Slashdot Mirror


A Day In the Life of Privacy

wiredmikey writes "Here's an interesting read on the state of privacy and how technology, along with government and social media have changed the idea, and reality of privacy forever. The article takes the reader through a typical day, and highlights many of the privacy issues that we face, from our mobile phones, Internet at local coffee shops, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, all the way down to cars equipped with OnStar, public cameras, facial recognition technology and more. The author concludes everyday we make compromises in the face of Privacy, and none of us will ever have as much privacy as we want."

103 comments

  1. social network == telecom operation by StripedCow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If social networks would just fall under the same laws as telecom companies, then those companies would simply be prohibited to inspect the messages that their users send around (even if their services are "free", and even if those messages are intended for a group of people instead of just one person a time).

    Why aren't we just approaching the problem from this angle?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:social network == telecom operation by Yaur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because telecom forms natural monopolies that require regulation and social networks offer services that you can choose not to use and thus require less regulation. The real problem is that not enough people care about privacy for an alternative with strong privacy protection (which would likely be a paid service) to be a viable business.

    2. Re:social network == telecom operation by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You pay directly for telecom services. What are you providing social networks to keep them in business? It is selling your activity on the network to advertisers. If you want to legislate a requirement for privacy on social networks, be prepared to start paying out of pocket for Facebook usage.

    3. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Social networks may not have high capital costs, but the barriers to entry are practically insurmountable because of the demand-side economies of scale.
      Monopoly or not, it's clear facebook are not under enough competitive pressure and need to have the shit regulated out them. At least my phone interoperates with every other phone on the planet. Would be nice if social networks did the same.

    4. Re:social network == telecom operation by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      social networks offer services that you can choose not to use

      Uhm, you can also choose not to use telecom services... or what am I missing?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    5. Re:social network == telecom operation by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I can choose other social networks that might offer more privacy, and it is as easy as changing my URL.

      With phone companies, I can either use the telco in my area, or not at all. Not the same thing.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    6. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that if you don't go to Facebook.com anymore, they won't learn anything about you? If you think that is the case, you are severely lacking in grasping the reach companies like Facebook have.

    7. Re:social network == telecom operation by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why aren't we just approaching the problem from this angle?

      Because a free and unregulated market will always deliver the most profitable, more equitable, and most efficient outcomes all of the time and for every possible scenario you blasphemous heretic.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:social network == telecom operation by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Those "natural" monopolies come from government protection of special interests. On the other hand, corruption is "natural". Everybody's looking for a cut. Including the people who vote for corrupt officials. What is needed is to eliminate the need for privacy, to not allow the info to used used against you. Part of the solution is to eliminate official secrecy. The state should not be permitted any more privacy than any other individual.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:social network == telecom operation by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The barrier to entry is practically insurmountable due to the network effect. A social network is worthless without people already on it, and people won't join unless there are already people there. You need to either be the first to get to a market segment, or have a massive advertising budget, or some high-profile celebrity endorsements. It's doable - Facebook did manage to displace Myspace - but only barely so.

    10. Re:social network == telecom operation by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Yes you can choose other social networks that none of the people you want to socialise with use.

    11. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is how we idly sit back and allow total surveillance of our digital communications, when we would freak completely out if the same techniques were applied to traditional communication technology.
      Would we stand for having every phone call monitored, and every piece of hardcopy correspondence opened and read, in the name of maintaining some market niche's profit margin? Yet, when it comes to digital transmissions of our personal interaction, well hey, that's OK, because it's, like, different, right?

    12. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What are you providing social networks to keep them in business? It is selling your activity on the network to advertisers" FINALLY someone who gets what these so called "social networks" are really about! When you join facebook etc... you are not the customer, you and your information are the product, which is then sold to advertisers and anyone else who will pay.

    13. Re:social network == telecom operation by roundscimitar · · Score: 1

      I read these types of comments all the time, people want secure social networks. I have created a secure social network, truefriender.com its very difficult to get people who don't care about privacy to use it. I challenge you to use it, try it out, and give me feedback. And maybe you can be the person who changes people's minds. (Well at least your friends anyway)

    14. Re:social network == telecom operation by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...those companies would simply be prohibited to inspect the messages that their users send around...

      Simply impossible to enforce. Forget about it. They can collect and store what they want and nobody will ever know until there's a slip up.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    15. Re:social network == telecom operation by Yaur · · Score: 1

      No.
      For wireline, they exist because you have to tear up the street to run cable and get easements on private property in order to run cable. It is in the public's best interest to minimize how much the roads get torn up and in the public's best interest to have a neutral arbiter between the needs of the individual property owner and the telecom provider providing service to the wider community.
      For wireless, service requires consuming part of the finite available frequency. Without regulation in each individuals best interest to use the most desirable frequency and the highest power that they can, which results in worse wireless service for everyone.

    16. Re:social network == telecom operation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because telecom forms natural monopolies that require regulation and social networks offer services that you can choose not to use and thus require less regulation.

      All business sectors form "natural monopolies". That's the single biggest flaw in free market capitalism. Big companies get bigger and bad money pushes out the good. Then the process is accelerated when the biggest corporations gain political power.

      A bank with a capitalization requirement of 5% will make more profit than one with a requirement of 10%. And one with a 3% capitalization will make more profit than a bank with a 5% requirement. Then the one with the weakest model buys up the others and pays politicians to de-regulate to 2%. That's called "bad money pushes out good".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "FINALLY"? At least one person regurgitates that trite drivel on pretty much every article about Facebook, Google, etc etc etc.

    18. Re:social network == telecom operation by countertrolling · · Score: 0

      You're reciting from grade school civics text books.. doesn't exist in real life. The regs are created by the most powerful, to whom they don't apply

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    19. Re:social network == telecom operation by Yaur · · Score: 1

      What doesn't exist in real life? Physical constraints that create natural monopolies? If that is your argument its going to take more than a one liner to convince me.
      I do agree that those most in need of regulation are not regulated enough and those least in need of it are (arguably) regulated too much, but as a small business owner I am far more concerned about collusion among established players then I am with being over regulated. The fix is to flip it... regulate small business less and big business more (though more mostly means enforcing the ones that already exist). If you have some idea on how to make that happen I'd love to hear it.

