Slashdot Mirror
The Death of Privacy
Debra D'Agostino writes, "Why don't companies care about privacy? Because there's not enough money to be made from securing sensitive customer information, says Jeff Rothfeder in an article posted recently at CIO Insight. Furthermore, there's not enough money to be lost in privacy breaches for companies to care. 'Most companies claim that privacy is a priority — chiefly because they believe consumers are more willing to do repeat business with them if personal information is carefully handled,' he writes. 'But in reality, many companies are woefully inept at protecting privacy.'"
as if millions of voices suddenly cried out 'DUH!' and were suddenly modded down.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Our economic system is based on the idea of "profit at all costs." I mean, isn't this what we wanted and fought the cold war for?
Why don't companies care about privacy? Because there's not enough money to be made from securing sensitive customer information, says Jeff Rothfeder
Well, duh. Does he have any other brilliant insights? Like that there's not enough money to be made from decent working conditions, proper financial disclosures, or from protecting the environment?
That's why we have laws and penalties. What we need is stiffer penalties for privacy violations by companies. And, unlike child pornographers and murderers, who tend to be insensitive to the potential penalties, companies really do respond to penalties that hurt the bottom line.
... So why should corportations?
... Do You own a GMail account?
Most Consumers, barely consider privacy implications when purchasing software or signing up for services.
Most Consumers, will easily hand out their personal information when signing up to a service, as long as it does a good job at providing it.
See for instance, GMail.
A privacy nightmare, yet it's a damn good web-mail service.
Most people won't bother with privacy. period.
Sigs are for the weak.
is because companies make money off of our information. They sell it to governments and other businesses. To many companies, their customer information is as valuable as their product/services. If you are a consumer, you are owned.
This practice has got to stop. We have zero protection from this. Our government allows and incourages this behavior. Something has got to give.
There's no money in it because consumers don't care. But apparently there is money in writing columns discussing stuff that most people don't really care about.
While I think he's right about the privacy part, I have no intention of getting over it, now or ever.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
welcome our capitalist overlords. Yay capitalism! Now if I only had some money to buy some stocks and make $$$. Too bad they're paying me 2.20 an hour. Might as well pay them.
Unfortunately the only way to keep something private is not disclose the information and that isn't practical because it's required for certain things (bank accounts and medical treatment). The only way to deal with the sale of your personal information is to completely devalue it by making it all public. That's the nail in the coffin for the so-called information economy and a major setback to a facist new world order. No, I'm not telling you where I buy my tinfoil.
If a company screws up with your data, you should be able to sue them. Period. Once you do that, companies will start being more careful.
The author needs to realize that it is not the companies responsibility to protect you from being harmed by an identity theft.
The company only protects information from the consumer that protects their assets.
If the author really wants privacy then he will have to pay a lot more than what he is currently paying for certain services. A lot of service companies sell certain types of information to other companies for profit so that way their consumer won't have to pay a higher fee.
If people keep wanting to buy things cheaper, have cheaper internet acces, etc. then in order for that company to do that they might sell information about you, like your buying and surfing habits online, etc. to market research teams. THat is how they make up for it all so that you can get a service cheaper than before.
If he wants to protect his privacy then don't sign up for internet service, nor a cellphone. Just get a land-line phone, use snail-mail, shred credit card applications and basically live like a una-bomber. But if he wants cheaper services then he will have to give something up for it.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Would it cost too much extra computing power to have end-to-end encryption for electronic data? I'm talking about even to the point of encrypted communication between devices in the computer. Of course we still have the analog output holes, but at least this would address outside hacking.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
They're not inept in the least. In a marketplace like ours where "competition" often means that you have a couple of choices in an oligarchy, if you're lucky, there's no reason to satisfy customer demands.
Consider this particular case: I used to work at a company that had a very large call center staffed. The call center, from the business perspective, was a cost liability only. It provided no income.
One might argue that it's job is the maintain income by satisfying customers, but as it turned out our customer turnover and return rate was so high that it actually benefited us to ABUSE customers to make them get off the phone. Simple economics showed that it cost us more to help people than to chase them away, so, with the exception of a handful of particularly loyal buyers, we did just that. We enacted policies that basically encouraged our "service" reps to force people off the phone as fast as possible (either service them in under two and half minutes, or lose your job). We didn't staff the call center that well because if you don't show the abandonment numbers, you can make yourself look really good by pointing out how fast you handled the actual calls that come through. And if someone gets angry enough to cancel, just do it and don't worry about it, because three other suckers will be attracted by the low price "deals" to replace him.
Until consumers wise up and stop chasing bargains to whatever poor quality store has them and starts demanding a return of actual service and respect, they're not going to get any of their demands met and they're not going to get any respect. Simple matter of economics: it costs them less to abuse consumers because nobody cares about the overall product, including service, they just think "value" starts and stops at "lowest price".
Consumers get the level of service, privacy, etc. they pay for, and since all they care about is how little they pay, that's how little of each of those things they get.
big business doesn't care until it affects the bottom line.... wow! Who would've thought it.
There are so many vectors for information to leave an organization that the only way to safe guard data is never trust any one with it. On the desktop, there are floppy drives, hard drives (big problem with junked computers), USB drives, wireless, ethernet, internet, bluetooth and probably a hundred more ways for data to leave their work site. Some of these vectors seap personal information without the users (customers/partners/employees) even being aware that the information is vulnerable. Even if you lock down all of those means, anyone can write the information down on a pad of paper or take a screen dump 007 style. Seriously, the law doesn't even mandate that a company have any level of security, only that they have a security plan and follow it. Their plan could consist of shredding all proof the leak happened and hitting the links after lunch. If they were looking for real network PMI protection they would try Compliance Commander or cut the wire. Those are about your only two choices right now, at least that's what the Gartner report said.
