The Good and Bad of Data Collection

Nephilium writes "Reason magazine has dedicated their latest issue to a discussion of privacy and data collection. They sent subscribers a customized cover of the magazine [as previously covered on Slashdot]. Some good points as to the benefits and drawbacks of who is sharing your information." The sample targeted advertisements are for non-profit organizations, but it may not be long until someone figures out how much companies will pay to utilize this sort of targeting.

Comments

Sounds like GMail.

[Bs15]

Isn't google doing the same thing with their GMail service?

Good

[ibpooks]

The sample targeted advertisements are for non-profit organizations, but it may not be long until someone figures out how much companies will pay to utilize this sort of targeting.

I'd much rather have ads sent to me about things that I might actually want or be interested in. For example, sending feminine hygine ads to me is a waste of their time and mine.

Targeted Content

[ePhil_One]

I'm more concerned about when publications will start publishing customized content, So that Rush Limbaugh thinks MagA is a conservative read, and Ralph Nader thinks its a left wing read.

Double your readership ;)

Re:Targeted Content

[PsychoFurryEwok]

That's actually a really interesting concept. With us being able to use computers to print out something different on each page, they could just set it up to run through their list of subscribers...use feedback to customize the magazine for them. Brings up another issue though...now you're forcing everyone to see something as only one sided. :)

Re:Targeted Content

[deputydink]

Speaking of magazines, about 10 years ago i used to work for a magazine wholesaler. Investments decided to sell the circulation information, and I was put in charge of the data-mining.

Apparently, if you know what kind of magazines are being sold in an area, you can assemble an accurate picture of the area's demographic, and use it to gauge market opportunites and stock management. For instance, high volumes of mens magazines begin sold in an area suggests it may be a good idea to open a Sporting goods store, conversely, a Department Store could infer that a lot of bridal and family magazines mean its time to stock baby strollers and family basics. The list went on and on, and even included municipal politians.

Due to constaints imposed by Canadian Privacy laws (i think), were not able to actually sell the quantity of any particular title, instead, we had to aggregate the titles into "subject categories" like Young Mens, Young Womens, Sport, Hobby, etc etc.

The markting agency that bought the information spent waaaaaaay more than i ever could have expected that information to be worth, and my technical liason was very bright, and had a very large (relatively) IT/Engineering group, so i figure they must have had a pretty slick set up. And, i just checked, they are still in business.

Interesting use of targeted content, i hadn't though of that project in years till reading this thread.

Re:Targeted Content

[blingbing]

Or MagA can stay with Rush, but spin off a MagB for Ralph Nader. Trageted content is nothing new, it's already done in Cable and radio. Thank Fox News and CNN, Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken. They have their targeted audience, and they profit plenty if they can keep their audience, there is no need to be "fair and balanced".

Even within the same TV channel, targeted programming is a well-established practice. NBC has "Friends" for the coveted 18-35 age group, "Frasier" for 35 and above, "Queer eyes" for gays.

because of internet and cable, no single player can dominate the news. Target content is already happening, and it will only grow bigger.

Re:Targeted Content

[toganet]

Yes, except in the case where you already publish noth magazines (like my employer). Then it is a matter of developing some third magazine 'Brand', and marketing it as a targeted "best of our content" publiscation.

Regaining Privacy in the US

[pholower]

I agree, there is almost no privacy in the US for this sort of thing. But if you have already given your information to be hoarded in databases, and cross linked with other databases, then there is little one can do to regain their privacy.

Wired Magazine a year or so ago, I remember, had a page on how to regain privacy. Some of those tips included:
- Gaining access to a fake SSN
- Not using a Cell phone
- Never using a credit card
- Do not have a mortgage

Something most Americans are incapable of doing without moving to the woods and living off the land.

Re:Regaining Privacy in the US

[kfg]

Something most Americans are incapable of doing without moving to the woods and living off the land.

You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

You better make it public land though. If you expect to have enough land of your own to live off of (you can do it with five acres, but you really want ten, half of it mature forest, half meadow) you'll likely need a mortgage. You'll certainly need to register a deed (which is public information).

But you can actually "live off the land" fairly well in cities too. Cities are rich. Cities simply dispose of necessities and offer opportunities for making money, and spending it, under the radar, as well as a fair amount of barter.

The trick to living anonymously in cities is finding a legal place to "camp." This might well be mom's basement (or a friend's basement) or attic, or just the right sort of "Significant Other." Quasi-legal arrangements (like an old industrial loft with the permission of the owner, perhaps as "security." It isn't legal because it doesn't meet code requirements for a habitation, but the worst that can happen to you is being kicked out, not arrested or anything) are almost always possible if you are personable, useful and well dressed (there are a surprising number of very conventional people who take vicarious joy in lending support to counterculturalists. It's bums they don't like).

Bear in mind though that the second you hook up your internet connection, cable TV, whatever, in your own name you've just blown the whole anonymous "thing."

KFG

Cold and unbiased...

[LostCluster]

One thing the whole FICO-based credit system has working in its favor is that it is very truely blind. The decision maker doesn't get to look at you physically at all, it's not even a person anymore. Simply put, if the prediction formula gives you enough points you're accepted, and if it doesn't you're declined. Race, age, gender, religion, sexuality... who cares.

Of course, the system isn't perfect, it's subject to GIGO just like any other computer system. However, compared to human decision making, it's a whole lot of a more fair process on the whole.

Re:CUSTOM SPAM

[JohnnyComeLately]

Dont you mean "Custom High Volume Mail Distribution". Like a custom trashhauler, but in reverse.

Yeah, I know...boo hisss....but I couldn't help myself.

Target for File 86

[beatleadam]

They sent subscribers a customized cover of the magazine...The sample targeted advertisements are for non-profit organizations...