    20. Re:social network == telecom operation by countertrolling · · Score: 0

      Neutral arbiters don't exist. Monopolies are created and protected by those who write the regs, who also happen to have large stakes (being their future employers after leaving office and all that) in the businesses being 'regulated'. As long as the voters reelect these people, nothing will change. Your 'fix' just won't happen. The collusion and regulatory capture will continue ad nauseum. This is all age old stuff. Almost to the point where I don't understand the question.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    21. Re:social network == telecom operation by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      True.

      It's not that people don't know how Google and Facebook make money. It's that most people think that they benefit from the exchange.

    22. Re:social network == telecom operation by optimism · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The barrier to entry is practically insurmountable due to the network effect.

      Not really.

      Facebook's temporary success was mostly due to the fact that they targeted college students. The college years are when most people start to form their lifelong "social networks". The 20's are when most people refine and petrify those networks.

      However...every year, rough 140,000,000 people are born on this planet. If you target this year's 140M new high school seniors, or 140M new college freshmen, with a new and better "social networking" service, they will jump on it, because their social connections are still in flux, and the social overlap across years at those ages is relatively small.

      If anything, the new HS seniors and college freshmen will pull older college freshmen and sophomores and juniors over to their new "social networking" service.

      The first mover advantage simply does not apply here. Facebook is doomed. The only question was whether Goldman Sachs could make a few $100M's off of Facebook before it disappears. And that is exactly what they did with their "special purpose investment vehicle" back in January of this year. Dumb money paid those $100M's for no promises. Restribution of the stupid wealth. The next 12 months is the end game.

    23. Re:social network == telecom operation by swalve · · Score: 1

      If I don't buy the advertised products or services, how exactly am I NOT benefiting from the exchange?

    24. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real problem is that not enough people care about privacy for an alternative with strong privacy protection (which would likely be a paid service) to be a viable business."

      This. I spoke to my kids about safe browsing habits and how much information is being collected about the user when they use the Internet. I find the marketing use distasteful and a pain in the ass and the governmental/criminal use alarming, but my daughter gave me a quizzical look and said, "But I don't WANT privacy."

    25. Re:social network == telecom operation by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Unless you really hate seeing advertising, you are benefiting from the exchange, and few people are bothered by advertising that much.

      Sorry, I guess my last post could have been read as implying a contrast between what people know and what they think they know, but that wasn't what I meant.

    26. Re:social network == telecom operation by steveg · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Regs to regulate industries are written by those industries who give them to their future employees to enact into law.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    27. Re:social network == telecom operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my daughter gave me a quizzical look and said, "But I don't WANT privacy."

      Then she'll be happy posting pics of her boobiez right here for all to see.

  2. Running in the road in pajamas with your cock out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What happened to privacy? *waves hands*

  3. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think privacy is a pretty cool guy. He __________ and doesn't afraid of government.

  4. Giving it away by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "My point is that everyday, all day, we make compromises in the face of privacy, and that, in reality, probably none of us have as much privacy as we want."

    Speak for yourself. I have a satisfying, fulfilling life without giving away my privacy for no apparent reason. The author chooses to make those compromises. Not everybody needs a MegaPixel2000AndroidiPhone. Not everybody feels the need to announce their current location to the world. Not everybody chooses to contribute to the banks by using credit for trivial purchases. The guy's just another lemming.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Giving it away by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Most of the problems listed by the author can be solved by using cash instead of credit or debit, disabling GPS in your phone, not getting OnStar in your car (or physically removing the module if you already have it), and not using services like Facebook or Twitter. Red-light and security cameras can be defeated with a post-it note and hoodie, respectively.

    2. Re:Giving it away by finity · · Score: 2

      We give away privacy to gain certain benefits. I work on code projects at coffee shops sometimes, instead of at home, despite the reduction in privacy. The benefit that I get is that I feel slightly more social, and I get to drink some good good espresso. Just because I choose to buy into the ridiculous game of corporate bs and use credit sensibly for all types of purchases does not make me a lemming. My fursuit does that just fine thankyou. Typed on my AndroidMegaCorp2000FancySchmantzPhone.

    3. Re:Giving it away by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      using cash instead of credit or debit,

      I used to think that was the case too, until I found out the way they caught Eliot Spitzer is by noticing he was making unusually large cash withdrawals. Basically, the only reason you have privacy is because no one cares about you. If someone wants to follow you around and figure out what you are doing, they can.

      Also, how does the post-it onte defeat red-light cameras?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Giving it away by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      But you aren't complaining about your lack of privacy, either. The guy in the article wants all that stuff AND is complaining that he doesn't have privacy (really: don't sign up for the discount program if you don't want to be tracked). If you were complaining, you would look kind of dumb too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Giving it away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost it at:

      "Not everybody chooses to contribute to the banks by using credit for trivial purchases. The guy's just another lemming."

      You sir are a lemming who doesn't understand how credit or banking work.

    6. Re:Giving it away by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      "Not everybody chooses to contribute to the banks by using credit for trivial purchases."

      They should. Most offer either cash back or airline miles or something similar. You'd be foolish not to use it for everything you buy normally, since these bonuses don't apply to cash. Pay your bill completely at the end of the month, and you actually come out ahead over someone who just writes checks and uses cash.

    7. Re:Giving it away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I have a satisfying, fulfilling life without giving away my privacy for no apparent reason. The author chooses to make those compromises. .

      If you read the article you were probably logged by the hosting website AND twitter, linkedin, google and facebook.
      Giving away your privacy for no apparent reason you have done without knowing it.

    8. Re:Giving it away by DogDude · · Score: 1

      I'm very familiar with how banking and credit works, thanks.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    9. Re:Giving it away by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Another case of the tragedy of the commons... Don't think that the banks don't make back those rewards points somewhere else. Those cards cost the merchant significantly more to take than to regular credit cards or cash.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re:Giving it away by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as that. Not everyone is an introvert, the majority of people are naturally inclined to involve themselves with others via an online identity. It's pretty much a psychological imperative. Still, every time a privacy issue is raised on slashdot, we get a half dozen of these kinds of posts like yours. This being dismissive and condescending toward people who enjoy using social networks but also have misgivings about privacy.