With our current leadership in this country, does this surprise anyone?
Just say NO to George W. Bullshit!
Sadly human nature allows for privacy violations.
We have employees and hackers that can profit from selling data. We have employees and data protection companies that 'lose' data.
I worked for a consulting company and had access to the entire client list. The entire nationwide list of companies, their contact info and their passwords. Why would I be limited to my geograhic region? They did add some accounting features that would record who and why we accessed passwords.
I currently work for a few PR companies and low-level employees have access to possibly very sensitive data without restriction. Is this okay?
Trust is required in any relationship. Even theives have ethics when it comes to working with other theives.
The greatest threat in the US is that 3rd party companies farmed out to handle customer service calls in the Phillipines have access to everything they need to become a citizen using my personal info. Eventually we'll have to find a new way to identify each other but until then, give your SSN so you can add a second phone line.
With the Data Protection Act here in the UK and similar laws throughout the EU, companies are legally obliged to keep personally identifiable information confidential and if they do not they can be prosecuted. Implement that in the US, there's your answer.
Well to me at least. I hate the idea that companies go out of there way to find out as much as possible about me, so they can advertise better to me. Every time I get an e mail from Amazon saying "40% of people who bought x also bought y. Have you considered buying Y?" I shudder, I'm sorry Amazon I'm perfectly good at deciding what I want to buy and only use twice myself.
I think if a company started up that only kept the minimum about of information possible on it's customers I would use it. I know I probably sound like one of the tin foil brigade but I think that I should be entitled to my privacy.
Also (completely off topic) I get really bothered by the amount of training customer services reps are given, they always smile and seem friendly and engaging but it always feels bitter knowing that there trained to be like that, it's not who they really are.
Claiming to have a privacy policy increases business (and profits) while actually respecting privacy is expensive (especially when you consider how much personal information can be worth). Because of this, most companies will share their data with "Business Partners"- and if you share your data with 10 other companies, odds are they won't all have privacy standards as high as you.
Another problem mentioned in the article is when a company goes out of business, they no longer have any financial incentive to keep your records private- it's not like they will lose your business if you find out. While this is illegal (now) if it violates their privacy policy, there can still be strong financial incentives to sell personal data.
Of course, what the article doesn't mention is that many web companies have "privacy policies" that bascially say "anything you tell us may be used against you- we have the right to sell or reveal your personal information in any way we feel like". Once you give information to them, everyone can find out about it.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
NOOOOOOOOOO...
oh. Death of privacy. Nevermind, no big deal.
"Scud Storm!" -- Jeremy of PurePwnage.com
We apparently live in an "information" age, and as such information is power and/or profit depending on your aims.
This article states the obvious, if you pass your data on to a company for the purpose of say making a transaction they are going to try and hold on to that data, because it has additional value.
The fact is that information about people, is worth a lot of money, not so much names, postal and email addresses (although it has some in a certain context) but data that includes demographic information or any other information that can be used to deduce trends or intentions, (like age, sex, income, health information, credit and spending history, even complaints).
Without a rigorous and enforceable framework to regulate the use and transfer of this information it is going to be used in whatever manner ensures maximum profit for the company, be that keeping the data secret and using it in house to "add value" and so that you continue to trade with them or spreading it far and wide to generate some cash quickly.
What is needed are real penalties for intentional and accidental information disclosures, after all if data has a value and its yours then surely you are entitled to be reimbursed if it is compromised, but that will probably never happen, especially given the complexity of identifying the leaks.
In addition the line FTA: "...offering these records to the highest bidder, despite an online privacy policy that explicitly stated the company would never share customer data with any third party" proves the point that regardless of what an online or other privacy policy might state it is just that, a policy, usually subject to change, and more over not a guarantee to the customer (unless it is described as such and you don't see that all that often)
As an example, I recently started getting a huge amount of junk mail (the old kind that comes through the letter box) mainly offering credit cards and other credit facilities, it was badly targeted (offering products aimed at people with bad debt, corporate entities, people with good credit, and people over 60).
I managed to speak to 4 of the more prominent companies (international banks) and a smaller number of the smaller firms to ascertain the original source of the data, it turns out that the finance companies making these offers where inter sharing data massively, leading to a web of sources. My search lasted just over two months of calling and writing (asking people to remove the data as I went along) that ultimately ended with a major credit reference agency (one of the 2 Major UK agencies), who I have never dealt with directly, but who were used for a credit check when I recently purchased a mobile phone through a very large and reputable telecoms provider.
It turns out that the credit reference agency ticked the little box on their computer system that said that I consented to the sharing of my data (something that I make a point of not doing and doubly so as I hadn't dealt with them directly...). They have offered to stop sharing my data, but that is all, and of course the "damage" is already done. All a bit late really as once your data is out there its out there forever, or until you move or your details change enough to make it useless.
So there really is no real way of protecting your data any more, and one mistake by you or someone else and you are stuffed. The only thing I can suggest is changing your name, address, phone number, email address and possibly your gender about every 12 months....
I faily to see the irony. Health care related businesses are a smaller subset of the economy than the subset of those who deal with European companies and clients. Is it ironic because Americans like to think that our government does a better job of protecting our rights? Or is it ironic because European regulations are more effective at making US companies responsible for how they handle their data than US regulations are?
It's not ironic, it's just yet another sign of a more global economy. The whole shrinking world analogy is becoming more and more apt, and it's refreshing to me to see that companies are responding to the regulations of other nations in order to avoid losing that market segment.
