Slashdot Mirror
Scott McNealy On Privacy
howardjp writes: "Scott McNealy's editorial, The Case Against Absolute Privacy", appeared in this morning's edition of the Washington Post. He seems to think keeping records on the public is a good idea..." McNealy is famous for his "You have zero privacy anyway, get over it" quote.
The current status is: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
His point is valid, releasing some private information can generate a highly personalized experience, and this is of great value to many people. I enjoy watching Amazon try to recommend things to me with my diverse and odd tastes.
The problem I see with current privacy online is threefold--you often are not given the option to not generate personalization, the information gathered is often, if not always, shared, and most importantly, cross referencing can destroy all limits.
This last point he didn't really touch on in the article--but with just a small amount of xref work, some good logic and a bit of human input, even very small data points can be combined to generate a detailed profile. Evidentally, even mouse click patterns can help ID an individual.... This is why we jumped up and down and shouted when doubleclick wanted to link its databases.
Until we get this last problem solved, I will continue opting out and bitching about privacy issues at every corner.
I don't have any hope it will happen anytime soon, or through any technology-only method (it's a societal problem, you can do it with public records and develop a similar profile if you have a lot of time).
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
He's famous for being the CEO of Sun. If he weren't CEO of Sun, no one would have cared about that quote.
end of line
To quote the Constitution of the United States, 4th Amendment:
Now, I realize that the USA isn't the entire world, but the EU also places a high value on privacy. . .
All rights are socially constructed. That doesn't mean that they aren't real -- they're real as long as we (as a society) continue to value them. The right to privacy is becoming controversial because it is highly valued by a lot of private citizens, but many corporations see it as an outdated concept that's a hindrance to higher profits.
This doesn't really make enough sense to respond to.
This pretty much ruins your troll, unfortunately -- you should have toned down the retoric a bit and someone would have fallen for it.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
So when can I stop by to take pictures of you and your girlfriend having sex and mail them to your mom? And paste them up around your office. And can you point out to me where you make your mail publicly available to your neighbors? Id like to read your tax returns. By the way, if you could e-mail me a copy of all your medical records, just cause I'm nosy and want to see what kind of birth control you use. Oh, and I see you're wiccan. I'm sure your conservative catholic boss and the local born again Christian association would love to have your home address. Ill send them a copy of your medical records also, they're sure to want to know if you've had an abortion because of that case of herpes you caught. I'd call you a troll, but I think you're serious.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Dear Mr. McNealy:
It seems you think we should be willing to give up privacy for convenience.
To that end, please publish your home address, all phone numbers you can be reached at, your bank account balance, all credit cards you have and their limits, your Social Security number, all of the websites you've visited over the past 9 days, and everything you've purchased using anything but cash in the last 2 years. Please be sure to provide timely updates to the above information, as well as any additional information I request, so I can conveniently ask you important questions and inform you of exciting offers on a regular basis.
Please do this willingly, so I don't have to go running around, collecting the information covertly using cookies, purchased databases, "tracking" software, and other data-mining techniques. It's so much easier providing for your convenience when all the information I might need is at my fingertips, whether you really like it or not. After all, we have no privacy, and we should get over it, right? Or does that not apply to you?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The Constitution only applies to actions that the government takes towards people and the states. The actions of people towards other people are not restricted by the Constitution. We have a right to privacy in regards to the actions of the government. Not to actions taken by Sun Microsystems.
Best Slashdot Co
Personally, I think that one should have the ability to choose weather or not any personal information is able to be viewed and by whom. If I'm Joe Paranoid, I want the ability to turn off all access to any information about me by anyone.
Of course this will be giving up the ability to have credit cards, GPS emergency tracking or driving directions.. But if I'm willing to lose these 'convieniences', It should be my choice..
It seems obvious to me that he's ignoring the reason people worry about privacy in this country. I won't expand on it since other people have.
This guy is a typical example of how money is considered more important than people in this society. Since information is basically a form of currency, opinions like this are bound to be the most common. Or, at least, those that are most often heard.
In Europe, they have a more balanced view of privacy rights. Opt-in instead of opt-out, your data is your property, etc. They don't put as much of a priority on economic growth and money as we do, and that's not a coincidence.
Laws restrict mostly just the government control and violations of privacy and freedom. But control will, always, find a way, and then comes the running and the screaming. A new form of stricter-than-ever control is emerging fast.
More and more companies are joining in the trend to put all new workers to tight psychological personality tests. They don't just test your ability to work, but also ask about your family, your childhood, and what not.