      We realize that we are surrendering personal information in exchange for their services; we realize that's their stipulation. It doesn't mean we forfeit our ability to desire the terms were different and in our favor; just because we use the modern internet, it doesn't follow that we aren't allowed to think or to say we want privacy on social networks. Whether it's a FB post among our friends, a CC purchase, or a location check-in, those services just happen to be the common means to socializing, and we do expect our privacy to be limited in scope just as we would AFK.

      For example: I am talking on my cell phone in the grocery store to my aging father whose health is ailing. Not a convenient conversation, but that's where I happend to get the call. Yes, I am have a conversation in public. I am talking aloud in a forum where others can overhear me. But does that fact alone mean I waive every realistic reasonable expectation that other people mind their own business and don't eavesdrop? Does that mean I should have no problem with some stranger recording that convo and posting it online or somehow making it available to someone other than myself and my father? Just think about it. I can't fathom how the principles guiding your privacy concerns AFK don't extend naturally to your online activities.

    11. Re:Giving it away by hb79 · · Score: 0

      > You'd be foolish not to use it for everything you buy normally, since these bonuses don't apply to cash.

      I guess that was part of the point of the article: We are able to make certain decisions and trade-offs about our privacy. If I deicide that the privacy of my purchases is worth more than $100 to $200 a year, that is not a foolish decision to make.

      As has already been mentioned in this thread, the real problem is that many don't think these choices trough, and very often go for the short term gain, or carrot dangling in front of them.

    12. Re:Giving it away by swalve · · Score: 1

      Contrary to this popular opinion, it costs money for businesses to deal in cash.

    13. Re:Giving it away by swalve · · Score: 1

      Except that isn't a private act. YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET! It isn't private.

    14. Re:Giving it away by swalve · · Score: 1

      Yes. You are waiving that "privacy". You are saying things in public.

    15. Re:Giving it away by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Another case of the tragedy of the commons... Don't think that the banks don't make back those rewards points somewhere else. Those cards cost the merchant significantly more to take than to regular credit cards or cash.

      Depends on the business. If you're a tiny 2-person Mom and Pop shop, handling cash is cheap and easy. But once you grow to a certain size and start handling large sums of cash daily, it gets expensive.

      Just think of it - you're closing up shop, and you need to deposit your cash somewhere, else your business may get robbed and money stolen. And it's at night, so you also don't want to carry huge amounts of cash to the bank. (The night depository - that's what people do with it).

      So now you need to protect that cash and need to carry it around. If you're a company like Best Buy, you can always have a safe with alarms and security guards, but those cost money to run. Sometimes, when a big game is released, you'll hire an armoured car to carry the takings for the day (which can be tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) to the bank. Also costs money.

      Then there's the actual cash handling. The cash register records transaction amounts, so you know how much should be in at the end of the day. However, there's always some miscalculation (wrong change given or received) so the totals never exactly match. And cashiers know this, so they can easily slip a $5 bill every shift away and not get caught. Maybe $10. So now you need people to be trustworthy and understand the cash-handling procedure, which requires training.

      It's why the Best Buys and other big companies have lackeys that can process credit/debit transactions (it's all handled by the computers) but you have to go to the front to pay by cash. And why if the server goes down, the power goes out, or something, they stop all business even though they can make change - the record-keeping gets extensive, and there's no register keeping an eye on the till.

      So for Mom and Pop, no big deal. Cash is cheap to handle and they can walk with it to the bank nightly - it's not a huge amount of cash (well, to the business it is, since losing a day's take can be bankrupting). But once you start needing safes and security and process in order to properly handle and track cash, handling credit is cheap and convenient.

      Heck, even business that don't do retail sales prefer not handling cash for the same reasons - electronic money transfers, credit cards, etc. are far preferred for the same reason. Sure they keep a LITTLE cash on hand ("petty cash") for those things, but keeping track is a pain.

    16. Re:Giving it away by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Also, how does the post-it [note] defeat red-light cameras?

      Answering your last bit first, certain people in Arizona (angered over a speed camera company) have resorted to using Post-It Notes to disable cameras. They're not doing any permanent damage and I don't believe anyone has been up on vandalism charges since they're not actually damaging the cameras - just disabling it in a fashion. (Europe has had way more cameras in places like the U.K., and solutions have ranged from putting a bag over the camera or silly string to slightly less friendly versions such as setting the cameras on fire or shooting them out with an air rifle.)

      I used to think that was the case too, until I found out the way they caught Eliot Spitzer is by noticing he was making unusually large cash withdrawals. Basically, the only reason you have privacy is because no one cares about you. If someone wants to follow you around and figure out what you are doing, they can

      Yes, that's if you store all of your money in the bank. I usually would have my entire paycheck direct-deposited and then withdraw what's needed for the week minus what I would leave in for savings, slush fund, or online purchases I intended to make. I always have a little bit of the proverbial "cash under the mattress" and generally try to avoid using debit/credit when and where I can.

      The point is that you have to be aware of how a paper trail could be used to track you, and use that to your advantage. If you don't want to be tracked in any fashion, it's surprisingly easy to make it very difficult for companies (or the government) to get any real, meaningful data about you and your purchasing or movement habits. It just takes a little thinking and situational awareness.

    17. Re:Giving it away by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It does, but it's nowhere near 3-3.5%

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    18. Re:Giving it away by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Not from a privacy standpoint you don't. If you use a credit or debit card for all of your purchases you are painting a very detailed picture for data miners. Once that information is cross-referenced with other financial and demographic data, one gets a pretty clear picture of who you are and what you do. And those collecting these data, whether it be advertisers or NSA/DHS, have only their self-interest in mind, and not your best interest.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  5. You already don't have any privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even without the internet, you already have no privacy.
    Everything you do in public with relation to transactions is recorded and inspected somewhere. (even if it is automatic)
    Even non-transactions can be recorded, such as CCTV.

    I remember a TV production was done about "disappearing" and there was someone who requested all the information held on him from pretty much every organization in existence.
    Packs of pages, probably 2000+ pages in each.
    Stuff from credit card purchases, dental records, hospital records, licences, so much stuff.