This does, of course, work both ways -- people are still upset with $TECHCOMPANY's compliance with the Great Firewall of China. But it's heartening that governments in Europe may provide the impetus for American companies to do things that benefit me, an American consumer -- since US legislators are not as likely to do anything that pisses off their corporate sponsors.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Just follow the money, and the truth will be revealed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is why I hope privacy will become a dirty word in the future. The only thing wrong with traditional surveillance is the imbalence of power between the watchers and the watched. However, technology is finally starting to level the playing field. What we need to do is encourage their use and stop lobbying for things like strong encryption, which only gives the illusion of privacy and strive to make a completely transparent society. The strongest cipher is useless if a fly on the wall records your password as you type it. Such methods only encourage an arms race that we cannot win. Currently the rich, powerful and crooked have the ability to peek behind your veil of "privacy".... let's work to turn this situation around!
I've never seen the advantage of using real personal data.
I even use fake personal data for my three eBay accounts.
I even moved my htdocs to a dutch server to avoid giving personal data in the "Kontakt" part since that's a requirement in Germany. But I don't know the advantages of hosting htdocs in Germany.
it starts costing them business. People have no right to whine about privacy concerns, then continue to do business with that company. This is quickly becoming the standard American attitude. Americans want everything, but don't want to work for it anymore. Sadly, this attitude continues to work its way into nearly every aspect of American life.
When you do business with someone and give them information about yourself, there is ZERO guarantee of privacy, and none should be legislated. This is part of the cost of doing business. If companies want to guarantee it on their own in order to secure more business, more power to them. THAT is the way things are supposed to work in the U.S and it's up to consumers to drive it.
However, the important thing to find out is whether or not this can be acheived without significant risk of discovery to the enquirer. This is a tough question for a commissioned third party to answer, as they have carte blanche. I dunno about the US but, in the UK, the answer is usually: no.
Anyone who works with sensitive or private data (especially when it relates to children or vulnerable adults) has it so heavily drummed into them that security is crucial, that it has become part of the culture (which, of course, is the point).
Obviously there are breaches and slips, and people are not always challenged when they should be. However, these occurrences are infrequent, irregular and - most importantly - unpredictable. You couldn't approach a company/authority/whatever with a cunning ploy to discover data that worked last time and be sure of not getting caught out this time. It's not worth the risk, and employees are getting more savvy every day.
The absolute worst kinds of data integrity slip-up are from fucking sloppy work by people using info systems. I worked in HR for a while, and ended up maintaining the personnel data system (for about 7,500 peeps - and it was a shit piece of software). I discovered that one or two staff members were using the software incorrectly and, frankly, in a totally incompetent fashion, because they couldn't be bothered to use the proper routines. I wish I could've made that impossible, but it wasn't my software.
They had replaced the addresses of several employees with the addresses of several job applicants who happened to have the same name, because it hadn't crossed their minds that the personnel tables accessed by the applicant-processing module and the contracted-employees module might be the same. The result? I got a phone call from an irate HR manager asking why they had been returned a contract with payroll info, tax stuff etc from someone who had never worked for us with a note saying "not known at this address". Of course, the girl responsible tried to blame it on me, and got heavily bollocked shortly afterwards for being a dense fuckwit.
Glad I'm not working there anymore.
Meta will eat itself
I've noticed that democratically controlled systems, or the corporate equivalent of "vote with your dollars," breaks down when the population gets between 1e7 and 1e8. Suddenly, the political parties have become somewhat desensitized or even immune to the feedback for their outrageous actions. Corporations can essentially ignore pretty much any sort of public relations fiasco, since a boycott can't possibly raise enough countervotes to seriously impact the bottom line.
Honestly, at this point, if you said that Sam Walton's heirs, the Olsen Twins, and Dick Cheney were found in a secret lovenest in an undisclosed location in Tora Bora, writing a draft of USAPATRIOT ACT III which says that shoplifters were terrorists and should be buried under a hill of depleted uranium razorblades, there would be a five day story on the news and a 1% drop in poll/profit numbers, then it would be off to the next "scandal."
[
they shouldn't, people should care, and by extension so should their governments. but when a country buys information from private companies in order to contravene its own laws concerning the privacy of its citizens, then you can't really expect the people to care, can you? the battle over control of personal information is already over; the consumer lost. frankly, the consumer never new there was a battle, never cared, and at any point in the conflict when they could have made a difference, were far more likely to open the door and let the invaders in than they were to barricade it.
take frequent customer supermarket discounts. is your purchasing info really worth 15$/wk? mine isn't. i've recently had a building management company ask me for the transactional history of my chekcing account because i don't have a credit rating. thats right, 'don't have a credit rating.' i've lived outside of the US, where its illegal for companies to transfer personal information across borders. i don't have a credit card because i don't need one. why should i have to pay interest to spend my own money. a car rental company asked me for a second credit card because i was from out of state; why should i need a second one? because i owe that much money, and i'm therefore paying twice as much in interest payments just to buy things.
the future? forget the future, the present. the present is the matrix, as in the movie. except that instead of electricity you're providing goos and services. you're not batteries, but you are drones. and many of you continue to function in this role despite the fact that you know you're drones. you think that you're with the overseers of the drones. you're not. you're think you're better than all the poor people that buy used cars and use all the coupons they can. you're not.
when you can't speak your mind or they fire you, take away your credit cards and get you evicted, so that you can't rent another apartment, or a car, or anything else that requires that you possess a credit card in order to be considered a citizen, will you still be free, if in fact you ever were?
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Sure I do.
But I take care to only use it for things I don't deem too important.
The fact I'm just a student makes it even easier; talking about exams, DND and insider jokes, along with correspondence with certain teachers just isn't all too important for me to bother with encryption or whatever.
And, of course, I have an alternate account or two for certain other matters. Those contain no personal information whatsoever.
Poor security, but still... sufficient.
Ignore this signature. By order.
If you want to keep something private, don't share it with anyone else.