What bothers me the most about this is not the notion of loss of privacy, it is loss of *Choice*. When I worked as the only IT Staff at a non-profit (coincedance noted) I wanted all the information I could get, in whatever format to try to make the best and (unfortunately) least-expensive solutions.

This is just the biggest "brand" or brand name, being shoved down our throats.

Anonymous Credit Cards

[Lord Grey]

There are several aspects to the privacy issue relating to the purchase of products and services in America. As the article goes to great lengths to point out, information sharing is not necessarily a Bad Thing, particular if it leads to financial and time efficiencies.

Because information sharing is pervasive (and getting more so as time goes by) we, as consumers, are caught in a bind: If we demand more privacy, the cost will go up; if we don't demand that privacy, abuse of the system will cause all sorts of problems, too many to list here. Of course, this is a problem only for people who care.

Personally, I find myself caring about privacy in some cases and not in others. It's a trade off decision. What I want is the ability to protect my privacy when I do care, at the instant of the transaction with the merchant, even if I've dealt with that particular merchant in the past. In face-to-face transactions of low monetary value, I can use cash. But what about online transactions, or the purchase of more expensive items?

What I'd like to have is an anonymous credit card. One that's tied to a "numbered account" somewhere, managed by an institution that cares only about its numbered accounts. Money is transferred into an account, and the institution pays the credit card bills for that account. Period. Given our cryptographic skills now, someone should be able to provide blind transfers that do the job nicely.

Of course, this type of system could be abused. But it's a different kind of abuse, and my privacy is safe.

two words: PO Box

[kaan]

When they pull up the address of my PO Box, I'll just shrug it off. Sure, my mailing address information is shared left and right (and without my consent), but at least I have a layer of abstraction between my physical residence and the mailing address people associate with me, so this scare tactic stuff ("they know where you are!") won't matter. It will have to be changed to, "they know where your postal mail is delivered!".

I first got a PO Box address in 2002, and the only thing I regret is that I didn't get one sooner. The UPS Store (formerly Mailboxes, Etc.) rents PO boxes out, too, and offer lots of other perks over the straight US Postal variety. For instance, you can call the store and ask them if you got any mail today, they'll check it and let you know, saving you the trip.

I'd rather have my privacy, thanks

[Clod9]

This whole article just looks at the privacy debate from the point of view of commercial interests. Of course they think information-sharing is a good thing, it cuts costs. Although the article concludes that this is great for consumers because it lowers prices...I don't believe it. I think it raises profits. What's more, I think it raises profits for large corporations while doing little to benefit locally-owned businesses.

We have very little privacy any more, and it's time to take a stand on what's left.

The most telling section was the description of how MBNA has benefited from information-sharing. How, if privacy advocates had their way, MBNA's profit model would be threatened. Well, you know what? I HATE MBNA! I detest them. They send me credit card applications continually, no matter what I do. I regularly return their postage-paid reply envelopes stuffed with whatever other trash comes in that day's mail, and if everyone else would do the same...maybe THAT would stop them. After all, who among us needs more credit? Are we not awash in it already?

Privacy vs Databasing

[Daegred]

I really like the idea of databasing all this analog data, so we can make more informed decisions. However, I don't think that people should be able to collect data on you without your permission, let alone knowledge and then claim ownership of your personal information. And especially not corporations, who can use it however they wish, for whatever is going to make them a profit, whether you like it or not.

If there was some place I could opt-in for certain deals on groceries or whatever, I would sign up. What I don't like is spying on people to try to find this stuff out "to benefit you, the consumer". I'm even for the centralization of most of this information, but within a regulated federal agency where there's accountability and transparency. I'm not too trusting of government, but I think if there were records which you had control over say.. your employment information.. You just allow Company X's HR department permission to read 5 years of your employment history. As long as I had control as to who outside the agency had access to it, I wouldn't have to fill out 10 different applications like I am now.

I think the idea is good, just the methods and the control need drastic change to make it work.

UK spam laws

[BillsPetMonkey]

Never went far enough for a good reason (they basically outlawed electronic spam to private addresses but not to businesses). The reason for this is that the UK government makes money from the electoral register information by selling it to direct marketing companies for postal spam(e.g. MBNA credit card offers - yay!). It would be more than a little hypocritical to criminalize a practice the government regularly makes money from .... aneeway ...

It also sells the information to amongst others Equifax. According to recent studies over those opposed to the way information is collected, over 1/3 of all Equifax records are inaccurate enough to adversely influence a credit decision.

I recently found out that for the past six years, even though I pay over $200 per month in local tax, Equifax didn't have that information on file. This meant that I was listed as having effectively avoided paying council tax for that period. I started to examine who was to take responsibility for this "oversight".

Well, the Data Protection Act is very clear on this - no-one takes responsibility for the accuracy of the data. Not Equifax, not the local council, not even the people providing the information (or failing to provide the information). No-one. It is a veritable black hole of responsibility. A key point of the "Data Protection Act 1998" is that it is not there to protect the data subject, but to protect the data controller (yep, Equifax) from recourse by the data subject.

Who is the "data subject"? Well, that's YOU of course.

Agencies like Equifax are answerable to no-one and they have a lot of not quite so accurate information on you which they use to make influential decisions on how you live. They are the single best candidate (and best latter-day substitute) for the incompetent and overpaid bureacrat.

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[andy landy]

Once upon a time, I was looking for somewhere to buy some new PC hardware (I live in the UK). I went out and bought a copy of Micro Mart. A publication that is probably >80% adverts, all for online computer retailers. I bought it for the ads and discovered many retailers and got some components at a really good price -- I paid ~UK1.00 for some adverts! So, where does this fit into the grand scheme of things?