    If you really, really want to vanish from society, learn how to live off the land and drop your whole life.
    Maybe find a job in a random diner or bar, typically somewhere in the remote parts of town where you get cash by hand.
    Ditch the vehicle, you are now a biker or walker.
    Stay out of busy parts of towns since they almost always have CCTV somewhere. In fact, any main road sections.
    Of course, I am speaking of a situation where you are completely paranoid and not just wanting to get away from all the tracking, ignore the camera parts if you wish, most data isn't even cared about that they spit out every second.
    Your house is now a caravan / hotel / motel / rented apartment. Cash up front, no name required, if you want to stay away from banking of any sort.
    No need to pay utilities either with this, that is a bonus.
    Either that or be awesome and build a treehouse.
    Best be in perfect health too. No medical (probably) and I believe that almost all medical institutions around the world require addressing information. I also believe that it is illegal to provide incorrect information.

    Of course, if you are a rational individual and realize that this recording in almost all cases helps people, you'd be thankful that they are recording it.
    Even if it is only indirectly, you are still helped by it. Be it advertising, payment history, or your dental health.

    There are a minority of people on the internet who would happily pay for services if they were ad-free, I still have no idea why websites do not implement such premium services in to their websites.
    They'd actually make a more money in most cases, probably more from advertising from that single person. Advertising is typically in the thousands of clicks/impressions for a relatively small amount.
    Even a small amount such as $1-5, that'd be quite a bit of input to the company. All for additional services such as previews, betas, priority feedback, even decision making, mention on some random page, whatever. Why aren't they doing this?! It takes such a little amount of effort to implement through paypal or even directly through banks these days, such little effort for a potential larger income.
    They'd also feel a little less paranoid since advertising seems to be hated these days by the types who tend to pay for sites as it is.
    People were going crazy at the whole paywall to some news site I forgot about the other year I think it was. I believe it was a pretty great success, even though it lost them a considerable number of their readers.

    It's a mad world out there.

    1. Re:You already don't have any privacy by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      If you really, really want to vanish from society, learn how to live off the land and drop your whole life
      Maybe find a job in a random diner or bar, typically somewhere in the remote parts of town where you get cash by hand.


      Go even farther than that. See the movie 'Missing in America'
      Off the grid indeed.

  6. in the end, it's about happiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to make this arguement with friends: you are giving away your privacy by using all these services.

    But in the end I realized that it doesn't matter. For the vast majority of them, the 99.999%, nothing bad will ever happen to them because of this. So some ad firm knows what web page they visited or who their facebook friends list are - so what? It makes no difference! Theres no bad effects on them do to it.

    If people cared about this stuff, they wouldn't use facebook, they wouldn't do any of the things they do which give away their private info. But you can't make them care because by and large it doesn't actually hurt htem. They just go about their lives and nothing changes for them except maybe they get slightly better targeted ads on web pages they visit. What's the harm in that?

    So there's some tape in the back of a store from their security system that shows you buying a pack of toilet paper - so what? Nobody will ever watch it unless there was a crime involved.

    This stuff just doesn't matter like people seem to be afraid that it does. Thats what i ahve realized after many years. You can spend your life paranoid and living in a dark room with a tin foil hat, or you can just live your life and be a lot happier for it.

    The people who are the most paranoid about this stuff well they don't generally look to be very happy people. The people living it up on facebook and connecting with others and not worrying that some database knows who their friend are, they seem better adjusted and happier people.

  7. How much privacy do we want? by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    I understand the point of the article perfectly. But I think the author is also missing a generational issue. A lot of people of younger generations simply don't really care. Personally I don't care that much. Sure, information about me can be used against me, but I have better things to do than being paranoid.

    I'm not trying to say what's wrong or right. But my guess is that all this tracking is not just an issue of ignorance. It's also that there are a lot of people out there who simply don't have a problem with it.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      And things are different now. It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things. In other cases it's simply data that gets stored and sifted without human interaction.

      In the past, if you lived in a small town (hell, if you do today), you had very little privacy. Everybody knows what everybody is doing. We've gotten used to the illusion that anything we do in our homes is private. While the internet and communication have allowed us to do more stuff at home, they've also brought the lack of privacy that comes with public interaction inside as well.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't care that much.

      I agree. I often ask exactly what terrible, bad dangerous thing might happen if someone knows I disliked the latest BSG episode & just went out last night for beer & pizza with Michelle.

      Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.

      Theft of items in my house when I'm gone? I, like most people, work a fairly normal schedule. It is a pretty safe bet that no one is home at 2pm.

      Identity theft? I've seen very few cases of this through social networks, but I've seen many cases of this when credit cards or other items are stolen from retailers or banks. Get identity theft insurance & relax.

      Misuse by Big Brother to falsely imprison me? Actually, the more I put out there about my life on multiple social networks, the harder it would be to frame me. Someone who doesn't have as much self-provided evidence will find it is easier to be framed with a sprinkling of false info.

      So, really, what bad thing will happen?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    3. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      It's mostly corporations who are tracking you, often in bulk, to sell you things.

      I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.

      I don't care to see Tampax or MLB ads. I'm not going to buy anything they are selling, so every one of those ads is annoying to me.
      On the other hand, an ad for Xbox or Cisco might actually help me learn more about something I was considering buying anyhow.

      What is the downside, exactly?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:How much privacy do we want? by moj0joj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, really, what bad thing will happen?

      I once had very similar feelings about this issue.

      Nothing bad will happen, until it does. When the information is used and a horrible thing occurs, you'll kick yourself for not protecting your loved ones. It has happened to me and it will happen to many others.

      In my own experience, it wasn't "Big Brother" - it was a tech-savvy business partner and I spent half a year in jail, accused of a "capital" crime I didn't commit - then 4 years and ten's of thousands of dollars fighting for my freedom in courts. My "friend" got me out of the business, which is still a large and profitable company today.

      Hey, walking around with on all fours with no pants and your ass in the air seems to be the cool thing these days. So, have fun. Just don't cry when you get raped.

      Me, I'll try to keep my pants (mostly) on.