If I tell my friend that I shoplifted, then it is no longer a secret - he can reveal it to whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Sure, I can make him promise not to do so, I can even make him sign a contract that penalises him if he shares the secret.
But none of that can *prevent* him from sharing the secret. And once he does so (due to malicious intent, due to carelessness or maybe because a supervillain tortured him), the secret is out. No contract will put the genie back in the bottle.
Same thing with your email and phone records - once some company has the information, it is no longer secret. Sure, you may be able to sue them and punish them, but your 'private' information is out - no judge or law in the world can undo that. Yet.
If you havn't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.
Link
This is the right thinking. The reason is not because there is no return for the company for securing the data, but that there is no repercussions for not securing it. While I don't think allowing a lawsuit would resolve the problem I do think a stiff monetary fine would. Something like $100.00 per person for exposing data in an insecure method. This could easily be passed in a bill/law under negligent handling of person data.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
There is always more money to be made by saying one thing and doing another. If the consumer believes thier information is private, thats all that matters.
Great new book on Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
How long it would be needed for the privacy advocates to start realizing that the only way to secure your private information is to not give it way. Or in other words always question why company needs your private details.
Personally I still remember times before the dot.com boom, when shops were promising to help with choice of products, advices, etc - to improve the bleak internet shopping experience. And? It sucked back then - it sucks now. They have used then that info to spam us with sensless offers - and now they do all the same.
Let's get real. Why they need my private information in first place? And why do some give that info to them??
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I think it's mostly that privacy is off of most people's radar until they're a victim of identity theft or something.
I, OTOH, am a bit overzealous. I lie when companies ask for information or plead stupid. A few times I told the truth that I felt uncomfortable about giving my information to a firm. What happens? Some $8/hr clerk gets all indignant and huffy telling me that it's company policy as if it were law and I have to give it. No more wasting my arguing with clerks. I lie, plead stupid, and mostly, just walk away.
Like the websites that "require" a credit card number and other information for "free" trials. I'll clue you folks in on something - I know a few business owners who do that for extra revenue. Ya see, they give a 60-day or so "free trial", after getting the CC #. The folks who don't like the service will forget to cancel. They'll see it on their CC statement a few weeks later, and then call in. The $8 /hr clerk will then say, "Ok, it'll take a couple of weeks" or "It'll be canceled at the end of this month"
The biz just got two months of business out of you.
NEVER give a CC # for trial service - I don't care what bullshit they tell you.
Normally I'm not a fan of government intervention, but it sometimes is necessary. This is probably one of those times, where a reasonable law with stiff penalties could help.
But there are two problems I can see with this approach.
First, it would likely be years before the courts sorted out the lawsuits and we would know whether the law would really have any teeth.
Second, given our government's track record WRT respecting privacy the last century, do they really care, and can we trust them?
And this all assumes a reasonable law, which I'm no longer willing to assume is likely. So I guess there are three problems (at least).
As I approach old pfarthood, I despair of trusting the US government. It's a sad thing. OT1H I think the founding fathers did a heck of a job. OTOH I think Jefferson was right, and we needed a revolution every generation or so to keep power from becoming too concentrated. OTGH I wonder if it's possible to have such a revolution any more without wiping out the country because we waited way too long.
Color me cynical.
But by all means try. "Never give up! Never surrender!"
Lay down the law to force companies to pay attention to privacy. Let me decide if I want to waive that right. Don't force me to sign up for it (can you say, "Do Not Call list"? I knew you could.)
Hey, I thought only criminals would want privacy. It's not like the founding fathers decided to make a right to privacy worth putting in the constitution ..right? I mean if you have nothing to hide why do you need privacy? The founding fathers didnt see any need for privacy whatsoever. If they did, they would have included it as part of the Bill of Rights. And, it's not like the founders expressed the belief that certain rights are more important than perceived interests of advancing the state, if they did .. when they declared independence they would have stated that God has given all humans UNALIENABLE rights and that "Governments are instituted to secure these rights".
.. i rather have a moral existence than gain benefit and being a contribuitor to the oppression of even one innocent person. Because to me that's just a sin, and i have true and real faith in God that it's never worth it within the grand scheme of things.
Everyone should lead boring lives, then there wouldnt be a need for privacy.
Yes, I am being sarcastic. I don't care what "advantages" destroying the right to privacy has supposedly brought
By the way, why is that woman from HP able to spy on the board of directors? I wonder if she has hired third parties to spy on competitors and tap their phone lines? How do we know a person of low despicable moral character wouldnt do that? If I was Steve Jobs, I would be worried about being spied on.
It seems very obvious to me that if HP comes out with anything before its competitors do, it's probably because they are willing to spy on their competitors and steal their ideas. I know for sure if I had tapped anyone's phone lines I would be sitting in jail right now. I guess there may be something to what people say when they remark there is one law for corporations and another for people.
Only North Koreans deserve privacy.
In Soviet Russia, privacy gets YOU!
All your data are belong to us. Er, should that be: All your data is belong to us???
I, like countless other college and highschool students, happen to be a Facebook user. Admittedly, the initial concept seemed harmless enough. Over time, more and more and more ways were added in which participants could put even more personal information on the pages. More convoluted privacy access controls were added, which in their default settings expose your data to EVERYONE, including people you don't know and that are in none of your communities/groups.
The latest addition to Facebook, however, took the cake. Now for each partecipant there is a "news feed" which provides a nice and easy way to see ALL changes done by the user: this includes changes to their private info, as well as any text messages sent to other people. In short, while this info was available before - it required WORK to get all of it. Stalking took time. Stalking was hard. Like it is supposed to be. Now, logging in to Facebook, I am immediately presented with everything happening to all of my friends - whether I want to see it or not.
