Have We Lost Our Privacy To the Internet?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Have We Lost Our Privacy To the Internet?

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday March 4, 2012 @10:51AM from the tell-us-everything dept.

An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Guardian, penned by Joss Wright and Tom Chatfield, discusses whether we — as in Internet users in general — are, or indeed are not, giving away way too much information about ourselves to large Corporations that profit handsomely from mining the info. The article talks about how contemporary internet companies — perhaps predictably — are run with a 'privacy is dead' motto. It considers what implications having all your private data out on the internet — where it can be seen, searched, shared, retransmitted, perhaps archived forever without your consent — has for the 'future of our society' (by which the authors presumably mean the society of the UK). The (rather long) article ends by mentioning that Gmail scans your email, that Facebook apps frequently send your private data right to the app developer, that iPhones are known to log your geographic location, and that some smartphone apps read your address book and messages, then dial home to transmit this info to the company that developed the app."

64 of 222 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I believe so. by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-04 10:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. And indeed, with people accepting the Patriot Act (in the US) and adopting the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, I think things will only get worse.
Some places are installing cameras everywhere in public places due to a criminal paranoia. Even if you don't technically have privacy in most public places, the cameras just make this even worse. They're not comparable at all to normal humans spotting you because these cameras are everywhere at once and can (and do) record everything they see (unlike a human's faulty memory, the cameras won't forget anything).
Then there's the whole problem of people willingly giving up all of their information to websites like Facebook. I personally have no doubt that there will come a time when privacy violations and spying are seen as normal and acceptable. In fact, that might already be largely true.
1. Re:I believe so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 11:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever. The idea that we ever had some fanciful idea called "personal privacy" is largely a myth. Even with regard to government monitoring. I don't have to remind anyone about our various national histories.
  But yes, now data collection, correlation and general connectivity have gone through the roof. So we make laws about, bargain over, even make and sell various products and services, all surrounding personal privacy.
  Things ebb and flow.
2. Re:I believe so. by Zaelath · 2012-03-04 11:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People seem confused in the differences between "I do nothing illegal" and "I have nothing to hide". If you like to cross dress you most certainly have something to hide from your biker mates, or the chaps at the tennis club, or your patients at the dental surgery, or pretty much anyone else that doesn't enjoy your subculture. Yet there's nothing illegal there.
3. Re:I believe so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
  The window tax was a property tax based on the number of windows in a house. It was a significant social, cultural, and architectural force in England, France and Scotland during the 18th and 19th centuries. To avoid the tax some houses from the period can be seen to have bricked-up window-spaces (ready to be glazed at a later date), as a result of the tax.
  At that time, many people in Britain opposed income tax, on principle, because they believed that the disclosure of personal income represented an unacceptable governmental intrusion into private matters, and a potential threat to personal liberty.
  The bigger the house, the more windows it was likely to have, and the more tax the occupants would pay. Nevertheless, the tax was unpopular, because it was seen by some as a tax on "light and air".
4. Re:I believe so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
  Thankfully, we realized (and have forgotten, apparently) that privacy is not only preferable, but is important to keep the government in check. A government that can break into anyone's house, spy on anyone, and look for the slightest infraction is one that is most prone to abuse.
5. Re:I believe so. by Dunbal · 2012-03-04 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  What choice do you have when someone else (friends, relatives) is posting stuff about you, photographs of you, etc? You can absolutely not participate in "social networking" and still have your data placed out there.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
6. Re:I believe so. by phantomfive · 2012-03-04 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  People care about privacy in the same way they always have, when it affects them. They don't want the world to know they were out walking with their mistress, but they don't care if people know they were walking with their wife.
  