    5. Re:How much privacy do we want? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The main concern I have is future employability. We've already reached the point where employers routinely google on candidates before offering a job - it's not that much of a stretch to see them contracting with data-mining firms to run more detailed background checks, correlating data to determine pseudonyms and checking if the candidate might have any embarassing hobbies or political views, has been writing posts badmouthing his former boss or has financial problems that could render him a security risk.

    6. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Ltap · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't get why so many people hate this. Advertisements are annoying when they are not helpful. On the other hand, ads are great when they connect you to the product you've been looking for.

      First, the flawed premise of that is that you are looking for a product. I know that, in the majority of the time I spend online, I am most definitely not looking to buy or sell anything.

      Second, the other problem is that you are relying on advertisements to give you good information about what you want, more than proper research (for instance, technical specs) might. This is ridiculous, since advertisements by their nature tend to lie by omission about what they are advertising and overstate the positive aspects, especially online advertising, where there is even less accountability than in television or radio advertising.

      Third, there is the simple fact that you might not want people to know what you are doing. Would you tolerate an unseen entity noting every place you visit in the real world, collecting that information, and ... it doesn't even matter what they do with it; the collection itself is bad enough. Even if they are supposedly benevolent, no one should have that information other than you.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    7. Re:How much privacy do we want? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 2

      Stalker? There are many easier ways of stalking me, starting with just following my car or bike when I leave my house.

      Much of the point is trying to keep the stalker from finding out where you live. Harassing phone calls and emails can be very upsetting, but physical confrontation by a stalker is much worse.

    8. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider this - what if law enforcement started rounding up twice the usual number of suspects because of social upheaval? (crime, protests, terrorism, pandemic, zombies. . . ) and you got caught in the net because you "shared" just a little too much info? Now consider that every time in history when money/power is controlled by a small percentage (try 1%) social upheaval follows (plagues, revolutions, barbarians attack). So willingness to paint a big target on yourself is not out of ignorance, what is it?

    9. Re:How much privacy do we want? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Look at what *actually* happens during periods of social upheaval: secret police become ineffective. How useful is it to track someone's location by mobile phone GPS, when what it tells you is that the person you're tracking is somewhere in a crowd of 100,000 anti-government demonstrators?

      There's danger from secret police in a repressive society when everything is quiet. There's greater danger from the secret police if there was a period of social upheaval, and it failed; secret police are vengeful. That would be a good time to lose your mobile phone, and look for a nice, friendly expatriate colony.

      And if you're not in a particularly repressive society, if you can pretty much express your political views with impunity, then hiding your views because there's a possibility that some day, there could be repression, is cowardice.

    10. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Wow, the "Trust me, guy I don't know on the Internet. Some really bad thing happened to me that I'm not going to explain here" stance.

      It sounds to me like you didn't have ENOUGH info out there.

      If you actually want to help the unwashed like me, tell me how this actually happened.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    11. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      So, I assume you think everyone that owns land is inviting stalkers since their name & address is public record?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    12. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      On points 1 & 2, you assume the decision is between ads and no ads. That's incorrect.

      My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

      Also, I never said I buy based of what an ad says. I might not have realized, though, that a product that fits my needs exists without the ad. After knowing it does exist, I'll begin my normal process of looking into unbiased sources.

      Your 3rd point really doesn't bother me, and that's part of what I'm getting at. How does it harm me for them to have that information?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    13. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be pretty annoying to receive offers for hot gay sex magazines (based on your surfing habits) on your house's mailbox.

    14. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Ltap · · Score: 1

      My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

      Actual decision? There's always the option to choose "no ads".

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    15. Re:How much privacy do we want? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      I actually agreed with much of what you said a couple of posts up; I think a lot of the responses to privacy concerns, especially around Slashdot, are unrealistic, if not outright paranoiac; in particular, people tend to bring up the fear of political persecution, when in a relatively open society, going public is a better defense than going underground.

      But I can't go all the way to a position that privacy concerns are baseless. There are people who actually do have reason to worry about people finding out too much of their personal information too easily. I've known people who live under repressive governments, for whom it really is a difficult decision whether to be publicly identified with their political views. But I believe a more common issue, and one that's actually come up in the course of my work, is women who have to contend with sexual harassment and stalking.

      Many women I know are hesitant to post photos of themselves online, because doing so risks a flood of harassing email. They're usually circumspect about using their last names when they meet someone casually, because it would be easy to track them down, using their full name. The most serious cases of stalking involve women who are splitting up with partners or divorcing husbands; I've known of a few episodes in which women moved to different cities and changed their names to frustrate the efforts of an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend to find them. This came up a few times when I had a job working on a "community" site for a cable TV station; we had a "real names" policy, but allowed some women in those circumstances to use "realistic" pseudonyms, for that very reason.

      Which is part of what's so infuriating about the Google+ real names policy, by the way; they're unwilling to make a similar accomodation, and a lot of the critics of Google+'s policy have pointed out this issue.

      A private investigator I knew told me that for a long time, tracking down people who've moved and changed names was the bread-and-butter of the profession, but these days it's so easy to do that via the Internet that there are far fewer PIs than there used to be. I would guess there are more bad reasons than good reasons to try to "disappear", but I think it's worth considering that there are good reasons.

      So, by and large, I think the people who think we should chill out about the risks to privacy have the better case, but that doesn't mean we can just go to sleep on the issue.

    16. Re:How much privacy do we want? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Maybe nobody should be doing that, but it is ridiculous to think that they can't. The problem is that people got used to the idea that being relatively anonymous in society meant they had privacy. They are not the same thing.

    17. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I'll completely concede your points here. I do agree that there ARE some valid cases for SOME people to have to go private.

      Some of those, like people living in oppressive governments, need to understand that Facebook & Google+ are not the venues to use, though. Even if a social network came out that appeared to offer great privacy controls, the risks are too great that a government could compel them to release info, they are hacked, or make a security mistake that reveals life-threatening info.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    18. Re:How much privacy do we want? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      This is my main concern too. I would not want to miss out on a fantastic job opportunity because of a drunken, non-PC blog comment written one night and promptly forgotten about.

    19. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Do you take the all of the pennies out of the jar at the gas station, too?