Who needs privacy unless they have something to hide?
You know who has something to hide? Terrorists.
You're not a terrorist are you?
it always astounds me how much info people give out @ radio shack's checkout - i tell them to fuck off unless they want to lose a sale
Yeap, Rad Shack is so inquisitive. When I buy something there, which isn't often, and they start asking all those questions I just say they don't need it. I won't join or get a membership in any of the video rental places like Blockbuster because they want to do a credit check. They don't need that, all they need is to know you can pay.
FalconShould there be a Law?
At the time of writing the parent is 50% Funny and 50% Interesting. There is an element of dark humor to the parent comment but to ignore the insight completely misses the point. Therefore I am convinced this is a deliberate and malicious attempt by agents of the global elite to subvert truth by re-aligning context. If a reader can be preconditioned to expect humor, will they overlook any profound meaning subdued beneath? Next time you read a slashdot comment moderated funny, just ask yourself this; who moderates the moderators?
Capitalism really peaked in the 1960s when respect for the middle/working class - the center of any free market economy - was at its zenith.
Since then, we've been on a long descent into crony capitalism in which corporations receive billions of dollars in welfare / bankruptcy bailouts while single parents are demonized as the destruction of society. Corporation lobbyist dollars and campaign contributions now trump votes and letters/calls from regular citizens. Corporations pollute our waters and air and aren't held liable to the people they make sick or even kill. Corporations buy politicians and laws at will, and they're getting more and more efficient at brushing aside the will of the majority.
In America, the rich are now glorified and the poor are demonized. This is absolutely positively a direct contradiction to America's much vaunted "Judeo Christian" values.
There is no God any more in the eyes of corporate America... only money.
Corporations trade your personal information and the free trade of your private information is essential to their bottom line, even more surely than free mp3's are desired by the common terrori^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmp3 pirate. If corporations - specifically marketers - could have it their way, all your transactions and whereabouts would be public information.
The old evil empire was communism, which sacrificed individuals to the state.
Capitalism fails miserably when it crosses the "profits over people" line, as it sacrifices the individual to the corporation.
What saves the Western world is DEMOCRACY, far more than capitalism. And when DEMOCRACY is threatened, as it is being threatened by the corporate state right now, neither capitalism nor communism can save you.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
It's sorta funny seeing all the "having any responsibility/regulations/protection/etc would KILL the economy, cause huge costs for the consumers, bla, bla, bla" scare theories coming from the USA, because for most of them can easily be disproved by just casting your eyes over the Atlantic.
Privacy laws? Check. Companies around here have to be responsible with user data and are explicitly forbidden from selling it around. Guess what? It didn't really cause much of an economic impact. Chances are I can get a cell phone contract down here cheaper than you can get it in the USA, and get a better deal (coverage, service, etc) too. Forbidding the telcos from raping the user's privacy for a quick buck didn't actually do that much to the prices.
Emissions controls? Check. Nope, it didn't kill industry at all to put a filter and be responsible with the crap they dump in the atmosphere. Look around you how many cars come from Germany or Japan which _did_ sign the Kyoto treaty on CO2 emissions for example, and then how many more are from former US car manufacturers that are now owned by a German corporation. The folks with the emission controlls not only didn't go bankrupt, but actually did better. Go figure.
Real social security and employee/union rights? Check. Nope, it _didn't_ bankrupt the economy, it _didn't_ push whole countries into corruption and poverty, and it _didn't_ cause half the country to give up work and mooch off social security. Go figure. We still have unemployment and inflation where we want them even after, what? 60+ years of real social security? (Yes, inflation and unemployment are actually wanted, even in the USA. The two are linked, so pushing one down makes the other rise. So any government can only pick a point that looks acceptable on that curve, and try to keep the economy there.) As a nice side-effect, it tends to keep criminality low too (at least on mainland Europe), since if you don't push people under the poverty limit, they have a helluva lot less incentive to go mug someone for money. So it actually made Europe a pretty damn nice place to live in.
Consumer rights? Check. The economy keeps working just as well even if you don't need to battle in court all the time to keep yourself from being shafted by the corporations. Not only it didn't hurt the industry and commerce, it actually helped them, since it also put a cork on blatantly frivolous lawsuits.
Real anti-trust regulation, enforced systematically? (As opposed to the shameful farce that MS's anti-trust trial was in the USA.) Check. Yep, the economy still works just as well. Even without the governments bending over and taking it up the ass to please corporations.
Etc.
In practice, the economy adapted graciously to all that, and more. All the doom and gloom that supposedly would befall us all if we put any limits on CEOs, somehow never actually happened. Some of it has had more than 60 years to happen, and strangely enough, it never did so far. Go figure.
Basically it sorta cracks me up when I hear the kind of "giving us any responsibilities or limiting our power in any way would ruin the economy" bullshit that comes from the USA's corporate psychopaths and their apologists. It's like watching a kid arguing why he should get a lollypop, and what doom and gloom will befall everyone if he doesn't get one. It's really that disconnected from reality.
But at least those I can understand. What's sad is seeing otherwise intelligent people from over there actually believing that crap.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Shooooooom.......
The benefits outwigh the costs only in some cases. To take your comments about process optimization and basic infrastructure you have to consider the costs of privatized infrastructure. Here in the U.S. private companies (varying from state to state) control more or less of the infrastructure. In California almost all of the power infrastructure is in private hands. Those hands recently determined that it was more cost-effective to shut down power stations rather than run them. This was effective because the resulting scarcity of power caused the price of all other killowat hours to go up.
The practical upshot of this was that companies such as Enron were able to stop spending money on some power plants and reap a much higher profit off of the others. For the consumers this meant that even as they faced surging utility bills (as much as 300% increases) they also were forced to deal with "rolling blackouts". The Government of California meanwhile felt its hands were tied and could do nothing to ensure that power was available to its citizens and thus that the essential infrastructure of the economy was running.
