Amazon Is Collecting Your Kindle Highlights & Notes

TechDirt catches Amazon playing fast and loose with data that consumers may think is private — namely, their highlights and notes entered into Kindle books. "Amazon will now remotely upload and store the user notes and highlights you take on your Kindle, which it then compiles into 'popular highlights.' I have no doubt that the feature provides some interesting data, but it's not clear that users realize their highlighting and notes are being stored and used that way. Amazon basically says there's no big privacy deal here, because the data is always aggregated. But it sounds like many users don't realize this is happening at all. Amazon says people can find out they added this feature by reading 'forum posts and help pages.' ... [This situation] once again highlights a key concern in that the 'features' of your 'book' can change over time. Your highlighting may have been yours in the past, but suddenly it becomes Amazon's with little notice."

Comments

This is why

[Omnifarious]

This is why I'm so very insistent about owning the hardware I buy. Mostly. Unfortunately, I sort of share vague ownership of a PS3 with Sony. :-( But generally, it's not a concession I'm willing to make.

Sadly, I don't think most people are aware of the choice they're making. And when you tell them, they think you're a raving lunatic or some kind of bizarre idealist. But their choices have real consequences, and the network effect of their choices have consequences for me.

Re:This is why

[adolf]

Let us not fog this discussion with dismissives about hardware ownership, for this really has nothing to do with that. Instead, this about how companies treat the data you create. And let me just say that there's are some useful aspects to having Amazon keep your data for you.

Suppose I have a Kindle (or, say, one of the requisite apps on some other hardware platform), and I've bought a few books for it that I've noted and highlighted. Suppose, then, that I lose my Kindle. Or it gets run over by a bus. Or stolen. Or dunked in a hot tub. Or whatever.

All I have to do is procure/install a new Kindle, enter the appropriate account identification, and my books and notes are transferred to the new device.

Which, you must admit, is pretty cool. (Hey luddites! The cloud has uses!)

As I see it, the only problem here is if, and how, Amazon shares that data with others. It really has nothing to do with hardware ownership, which is a red herring argument at best.

So, instead, please: Let's simply discuss the implications of Amazon sharing your highlights with others. (This is a matter that I really don't have any opinion on in this instance, but I guess I'll don my flamesuit anyway...)

Re:This is why

[causality]

Let us not fog this discussion with dismissives about hardware ownership, for this really has nothing to do with that. Instead, this about how companies treat the data you create. And let me just say that there's are some useful aspects to having Amazon keep your data for you.

Suppose I have a Kindle (or, say, one of the requisite apps on some other hardware platform), and I've bought a few books for it that I've noted and highlighted. Suppose, then, that I lose my Kindle. Or it gets run over by a bus. Or stolen. Or dunked in a hot tub. Or whatever.

All I have to do is procure/install a new Kindle, enter the appropriate account identification, and my books and notes are transferred to the new device.

Which, you must admit, is pretty cool. (Hey luddites! The cloud has uses!)

As I see it, the only problem here is if, and how, Amazon shares that data with others. It really has nothing to do with hardware ownership, which is a red herring argument at best.

So, instead, please: Let's simply discuss the implications of Amazon sharing your highlights with others. (This is a matter that I really don't have any opinion on in this instance, but I guess I'll don my flamesuit anyway...)

Hardware that you own is under your control. "Control" as used here includes the ability to decide whether or not it transmits locally-stored data to any remote destination.

The scenarios you gave of a Kindle being destroyed, stolen, or otherwise rendered inoperable have a simple enough solution: backups. On a hardware device that you own, there is nothing preventing you from making backups of any data it stores. If you own it, you can send your data "to the cloud" as a backup (whether or not this is the primary purpose of doing so), you can back the data up to physical media that you own, you can choose to do both, or you can choose to do neither and take your chances.

Most importantly, hardware that you own doesn't "phone home" unless you specifically configure it to do so. It doesn't force you to return a downloaded book (i.e. 1984) because the publisher screwed up and wants to make this your problem. It doesn't transmit your data to "the cloud" unless you enable such functionality, or if it is enabled by default, you are at least able to permanently disable it with the confidence that your settings won't be remotely overridden.

I think you miss an important point. Data ownership is a total non-issue if no one but you has possession of your data. It's an easy issue if no one else has possession of your data unless you specifically, willingly, and intentionally gave it to them. The only reason you mention "how companies treat the data you create" and think this trumps the "hardware ownership" concern is because Amazon gets this data with or without your consent because they have total control over a device you thought you owned.

The repeated examples of this single principle are why I will never use a Kindle. I refuse to reward such business practices with my money. If you really had no qualms about doing so, if there were truly nothing wrong with any of this, then you wouldn't need to create a false distinction between "hardware ownership" and "how companies treat your data", as though the hardware ownership were not exactly the means by which Amazon obtains your data.

Re:Title is a goddamn sonofabitch phony

[Omnifarious]

Even collecting information about 'most popular passages' is, IMHO, kind of invasive. Especially when it happens without you even realizing it. When you highlight something on a personal device you hold in your lap where you 'buy' the books the expectation is not that the highlight becomes public knowledge in any way, even as part of an aggregate.

The plain fact is, the idea that you 'own' your Kindle or any of the books on it is a complete fiction. Amazon should not be allowed to imply that you do in any way.

Re:RTFM

[Culture20]

Why should I care that Amazon builds an aggregate summary?

What if your (admittedly stupid) note said "This passage is exactly what happened to my wife, Jenny Smith, last night at our home address of 12345 Stupid street in Stupidville."? Or more likely, you annotated someone's name and address or phone number in your kindle because you had it with you by the pool, but you didn't have your phone.

Intellectual property theft

[c0d3g33k]

Isn't it interesting that the very companies that protest constantly about piracy of their "intellectual property" and want to DRM lock everything to prevent it seem to have no respect for the property rights of individuals? Take note, you apologists who constantly point out that piracy is "theft" because it "steals" something that belongs to the creator whose 'right' to compensation and control of their works must be protected. Why silent now? The personal notes a person creates on their reading device are no different from other creative works and should be protected accordingly. Amazon should not be accessing or using this information without express permission or fairly compensating the rights holders and providing royalties for the lives of the authors plus 70 years. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Repeat after me (Repetition Indeed)

[batistuta]

Since this is a new "feature", I'm sure it was no where at the time buyers acquired the product a few months ago. Besides, that's not the whole point. Sure, Amazons profits from this and they do give part of the benefit back to users, but it should be done in such a way that the users are absolutely informed of what's happening. And it should be disabled by default.

Re:Repeat after me (Repetition Indeed)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the fact that I can opt in or out.

It is the fact that, once I buy a (e)-book, I don't want to hear from or interact with the publisher ever again concerning that purchase. Money exchanged, goods recieved, and that's the end of it. Period and finished.

I do not want my "book" to send out any information whatsoever unless I explicitly go through motions that enables it. And if I do enable it, I expect a little wi-fi type of icon present on the corner of every page of each book that has this enabled.

On the same vein, I do not want my "book" to listen for and receive anything. No "your purchase has been deleted your money refunded" bullshit. Once I have it, I have it, it is mine, and nothing short of a physical person showing up with a signed court order will remove it from my possession.

I do not want a device that interacts in any way whatsoever with a network other than to make a new purchase, and then limited exclusively to information concerning that purchase.

Capish? What is so hard to understand about implementing this simple basic model, and nothing more?