  It's hard for people to understand what is wrong with their browsing habits being collected automatically, especially when they don't see how it affects them. And a lot of people have no problem declaring to the world their strange fetishes.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re:I believe so. by jhoegl · 2012-03-04 11:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Except, this isnt the government, it is the "private sector". You might find this a quandary, but consider that a company has your data and you must pay them to keep it away from the free press. Sure, it might be extortion now... but wouldnt that be blocking "free trade"?
  You see... when corporations own the government, there is no stopping them to endeavor to make you their slave.
  Even monetary systems can be manipulated into slavery. For example, Communism. But instead of the government controlling everything, companies do.
  And well... since companies are people... it turns into the one thing everyone has hated and feared since the 1920s.
8. Re:I believe so. by Dunbal · 2012-03-04 11:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  People seem confused in the differences between "I do nothing illegal" and "I have nothing to hide".
  Exactly. I suggest that all those who equate wanting privacy with being criminals be forced to carry out their personal necessities like bathing, grooming and using the restroom on national television. We can call it the "but you've got nothing to hide you dumb shit" show.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
9. Re:I believe so. by phantomfive · 2012-03-04 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And some people are tired of every story, and every political movement, and everything else trying to get us outraged over something or another.
  
  Chill people, the world is a pretty good place.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
10. Re:I believe so. by epyT-R · 2012-03-04 12:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the state and private enterprise routinely pass data back and forth between the barrier to get around the regs.. it's a hybrid situation so blaming just one of them is pointless..
11. Re:I believe so. by cavreader · 2012-03-04 12:58 · Score: 2
  
  People tend to confuse "anonymity" with "privacy". The US government and anyone else willing to invest the time has had the ability to gather data about an individual way before the Internet was even born. It just took longer to compile the information. Some readily accessible sources of information includes public utility bills, drivers license's, property titles, vehicle titles, credit history, marriage licenses, school registrations information at all levels, and of course tax related information. None of these sources require cameras or the Internet.
  It is totally possible for someone to reduce their online footprint and preserve some privacy if they want to but most don't take the time to do so. People who post their life stories on Facebook or similar sites are voluntarily giving away information about themselves but then turn around and complain about their "privacy" being violated.
12. Re:I believe so. by next_ghost · 2012-03-04 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  The only difference between a state and a private enterprise is the number of shareholders and their direct power to influence things.
13. Re:I believe so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 13:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Privacy died over a decade ago. Only the magnitude of the damage to loss of privacy has been amplified.
  Cookies, Banner Ads, JavaScript, Java Applets, DejaNews (yes, they were the first ones to archive Usenet posts for an indefinite period of time, before they got bought by Google), site redirects by an advertiser. Remember the Sun CEO quote--you have no privacy, get over it (or very close similar words). More recently, using scripts to submit an invisible form on the user's behalf, to knowingly and deliberately browser security to force tracking cookies (not just Google, folks, other advertisers too are still doing this even if Google fixed their issue).
  Only now, more than ever before, is it profitable to hold a user's data hostage, demanding a court order to remove that which the user still owns the copyright over.
  But it isn't new--it's just a much higher severity than ever before when it causes someone embarassment, or the loss of a potential or current job, or when something someone says has been dealt with--it still lives on longer than it should.
  And, most importantly, building up massive user profile for the stupid fucking dream that a user will not only intentionally click on an ad (as opposed to accidentally when the ad interfered with where they intended to click) and even more ludicrous, that the same user will actually buy something just because the ad stalked them from page to page and targeted them.
14. Re:I believe so. by plover · 2012-03-04 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  Nonsense. Privacy used to be an absolute. You could quite easily prove you were alone. Go in the middle of a field with a companion and simply look around. Have your conversation. It would go unnoticed and unrecorded. It was private because it couldn't have been anything else.
  Now, I can't walk down the street without various buildings' cameras watching my every coming and going. Middle of a field? Assuming I can get to one without scrutiny, my companion could be recording the conversation. My own clothing could have been bugged. A satellite or plane could be recording video of the event. Even my own cell phone is continually broadcasting my location.
  The very ability to assume privacy has been lost.
  
