Senate Scrutinizes Privacy Issues of ISP User Tracking

Hugh Pickens writes "As companies collect, use, and disseminate data regarding online users, there is concern that tracking individuals' Internet activity and gathering information from online users violates their expectations of privacy. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to look at the policy issues, and the hottest topic will be proposed systems by which ISPs can watch users and sell information about their surfing habits to advertising companies. The Center for Democracy and Technology has issued a report suggesting that these systems may violate federal law (PDF). 'Advertising per se is not the evil here,' says Leslie Harris from CDT. 'It's the collection of individuals' information, usually without their knowledge, always without their consent, creation of profiles and the complete inability of people to make choices about that.' On the other side NebuAd, the most active ad-targeting company, says its profiles are interest-based, and not personally identifiable. 'We have designed our entire company to make sure that we stay on the opt-out side of those laws and policies,' says NebuAd CEO Robert Dykes. Charter Communications announced last month that it would suspend a trial of NebuAd due to customer concerns about privacy."

Comments

Re:Yeah, and?

[Red Flayer]

Because it isn't opt-in

I fail to see the point of that argument. You are voluntarily sending data on their network, why should you have to opt in?

The more relevant question would be: Is it ethical for the phone company to record and correlate all conversations going through their lines and sell (summaries of) the recordings to third parties? Without their customers' consent? Without their knowledge?

Were you around when all calls went through a switchboard? And you had to assume that the operator was listening in? Believing your phone calls are private is only two generations old, and I think it's a mistake. One should NEVER assume that information crossing someone else's network, be it via telephone or via the internet, is private. Note that we have a technical solution to eavesdropped phone calls, as well -- VOIP can be encrypted (sure, there's some latency, but that's a small price to pay for privacy).

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no expectation of privacy on any public means of data transmission. We have the technical capability of securing our correspondence, and legislating privacy is a big mistake since it makes us dependent on government to safeguard our privacy, and that is not always in the government's interest.

What I've been taught is irrelevant. What the average user expects is what congress is asking. And just because a mailman has the ability to peruse a postcard doesn't mean he should photocopy it and sell it on eBay.

Then the problem is with the average user. The internet is still a relatively new technology, and it will take time for people to become aware of the implications of their internet use. Until we stop comparing it to older means of communication, people will be confused. It just needs to be made clear to people that internet traffic is not private unless they make it private. We have the means to do so.

So, how do I conceal my slashdot posts, google searches, and online shopping from my ISP?

Use an anonymizer or a proxy. If my paid proxy reveals my info, he's got a breach of contract suit on his docket. I only use it for sensitive info, but it meets my needs.