      If you're talking about paying for member access, sure, you can do that on some sites.

      If you're talking about blocking ads (not ISP-injected ads, but website ads), you're being a bit of a dick online.

      I'm not going to go into a moral debate about "stealing" web content, but you must understand that the people running the website need to cover their costs & put food on the table. Website ads are kinda like a money jar on the counter that says "Please self pay". Sure, you can refuse the ads, but you're being a bit of a jerk if you consistently use the website without allowing their ads to be displayed.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    20. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Ltap · · Score: 2

      You do realize that many ad plans are pay-per-click rather than pay-per-view, meaning that, unless you click madly on the ads, you won't get them any money? And, even if you do, you will only earn them pennies? Using a donate button (if one exists) is a far more convenient, efficient (they are getting most of the money, not Google) and effective way to fund sites you like and it ultimately gives people a choice rather than trying to force ads on them.

      Ads are almost never a winning proposition for a site -- unless you are high-profile (and can negotiate favourable advertising contracts) and high-traffic, you probably won't be able to recoup your hosting costs from them if you have any amount of content at all. It also leads you to re-engineering your site, such as those sites which split articles onto multiple pages so they can double the amount of ads served. It slows down loading, looks garishly ugly at best, and turns you into a virus vector. It also sets a bad precedent of using JavaScript to load unknown content served from another website, usually without the knowledge or consent of the user.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    21. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      They might know you're at work at 2PM, but would they know where you live (from the picture your neighbor posted)? Would they know you just bought a Macbook Pro (you bragged about it on FB)? And could they guess your alarm PIN (birth year, courtesy of Google)?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    22. Re:How much privacy do we want? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      So, it is easier for someone that wants to steal a laptop to go on the Internet, locate someone that bragged about a Macbook on Facebook, guess their alarm PIN (mine isn't my birth year) without guessing wrong, etc...
      --OR--
      Go to a upper-middle class neighborhood, find a house without an alarm, wait for both cars to leave the garage, and see what we find.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    23. Re:How much privacy do we want? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      My point is that since the actual decision is between irrelevant ads and relevant ads, I'll take the relevant ones.

      Fine. For me, relevant ads = no ads.

      When I'm browsing, it's mostly a goal-oriented activity. If there were a "relevant ads only" button, I'd click it, and be essentially ad-free.

      Hence the AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, and related add-ons in my several browsers, and the fact that my router denies all access to a long list of Facebook domains (neatly circumventing the "like" button issues). The number of sites that can track me is quite limited, and the number that might be able to infer something about me from aggregated data is also somewhat limited. I have multiple public IP addresses at home (8, since you ask), and use different browsers for different activities, such as banking and shopping. Some data-integrators could figure something out about me, but I'm not among the low-hanging fruit for data-mining.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  8. That may be what's needed ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good idea .. turn them in pay services , noone wil go then and the privacy of people who dont know better will be better protected.I vote for a resolution that says FB has got to be turned in a pay service.

  9. redux by shentino · · Score: 1

    The problem is that personal information is just too valuable for companies not to get a hard-on over how much their advertiser customers will pay for it, and they push and trick and deceive and play all sorts of games with TOS so that people don't realize they're being fleeced.

    So exploiting personal information becomes lucrative and profitable, and not much is sacred except the almighty dollar.

    With everyone universally doing it, everyone that doesn't is put at a competitive disadvantage, so the good guys get squeezed out of the market because they won't pay the piper.

    This, in turn, creates a climate where being exploited is normal, and socially it becomes unpopular to resist the onslaught of data greed. Already I've heard stories of employers refusing to hire people that don't have facebook profiles for them to snoop through. Being a principled person that stands his ground and refuses to play games with his personal information is getting to be more and more disadvantageous, and they are getting squeezed out of society by less scrupulous or caring people that don't make a fuss about whoring themselves out to the same companies that squeezed out the same principled companies that would have left their information alone.

    In the world of business, the only rule is survival of the fittest.

    Doubly so when even the referees, umpires, and rulebook publishers are for sale.

    One may as well try to keep bees away from flowers, as protect their personal information from companies that have every incentive to obtain it using whatever tactics they see fit.

    And one may as well be a farmer sitting on an oil strike, and not selling out. Sooner or later someone who wants that oil badly enough is going to lie, cheat, steal, trick, or even flat out use violence to get it by hook or crook.

    The only defense to being robbed that truly works is to not have anything worth stealing.

    1. Re:redux by PPH · · Score: 2

      So exploiting personal information becomes lucrative and profitable, and not much is sacred except the almighty dollar.

      This information craze seems to have the same feeling as the tulip bulb mania in 17th century Holland. In the final analysis, the only value this information has about people is its ability to generate sales or other financial transactions. And in my case, and for most of my friends, targeted advertising is all but useless. We don't buy cars/TV sets/iPhones just because we received tweets, junk mail or spam. We buy stuff when we need it or when we want it. And we aren't fooled by marketing attempts at generating groups of faux peers who all went out and bought product X. The Internet is a pull environment. When I need something, make it easy to find. Otherwise, poking it in my face is mostly useless and occasionally counter productive.

      Yes, this approach tends to work with some people. But generally not the self motivated, independent thinking groups that are also tend to be the wealthier segments of society. There is only so much return on the information investment that companies can get when what they have is lists of stupid, poor people. And when they realize this, they'll stop paying big money for these lists. And the incentive to compile them will be reduced.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this approach tends to work with some people.

      And that's all they need...