Incidentally all of this occurred just before a nasty recall election that booted the governor and brought the Gubernator into office, in part on the grounds that he would do better on the economy.
Just to forestall the obvious comments out the free market consider the cost of competition. If we are to presume that such excesses as I have described above will be checked by the action of the free market we face two problems.
Firstly the cost of getting into competition is extreme. Nuclear power plants don't grow on trees and neither do millions of miles of electrical lines. Infrastructural utilities are, in many ways, immune to competition because of the immense cost of investement and the infeasability of running multiple parallel infrastructure. Picture having multiple distinct road systems, power lines, sewers, or water systems. Picture the difficulty of switching from one system to another. Simple physical space and cost limitations make that infeasible.
Secondly, it was the free market that made that gouging possible. By having a free market on KwH pricing and opening up all aspects to competition and thus making the little intentional blackout scheme profitable.
To put it another way, do you want to pay the "market rate" for garbage removal?
Or, What security do you have when your elected officials can't guarantee the flow of water?
I have seen it as well, and it is an excellent and frightening documentary.
"Furthermore, there's not enough money to be lost in privacy breaches for companies to care"
Todays irrelevent concern is tomorrows big earner. I roughly quote that foolish HP guy...
"what on earth would ordinary people want with computers", and extrapolate to
"what on earth would ordinary people wanty with privacy, we're 'protecting' them"
So yeah, keep it up guys, sooner or later some idealist bods will suddenly be the next crop of billionaires thanks to current short sightedness..
People choose to exchange privacy for low cost and convenience.
The government can't save you.
When the rights of the individual conflict with the corporate bottom line, corporations now consistently and steadfastly refuse to yield the legal right of way. They also use their considerable WEALTH to force their point of view which is that everyone is commoditized. Commoditization depends GREATLY on the loss of privacy - another one of those inconvenient and costly individual liberties.
The current privacy situation is far less a situation of apathy, incompetence and the "unjustified expense" of abiding by principles, and far MORE of a situation of "we need to pass around your personal information to reduce our bottom (marketing research) line, and we'll do it as much as we can get away with it."
At some point, because of the failure to protect privacy, would not "identity" become meaningless, since there will be no reliable way to confirm it?
If identity theft becomes so rampant that credit card companies and banks are losing serious money, they'll remove credit options, meaning much, much lower lines of credit and/or fewer credit cards (as vendors get out of the business).
And when does "identity theft" become a preferable alternative for people that would otherwise declare bankruptcy? "No, that wasn't me that ran up that debt, it was someone that 'stole my identity'! Now please clear my record and let me be about my business."
People are stealing legal "identities" of new-borns, before any personal identity has developed. I'm sure there are/will be cases where the (adult) victim will discover that someone else has a long-established history with his/her identity. Then what?
Any encryption can be broken given an NSA computer
All except one. And that was a nasty, er good, one as it threatened to make everything available.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I can see me in a few months, "What was that story that came to an obvious conclusion? Oh yeah, I'll just search for 'duh'!"
For certain information there are issues that would make it monetarily sound to be up-to-standards... PCI comes to mind. Companies that store and process Visa and MC credit cards are now held to higher level of standards by the credit card companies due to break-ins and information theft. It's something like 50k-100k PER DAY for being out-of-compliance with these standards, plus immediate fines for any information theft. Even to the biggest companies like Wal-Mart, 100k a day isn't exactly "chump change". So even if our government doesn't have regulations with teeth (i.e. HIPPA), there still exist capitalist measures to force companies to become security-minded.
Why not apply that to copyright or other "IP"? If you want to keep control of a piece of work, don't tell anyone about it.
Why should I care if an artist loses out on a possible sale of their latest album?
Say 'what' again! Say 'what' again!!! I dare you...I double dare you, motherfucker! Say 'what' one more time!
> "Why don't companies care about privacy?"
Because most customers don't care about privacy. They'll yammer on about it when surveyed and will support legislation when they don't see it as costing them anything, but they won't do anything about it. If they did, the companies would damnsure care. A lot.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
...have just been a coma? Other than what happens in your bedroom, there's very little privacy left in our American lives, NOW. For DECADES. Ever live in a small town?
Once again: not news. Why are these stories regularly posted?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
death of privacy -> even more porn.
What? Not that privacy? Well then like you said, never mind. no big deal.
Identity thieves stand a 1 in 7000 chance of being caught when they nail a regular citizen. 1 in 7000.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Do one thing well. If you want extra security, you can put your SMTP and POP/IMAP servers on secure socket layer, you can encrypt mails before they are sent.
Deleted
The free market is a method for mediating power exchange. It is similar to democracy in this respect. It is basically one dollar, one vote rather than one person, one vote. The free market, on its own, lacks the system of checks and balances that a healthy democracy must have. There is no protection against the tyranny of the majority. What's worse, the majority of dollars are controlled by a minority of the people. The more money a person has, the easier it is for them to game the system. They have more say over what is valuable and what isn't, and can therefore make things they own or control more valuable, increasing their wealth and therefore their power. This positive feedback loop is what Marx saw would lead to concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Of course, his proposed system also lacked proper checks and balances and lead to the same end, even quicker.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Most people would care if they knew. Unfortunately not only don't they know about the dangers, they have many other things to worry about and finding information about this issue isn't a priority. So we actually need those columnists to write those articles so people will realize what's ebing done to them.