The problem in most psychological tests is that they weren't designed for companies, but for psychiatric analysis. A question: "Are you planning to get many children?" may be quite fine for a medical test, but not for a work psychologist, who works for the hiring company. (In one company to which I applied for, one of the interviewing psychologists even worked in the same room where I was supposed to work. Well, I didn't answer questions which I considered too private and irrelevant for work, the psychologist didn't like that, and I'm still an unemployed Linux hacker. *sigh*)
Then there are the permissions to get criminal records. Hey, there are laws why they are private, and those laws have reasons! By giving the permission to companies, you make the possibly very good and well-reasoned laws effectively useless. You also don't know what records they get - perhaps also those where you were just suspected, and you can't influence how they interpret them. There's also no time-limit; that 20 year old DUI sentence might not be so unfavourable, but if you've even been caught of smoking grass...well, byebye to ever working again.
Oh, and then there are the mandatory drug tests. One Very Big Finnish company (not Nokia, but might apply to them too) even does mandatory AIDS tests to workers. Not that the tests help the companies any bit, as they are usually done only once, and usually just kick many very productive people out of work.
They can tap your keyboard, read your emails, put tv-cameras everywhere, watch where you drive your car, snoop in your home as they wish (didn't you read the fine print in your rent contract?), and everything.
This is worrying because it's "voluntary", and gives an illusion of freedom. Of course, "You can always go to another place." Yeah, right. In practice, it's mandatory.
The companies and other institutions do, of course, have their reasons. So what? Everybody always has "good and sound reasons" when they violate your privacy or freedom, to "protect our children's safety" by killing the evildoers. Really, the reasons are usually "good." But they are often against the freedom and privacy, which are often too abstract concepts to understand in relation to most everyday problems. "The safety of our children must not be endangered by the 'human rights' or criminals and drug addicts." Nevertheless, even these abstract human rights have reasons too, you know.
"Those who give up their freedom don't deserve it." (One of the rare ideals which those silly Americans got right...and then forgot.)
Human being. Do not bend, spindle, or mutilate.
--
Free Mac Mini
The problem with that is that there are perfectly reasonable, non paranoid scenarios in which you do NOT want your information aggregated. Using the doubleclick example:
- ----------
Customer X-35213-54388 purchased speaker racks and green paint for a 1989 Mazda Miata, using static IP addres 123.456.789.101 - they used to live in Minnesota but made this purchase and all recent ones from CA.
John Q. Doe has registered, on the next day, a Green 1989 Mazda Miata in CA after having moved from Minnesota.
Static DSL IP 123.456.789.101 purchased some online porn.
Add in DoubleClick's info-aggregating and every other site you visit relates everything you've done online to:
John Q. Doe
123 Fnord Ave
San Mateo, CA, 12345
SSN: 123-33-4567
No, thanks. I'm trying to keep most of that info, especially SSN, to myself and not the skript kidz that hack the companys' website.
---------------------------------------
The problem is that trolls, even though they my not realize it, sometimes have good points. And because they usually take the point of view diametrically opposite the average slashdot reader, in order to enrage them, sometimes these points are the one that need to be heard most so that slashdot doesn't become (remain?) just another old boy network.
"This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today, or help build tomorrow for everyone."
It does not restrict companies, private citizens, or any other non-governmental group in any way. Unless there are specific laws created by the US government (and in many cases there are) limiting the activities of these groups, they are largely free to collect whatever information they want about you and use it for whatever purpose they like. This being the case, we have a hodge-podge of various laws limiting certain types of behaviour by certain types of groups and companies. But there is no particular rhyme or reason to them since they have been created to deal with individual problems as they arose. The problems that are getting attention here on /. are simply new problems that haven't been dealt with by US law yet either through legislation or judicial review.
Putting it another way, there is no Constitutionally assured right to privacy in the US except with regard to the government itself. Whether that is a good thing or not, is a separate issue.
The point is, for that level of service, most people would gladly reveal their personal preferences, as long as they feel certain the information won't be misused. On the Internet, even more than in other areas of our lives, trust is the real currency. Squander what you have and you'll find out how hard it can be to get more.
I know that I have real privacy issues with many companies. That is why I use things like webmail and dummy browser proflies. If nothing else, if they scam the email address from the browser, they spam someone I don't like [joke!]
if you took a random poll, you would likely find that the list of companies that people trust is a bit shorter than the list of compnaies theat they do not trust.
Companies do not realize how precious the commodity of trust is. Squander it, and you will have people painting you as the devil decades later.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Dude, I've done market analysis for a paycheque and I gotta disagree on a few points...
The fact that company X happens to know that customer ID 939392-2349493-1343 likes to play ping-pong on Tuesday nights and prefers green pullovers to blue is not equivalent to being spied upon. The information is used in an abstract fashion: crunching statistics, determining customer needs, etc. Not one person at DoubleClick or any other "Big Brother" company gives a flying flip at a rolling donut *what* you do in your spare time.