  10. Pop Goes The UnPrivacy Bubble... by dryriver · · Score: 1

    Sometime between 2015 and 2020 - or whenever the general public wakes up about privacy issues and casual privacy intrusions - every business model built around little more than gathering lots and lots of intrusive data about people will crash at the same time. I call this the POPPING OF THE UNPRIVACY BUBBLE... Ordinary people wake up and start protesting all the little privacy intrusions that hundreds of companies have - gradually, slowboiling-style - slipped into our lives. Ordinary people start to partake in mass privacy and personal data protection lawsuits aimed at the worst offenders (like Facebook, which somehow - no joke - knows who your friends are, even if you've never had a facebook account or visited facebook.com in your life). Ordinary people start to shut down internet and smartphone accounts that they initially thought weren't too bad, and walk away from these services en masse. Ordinary people create tremendous demand for new replacement services with rock-tight privacy protections (including each service submitting itself voluntarily to once-three-monthly privacy audits carried out by independent privacy experts). Ordinary people wise up and stop buying devices that, for example, have no plastic lid to cover the face camera with, or no hardware switch that kills wireless/bluetooth, or no LED light or other indicator showing that data is being transmitted about you. It will happen sometime this decade. The great 'Privacy Awakening'. When it does happen, services and devices built around toying with your private data and sucking as much of it away into the ether will fail completely within a matter of weeks. Stock prices will go into nosedives. CEOs and board members will be forced to resign. Entire management layers will be vaporized. Popular tech blogs and magazines will have to start rating the 'Privacy Friendliness' or 'Privacy Protection Level' of things they review. Lawmakers will have to implement Strong and Proactive Privacy Protection Laws if they want to get re-elected. It will happen sometime between now and 2020. Kind of like the Arab Spring.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Pop Goes The UnPrivacy Bubble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

  11. Ironic really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How amusing that this article help to erode your privacy via the Facebook widget, which passes your information to Facebook to help them track you.

  12. I Live in Dad's Attic! by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

    because I don't want to socialize. So yes, I can block FB and all of their data collection simply by adding all of their known services into the hosts file.

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  13. Where is the porn-sorter app? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    So when do these technological advances trickle down to regular users?

    From the article:

    AugmentedID will let you take a picture of someone with your phone, and the app will search its database for a matching face. It seems like this is only a small step away from being able to search Facebook and other Social Media for matching photos,...

    Who cares about searching through social media? I'd just like an app that would find all the variously-named, varying-resolution dupes of the porn images on my computer. Ideally, it would then show me all the dupes via an interface that helps me categorize and move the files I want, then delete the excess copies.

    Help me get that shit in order. That would be my idea of a "social good".

    1. Re:Where is the porn-sorter app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try findimagedupes (CLI) for just finding duplicates or imgseek (GUI) for more powerful features. Both even work for images that aren't porn.

  14. jeez, how often do we have to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Level I
    you want privacy, pay in cash
    buy a privacy bag (about 30 bucks) for your radio enabled devices, or get some tin foil (literally - you might need "Tin" foil, as opposed to aluminum)

    Level II
    don't use social networks
    choose small mom and pop stores less likely to have sophisticated software or databases

    Level III
    use only pencil, on edible paper, writing on a single sheet on a piece of glass
    Vary your transit and other patterns randomly
    Learn about makeup and other disguise methods, including how to vary your gate and other postural clues
    Use a voice scrambler on any phone call

    Level IV
    Move to Iraq, Somalia, or some other place with minimal gov't authority

  15. and none of us will ever have as much privacy as w by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    "and none of us will ever have as much privacy as we want." Oh yes we can, but it cant be done from a talk back on slashdot. We can take back what we lost,no business has a higher right to invade our privacy in the name of profits. Personally idon't think my fellow Americans have the balls, your too lazy,you expect everyone to get it done for you. And you just don't give a shit unless it personally affects YOU. And BTW i do write all my politicians with my complaints and wishes

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  16. What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, really, what bad thing will happen?

    Well, off the top of my head, when we reach the point that any commercial, professional or government contact you have can effectively dig up as much dirt on you as they feel like from any source they can find:

    • You will be unable to obtain insurance, or unable to obtain it at a reasonable price, because you fit some negative profile. In some cases, this will be unfairly expensive. In others, it will stop you performing daily activities such as driving where insurance is required by law. In others, it will literally hurt or kill you, because essential medical work will not be available to you.
    • You will be unable to obtain employment, or will only be able to obtain jobs that are not as good or under less favourable conditions. Sure, everyone has skeletons in the closet and corporate HR drones should realise that. Sure, there are laws protecting employees against unfair discrimination on various grounds. But these simply don't work. Men and women do not hold similar numbers of board positions at major companies or average the same salary for doing the same job. The US made a huge thing because it has a black president for the first time in a few centuries. Networking is already used (reasonably enough) to fill important jobs, but shows how easy it is for personal views to influence such decisions, which is a dangerous situation in a much more incomplete-data-driven recruitment culture.
    • Your quality of life will suffer because of the increasing numbers of unwanted distractions by advertisers, pollsters, political campaigners, etc. This already happens, of course, and we have things like anti-spam laws and opt-out lists for telesales calls and junk mail. But again, I refer you to the collective harassment that telemarketers continue to impose even on those who have actively opted out of everything they can as evidence of how utterly futile such measures are if you let the data out in the first place. This situation will only get worse until someone makes a serious political/legal attempt to change the entire culture, which seems unlikely in the immediate future given how many politicians and lawyers make an awful lot of money from businesses with at best shady advertising practices.
    • Your freedom will suffer if a government body with statutory powers decides to act against you because you appear to be someone like they don't like. This obviously has implications for law enforcement and security services, particularly in a future where perhaps the government and its henchmen are not themselves quite as ethical about crushing political opposition as you might like. But that's not the only problem: something as simple as being flagged up as a risk by your tax authorities (even if you've actually done everything correctly) can lead to months of wasted time and money clearing your name, denial of essential benefits at a time in your life when you rely on them for everyday needs, etc.

    So sure, maybe you don't mind a bit of junk mail. You'll be fine as long as you also don't mind crazy people turning up on your door step several times per month asking you to sign up to their political party/donate to their charity/buy their dubiously sourced goods, tax inspectors inviting themselves into your life for six months and wasting dozens or hundreds of hours of your free time to comply with their demands, though at least you'll have a lot more free time in future because you won't be able to get a full-time job as a tax evasion suspect anyway, and even if you did you wouldn't be able to get paid because no bank will give you an account without a credit rating, which you no longer have, even if that account offers no loan or credit facilities anyway, and you can't complain because no phone company will let you sign up for a calling plan without a credit check and photo ID, which in turn you can't get because you couldn't afford the statutory motor insurance after three of your friends got DUI'd last year and so when go

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.