Are you honestly saying that if you went up to a bunch of random people on the street and said, "Do you mind if companies buy and sell your private information?" that the majority would say "Sure! Whatever!" ? You must really have a low ability of most people's ability to make rational decisions for themselves. I know it's chic in geek circles to put down the common man as a way to make yourself seem smarter, but this seems ridiculous.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Bluntly put "Joe Public" doesn't cares about the violations as long as they are not the once getting violated and its not until they are that they realise how f**king screwed they are. Perhaps its some kind of "Niemöller syndrome", others get violated and when its your turn there is nobody left to stand up for your rights.
You know that rotten smell you've been smelling, well, that's your privacy. It's been dead for a long time and now it's really starting to stink the place up.
Companies don't care about your privacy because they make a LOT of money off selling data about you to other companies. Some, like the credit bureaus, are more open about it. Others, like RealPlayer & Symantec, are far more clandestine about it. The whole thing is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. If you ask for a catalog, or subscribe to a magazine, chances are your name and address have been "whored out" by the companies that send your catalog or magazine. If it's a catalog, they may even sell data about items you've purchased in the past. If it's a magazine, they may sell data about anything in the magazine that you've responded to in the past. If it's a web site where you set up an account, they can track which ads you might have clicked on, what sites you came in from, what sites you left to go look at, which pages you browsed and for how long. If it's a site you have to subscribe to, well now, they've got all that data tied to your real name, home address, credit card number and heavens only knows what else.
If more of you knew how intrusive these sons of biscuits are, there might be a riot over it.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
Offtopic a bit, but I wish that nobody required my birthday to identify me. Too many people already know my birthday, so I don't see what is so special about it. You want people to know it, so they can celebrate it.
If birthdays were not a privacy concern, then sites that did genelogy could host many more family trees.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
I've got to take issue with this. I know it's chic to play on the insecure geek stereotype, but most geeks wouldn't be insecure if it wasn't for the insecure anti-intellectuals who bully them. Not only that, but I think you misunderstand; it's not that geeks put down the common man because they want to feel smarter, it's because they feel alienated and frustrated, and wished that everyone was as smart (or smarter than them). I'm a geek and I *wish* everyone was smarter than me, then things might be better than they are, and at least people wouldn't be lying to me when they tell me they know better.
Nathan's blog
"You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy
Another thing to keep in mind is that companies do not want capitalism per se--they want monopolies for themselves. Companies do want big government, but they want it not to provide service, but to keep others out of thier field so they don't have to contend with competition. Cable companies are a great example of this. Our patent system is inundated with companies patenting as much as possible, even prior art (when they can get away with it) for the specific purpose of preventing competition.
It's not that I'm anti-capitalist. I do believe that capitalism generally sucks less than the alternatives. But I'm ambivalent about public utilities being entirely private. A necessary service like electricity or water shouldn't be entirely for-profit, unless it is heavily regulated with extensive oversight. Government may mean red tape and inefficiency, but I prefer that inefficiency to the cost-cutting measures that the drive for profitability always creates. The drive for companies is not safety or service, but profit, and when that comes first then things get cut or made "optional" that people need. I realize that many people think "I don't want to subsidize some poor person's electricity/water/mail/whatever just because they choose to live in the boonies" but I think society is better off if we pool the expense of certain services. I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons and cluster-bombs, but I don't get a line-item veto for my taxes. If we share the expense of "security" then we should be able to share the expense for necessary utilities.
You're retarded. Stalking you was never hard for the NSA, CIA, and PLA. Those are the people you need to worry about, not that your friend can more easily see that you had sex with his girlfriend.
Maybe the current USA Presidential administration's illegal wiretaps / mass-surveilence in co-operation with AT&T, Verizon, et. al. will be posted in your Facebook "news feed" so you'll finally get it through your thick skull!!!
Well that's the snag with capitalism, you need capital to play.
Everyone begins with owning their body. Feel free to rent it out for labor and problem-solving.
Ah, but when you have patents or copyrights, you have, by definition, government intervention in the markets, specifically, the granting of monopolies on certain things, and not free markets at all. Can't the free market find a better solution to the problem than these government granted monopolies?
Adam Smith, the "father" of freetrade and capitalism, was against copyrights and patents. Thomas Jefferson was as well until his friend James Madison convinced him they could advance science and culture faster than they would advance without them. Once thus convinced he sat down and calculated using an actuarial table that copyrights and patents should last 28 years with one 28 year extension possible. I too support copyrights and patents, but copyrights I'd limit to say not more than five or ten years and patents not more than three or five years, unless the inventor can show they need more tyme to make a profit off of the invention. Once a profit has been realized though I'd have the patent put into the public domain. Well, maybe not profit but the breakeven point, otherwise how are you going to decide how much profit. As it is now instead of encouraging progress, the way patents are now they hinder progress not advance it. This is especially true with things that never should be patented period, like business methods (Amazon's One Click) and software (algorithms).
FalconShould there be a Law?
you're on another planet.
But the gist of your post is you support suppressing the will of the many in favor of the will of the rich few. Your endless yapping about perception of value says nothing about the subject of privacy, or the fact that one person with money often get more of a voice than many people who vote. The way you sound, you'd love to have an oligarchy: a kleptocracy run by the elite few.
In your universe, why even have voting rights?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Since Democracy isn't good enough in your book, what do you want? Elected leaders with no boundaries on what they can do are now under the control of corporate statists. That's the status quo.
Perhaps we should outlaw lobbyist money? One person, one (x500) dollars?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Secondly, it was the free market that made that gouging possible. By having a free market on KwH pricing and opening up all aspects to competition and thus making the little intentional blackout scheme profitable.
From what I recall of CA's "deregulation", which was really moving regulations around, price caps were placed on power generators but not on the sale of the power, and the two were decoupled, ie generators could not be sellers and visa versa. At the same tyme as those rolling blackouts years ago there was a wind farm that was able to produce several megawatts of power that sat there ideal because there weren't any power transmission lines installed so the power could be transmitted. Now if the Govanator has his way with the million solar roofs the state will be more independent for electricity. His hydrogen initiative is also a good idea.