Actually, many companies DO care if you care if you play ping-pong on Tuesday nights. If this is regular behaviour, maybe you'd like to buy our new PADDLE2000. Or maybe you'd like some coupons for a local restaurant chain 'cause you must be eating out on Tuesday nights on your way to ping-pong. Or maybe you'd be interested in donating some dough to a local youth ping-pong team so it can realize its dream of playing in China. Get the drift?
How does a computer thousands of miles away knowing that you're interested in travel, politics, and fine art *really* affect your life, except that the spam you receive is tailored for your interests, instead of being completely random?
Good point, but it belies the basic concept around privacy. I don't care how inocuous the intent. The fact that someone has info about ME that I didn't give them is inherently a breac hof my privacy. Idon't know about you, but I don't need spam to tell me where to find the things I'm interested in, thanks.
People are naturally observant by nature. When you go out in public, you notice what people are doing, wearing, saying, etc. After a while, you come to conclusions based on those observations. Have you invaded those people's privacy? A library keeps track of what books people are reading so that they can keep their library stocked with books that will be useful or interesting to the local population. Have they invaded those people's privacy? The notion that what someone is doing is EVIL because they are company is absurd, yet that seems to be the party line here on Slashdot.
Public domain info (what you wear, what you say within earshot of a stranger) is not a privacy issue at all since its in MY control of where I go what I wear, what I say, etc. A library does not simply stock what people like - otherwise we'd have libraries chock full of trashy books by Danielle Steele and the like. Libraries (through the highly-trained librarians that run them) build collections that reflect the gamut of human knowledge (and, yes, that includes pop culture). Again, this is irrelevant to the privacy issue.
Privacy issues in the information age are not about stunted emotional adoloescence or libertarianism or anarchist fantasies. Rather, they're about maintaining a sense of Self and Humanity in a world where these concepts are withering.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right
... not what creed, nationality, sex, or race they belong to... acording to my moral code, it is none of his business what my religion is.
... and if everyone agreed to a single moral code, it might be possible to say that privacy is not needed... But I have yet to meet even two people that agree 100% on morality.
... you go right ahead. As for anyone that lives in this social structure, there are real issues to address. Such as privacy.
And of course, no one in Europe or anywhere else for that matter desire privacy.
Information is power. Information can be used for good. It can also be used for malicious purposes. The question is who do you trust with that power. I do not trust the corporations. Nor do I trust the government.
Since the advent of society, the communication allowed people to disagree. With that came judgment and persecution. While I do not believe that the things that I do are immoral, someone else may. I should not have to suffer under their persecution. Just as you should not have to suffer for being (whatever you are), I should not have to suffer for being a left wing non-religious type. Yet, that is not the way of the world, as people wage their wars of prejudice and try to make other people bend to their will. If my boss found out that I am not a Christian, he might fire me (his being a right wing conservative Christian type who believes that those that think differently than him should be destroyed).
This is not right according to my morals. According to my moral code, a person should be judged on how they do their job
Perhaps if there were better ways of preserving a persons right to, say, worship whatever god they wanted to
The ills that Christians (and yes, it was a religious as well as political party) did to Jewish People during the 2nd world war could have been prevented if the government did not know who the Jewish People were. The lack of this 'silly idea' has cost lives.
I agree that back in the stone age there was no privacy. I also agree that privacy is a social construct. But, so is religion, as religion is an organization. So are words. So are numbers. Everything used to communicate can be categorized as a social construct (and therefor unnatural). If you want to go and live without running water, toilet paper, computers, books (including your bible), and the ability to communicate around the globe
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
What he fails to mention is that your preferences are going to be supplemented by paying clients of the personalized services. Sure, your personal area network devices might suggest a nearby restaurant, but you can bet that the restaurant suggested has paid for its favorable placement... And, even more disturbing, do we want corporations, governments, and more nefarious organizations knowing all about us? Who's to say that data theives, terrorists, over-zealous law enforcement, etc, won't divine ways to steal information about us and use it in ways that are not to our advantage? What if our data suggests we are not supportive of the current regime? Might party appartichs use that info to subvert our influence, attempt to change our minds, or silence us if we become too vocal? What if we want to strike back at tyranny, either corporate or federal through boycotts, protests, our other extreme means in the future? Our prefences, from book selections, to taverns, to affliations might rat us out and lead the protectors of such organizations against us, even before we've raised a finger. Our data is ours; the good of profiling does not outwiegh the potential evil.
Disclaimer: There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood
You mean like I can choose to have an unlisted number, or a listed one in the phone book?
The sad part is, you have to PAY for this privilege of privacy.
The bottom line: Private information has become a commodity, to be bought and sold.