      Also, using things like credit history is already being done. People are unable to get jobs or insurance because of a score that is only based on how much money they borrow & how much they pay off (not how much they have, btw).

      Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't a social networking issue.

      In fact, my point is that by actually having an open society, we can see a clearer picture. As you pointed out, corporations and/or the government is already going to use whatever scraps of data they can find to make a decision. Since this is an incomplete picture, they are sometimes going to make incorrect decisions.

      which is a dangerous situation in a much more incomplete-data-driven recruitment culture.

      You're helping my point, here. Since the use of data like this is going to happen no matter what, I don't mind giving a more complete picture.

      How do you want people to make decisions regarding your health/employment? Based on a very limited amount of data others create about you that can easily paint a false picture, or by overwhelming amounts of data that YOU have created?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      My name & address are already public record (as are everyone that owns land), so anything about people showing up on my doorstep is irrelevant.

      You've mentioned this a couple of times. But I know you only as Aqualung812; I doubt that your pseudonym appears on that public record of land ownership. It may be the case that I could link the one to the other with some datamining, but that isn't a given.

    3. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Since credit history is asked for (and can be refused, with the result of paying higher insurance or not getting the job), this isn't a social networking issue.

      Today, I doubt you would be penalised for/refused something like health or motor insurance just because several of your Facebook friends posted pictures of themselves getting very drunk at a party with you in the background. Do you really believe either that the insurers won't act on that sort of information when they can or that the technology for them to do so isn't a matter of years if not months away?

      How do you want people to make decisions regarding your health/employment?

      How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for and supplied? We've been doing this with health questionnaires and CVs/resumes for years, and it's worked OK.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      How about objectively based on data I provide them, in context, where all relevant details are asked for and supplied?

      Me too. So, let's agree that they can't use credit history, Facebook postings, or anything outside of what you said in the job selection process.

      We can't do that? Well, then let's combat their data with some of our own.

      Again, the point is that they are already using bad data that isn't related to social networking to make decisions. I'd welcome them using data I control rather than (or in addition to) data that a bunch of banks control.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    5. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      OK, so I'm only worried about stalkers when they're after my pseudonym?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    6. Re:What bad things can happen? Here are some... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      For what it's worth, I think we probably agree on your main point, which seems to be that if there's going to be bad/incomplete data out there that presents the wrong impression, the most effective (only?) way to counter that is to overwhelm it with correct/complete/positive data that sets the record straight.

      I'm just going a little further, in that I don't believe it really is inevitable that privacy as we know it is going to die out. The loss of privacy in the past few years has been enabled by a combination of:

      1. new technologies
      2. vast resources based on those technologies accumulating under the control of single organisations, and
      3. a lack of regulation/legislation to control how people with access to personal data can lawfully use it.

      You can't wind back technology, and technology is ethically neutral anyway, so we can't do much about #1 even if we wanted to.

      We can't do much about #2 either, since governments and large commercial entities are always going to have disproportionate power compared to almost any individual.

      We can do something about #3, because at least governments and large entitites tend to follow clear laws with adequate penalties when they are broken. However, right now, I think technology has outpaced the legal/regulatory tools that are supposed to keep our use of it ethical, so the laws need to catch up.

      There seem to me to be two major barriers to this. Firstly, the lobbyists also tend to act for the companies with vast resources, and that isn't going to change any time soon. However, the sort of public disclosure of lobbyist funding that is a hot topic this week in the UK might at least help. Secondly, I think a significant proportion of elected officials haven't really thought through (or simply don't understand) the implications of modern technologies. What is the essence of privacy, the value that we really want to protect? What does "privacy" mean in a world where Google has proved that "and then you download the Internet" isn't always a punchline and where many helpful uses of technology inherently collect small amounts of personal data but that information can be and sometimes is collected together to form much broader descriptions of the people it relates to?

      These are the kinds of questions that serious thinkers need to work their way through, if we are to avoid the kinds of negative consequences we've been discussing. And the time has come, because Pandora's box is open and if we reach the point where commercial interests really do have a file of just about everything on just about everyone, even hope will have escaped.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  17. Re:Generational issue by Animats · · Score: 1

    But I think the author is also missing a generational issue. A lot of people of younger generations simply don't really care.

    Others have observed that. About a decade ago, when phones started getting GPS capability, I asked some of the teenagers around Stanford (college students and high schoolers around the horse barn) how they'd feel if others could tell where they were. I thought they'd hate it. Most of them liked the idea. "I could see where my boyfriend is!" . "I wouldn't have to text so much to tell my friends where I am".

    In 2005, Helio launched, as a phone brand aimed at the 16-25 crowd. They were the first to integrate social networking with phones - their phone could map your friends (if they had Helio phones) and worked with Myspace. They tried very hard to be cool; their Palo Alto store, across from the Apple store, had live bands. But no customers.

    Then in 2007, the iPhone launched, and took phone based social networking mainstream. Now all smart phones do that.

  18. "Forever" is MUCH too strong a word. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but legislation that is pending in various parts of the world, including the United States, can go far to remedy this situation. There are also counter-measures that can be implemented by individuals, to a certain extent.

    The combination of the two has the potential to make this not a problem anymore. Whether it will is another question, but using the word "forever" is simply not warranted.

  19. Nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fight is the only thing that changes, the principle remains sacresanct.

  20. Ads by Crouty · · Score: 1

    The downside, my friend, is that advertisement has one single goal: To manipulate you into spending money you wouldn't normally spend. There is no such thing as good advertising. (Sometimes ads can be slightly informative and/or entertaining but that is merely a side effect.)

    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
  21. Ad driven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tend to agree that much of the location use is for advertising purposes.

    That's fine. I just ensure I don't get taken in by impulse purchases. Only buy what you really need, but if there is something you really want, investigate all the options first.

  22. Thanks for the pointers by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    Wow. I was mostly joking but those look like truly useful applications.

    Seriously - many thanks.

  23. Achievements and Trophies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so true, and nothing is sacred. Any "modern" gaming system supports completely invasive habit tracking in the form of "achievements". Do you think these stats are only used to show off to your friends? Want to play a game without the company who developed it watching over your shoulder? Too bad, there's never any way to disable it.