degree of regulation. Contrary to what people think, even though corporations influence politicians, the vote still counts (because that's how the prez gets elected, go figure), so they still pay a lot of attention to what the public considers acceptable.
What the public considers acceptable is just a matter of indoctrination, culture, and trends. Guns are acceptable and a hot topic in the US, not even an issue in most of Europe or Australia. Police abuse is common in the US while technically illegal, whereas in EU/aust/NZ, the cops have more powers but the level of abuse is less (except against native tribes).
Communication, well...it's a whole new game, and the rules are being written. Who knows what will happen?
w/m