Firstly the cost of getting into competition is extreme. Nuclear power plants don't grow on trees and neither do millions of miles of electrical lines.
True but PVs can be "made to grow" on roofs. And as many people who are Off the grid can tell you people can and do make what electricity they use, and without those miles of electrical lines. Actually that's why some go off the grid, they build a home where there aren't any power lines and it can be cheaper to generate your own electricity than it would cost to have power lines installed.
Secondly, it was the free market that made that gouging possible. By having a free market on KwH pricing and opening up all aspects to competition and thus making the little intentional blackout scheme profitable.
No it wasn't any free market that made gouging possible it was government granted monopolies that made gouging possible. A free market would of allowed anyone and everyone with the wherewithall, ability, to come in and create their own infrastructure. Why oh why do people mix up a freemarket with government granted monopolies?
FalconShould there be a Law?
We pay for people's healthcare when they refuse to, we pay for people who refuse to get a job.
Oh, and everyone can get health insurance without government intervention? And all who are unemployed are that way because they refuse to work? I know that's not true. Almost 10 ten years ago I was riding my bike after classes I was taking in college when a moving van hit me. It left me with a permanent disability and I get SSI now. And because of the accident I have been refused insurance. Others simply can't aford the cost of insurance, it's either eat or have health insurance. Yet congress critters can get the best possible health insurance they don't have to pay a dime for.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Or maybe they don't care about it as much as they think.
While I'm personally a big fan of privacy, and my usual place to reference in a discussion like this would be to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), I found the following counterpoint quite insightful as to why there's been so little public outcry:
I've excerpted only a portion; see the site for a more complete transcript of the monologue. Or watch the show. It's very hit or miss, so some episodes are really dull and tedious--but others are very interesting. Bill or, just as often, one of his guests makes good points like this with just enough frequency that I'm willing to slog through the rest of it... Kinda like C-SPAN, but occasionally more funny.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Their "customers" often never agreed to "do business" with them.
How many people actually consent to have their employment data stockpiled by Choicepoint? How many people actually consent to US Search storing their home addresses for stalkers to buy?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If companies cared about privacy, we wouldn't see so many laptop thefts, data breaches and forwarded e-mails circulating everywhere. Recently Wells Fargo suffered another laptop loss (or should I say their clients suffered?) - far from their first experience. It is unacceptable for a company to lose data once, it is even more appalling when it happens over and over. There is only so much we can do as consumers to change their practices, but at the very least we can research a firm's privacy practices, security breach history and make informed decisions before giving them our business - and personal information.
I mean, as if there is money to be made in *NOT* selling something!
(mind you, trying to buy Skype credit, you'd think there was somehow a way to make money by not taking money from your customers. Either that or Skype have money to burn. Or they are running at a loss and every 'paying' customer costs them money).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It's the consumer, stupid. The problem isn't that companies are evil, it's that the consumers just don't care. They may say they do, but their actions say otherwise. The attitude is that they shouldn't have to do anything to get privacy, it should come to them automatically.
Anti-spyware isn't installed because because of privacy concerns, it's installed because the computer slowed down. People don't shred their financial documents. They post political bumper stickers on their cars for the whole world to see. They cheat on their spouses in full view of everyone in the bar. They freely give their name, address and phone to any brick-n-mortor clerk who asked for it. They think "club cards" are neat.
The dichotomies are strange. Credit card records on a laptop harddrive is a front page scandal, but no one cares that paper credit card slips are tossed in the trash unshredded. They're concerned that a spammer might find out their email, but don't care that their phone number is unlisted.
Privacy needs to be protected by the possessor. Your privacy is your responsibility. No one else is going to protect it for you. If you're going to sit on your ass and do nothing about it, then stop bitching when companies do likewise.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I boycott RIAA/MPAA made products. I'm a Reaganite.
And you're still trying to sell me an oligarchy, and I ain't buyin' it. You either have a Democratic process which allows you to amend the Constitution (the ultimate statement of imposing a majority will), or you don't, and the whole stack of democratic cards come falling down.
You can't have it both ways.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Not that I condone renting at blockbuster or anything... they're super expensive... but I just wanted to clear up your misinformation.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The only thing standing between the Net and your privacy is YOU. Remember the AOL search screw-up? Here is an easy tool to help with things like that http://www.blackboxsearch.com/ -- it's important to find and use the tools available that actually work...
As I recall there weren't any government granted monopolies
Governments did grant monopolies. They granted rights of way to businesses to string up the wires and cables, even on private poperty. Try this if you own property that has cables crossing it, try to have them removed because they are on your private property. You can't, the government granted whichever company it is the Right of Way. Then try to run your own cables along the same path. You can't unless you get permission from the government to use the Right of Way. Even if you had the money to, say start your own windfarm, you wouldn't be able to hook it up to cables that you put up that crosses others' property without their permission or getting the government to grant you the Right of Way.
After having typed the above I see you bring up the lack of the ability to have a bunch of cables, transmission lines, strung up. All of these leads to the creation of natural monopolies and the only solution I see is if the local communities or governments own the infrastucture, but with any and all comers being able to "hook up" to it and then is able to offer services to those willing to pay for the service(s). And excellent example of this is in northern Utah, where a group of communities' governments acting together built the infrastructure for a Broadband Utopia. While I'm a Libertarian I believe this is a good example of where local governmental bodies can and should own the infrastructure and wouldn't have any problems if things like this expanded to other places, so long as those who use the services are the ones who pay for it. It wouldn't be anything new as this is how it is done with roads.
FalconShould there be a Law?