  --
  John
15. Re:I believe so. by phantomfive · 2012-03-04 14:12 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks, I'd like to kill you, too.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
16. Re:I believe so. by interval1066 · 2012-03-04 14:14 · Score: 2
  
  We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
  INCORRECT. We've spent thousands of years in relative obscurity, one had to make a monumental effort to be noticed; fame has always gone hand-in-hand with wealth, as one of those rare, difficult acheivables. Well, the price of fame has plummeted like a rock.
  We've never needed to be really concerned with privacy, getting information up to now has been realtively expensive, so privacy was easy. We now live in a different age, and privacy is the commodity. Your looking at the situation with an inverse lens.
  If you don't value your privacy you're a fool. Just becuase something can be had on the cheap doesn't mean its not valuable. Just ask google, making scratch on your information must be lucrative.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
17. Re:I believe so. by grcumb · 2012-03-04 16:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever. The idea that we ever had some fanciful idea called "personal privacy" is largely a myth.
  I've seen this chestnut trotted out before, but it's not as pertinent as a lot of people would like to think.
  I live in the developing world in a locale where personal privacy is largely as it was 3000 years ago when these islands were first settled. I can assure you that a digital society that records your every action with perfect accuracy is not at all like village life.
  Yes, it's true that everyone here knows everybody else's business. It's not at all unusual for me to meet someone in the street whom I haven't seen in months, and they'll already know what I've been up to earlier in the day. Buildings here are not designed to suppress sound (it's the tropics, don't you know), so you actually have to make an effort to ignore some of the things that happen next door.
  But the local culture has long adapted to these circumstances. Privacy is actually jealously protected, not only by the individuals, but by their neighbours. They'll gossip like crazy, but they will not, for example, let a person's drunken weekend spree come into consideration when they're applying for work.
  Most importantly of all, government and police are not given carte blanche access to their collective knowledge.
  In short, there's a world of difference between a place without privacy and a surveillance society. Let's be clear that in this case we're talking about the latter.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
18. Re:I believe so. by blahplusplus · 2012-03-04 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  "Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. "
  It's not just that, it's that the internet was never designed with privacy in mind to begin with. The cost of maintaining privacy are huge because just the act of communication on a digital network can be de-anonymized quickly because of the nature of electronic communication. No one predicted the internet would get to be what it was. So much of it's infrastructure was never designed with privacy or security in mind. Think about how encryption was never standard on all connections from the get go.
  It goes way beyond people sharing their info on facebook. Even if there was no facebook, the simple act of browsing the internet (communicating/downloading) is automatically a ripe platform for mining information no matter how well you try to plug the wholes. It's inherent to the nature of communication to be 'leaky'.
19. Re:I believe so. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 17:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Companies do it because it works. Re-marketing. It's very successful. You go to a website looking for something. They tag you. Then you see their ads all over reminding you of what and where you were thinking of buying something. Conversion rates for re-marketing are much higher than you might think.
20. Re:I believe so. by sjames · 2012-03-04 18:44 · Score: 2
  
  No, we spent thousands of years with a different sort of privacy. For most of history, a day's walk was enough to become completely anonymous. You were whoever you said you were. Nobody thought much about a right to start over because there was no way to prevent anyone from starting over at any time. If you were a peasant, even the king would just have to take your word for who you were if you weren't in your home village.
  More recently, there was in theory a permanent record, but it was scattered around. Yes, a zillion years ago when the principal said "this is going on your permanent record", it did. It's a brownish crumbly bit of paper in a folder amongst many thousand others in a dingy basement somewhere (unless there was a fire or a flood). Nobody will ever see it again. Nobody would even know to look for it unless you tell them. It could be brought together, but only with considerable effort and on a case by case basis. Many of the records required a visit to an archives in person and payment of a copying fee. The search on those records had a less than 100% success rate even if they were actually there and not mis-filed. It didn't really need much protection because it was quite unlikely that anyone would actually invest the considerable time and effort needed.
  The ability to conveniently access personal data and correlate it in any meaningful way is new. It is a sufficiently powerful capability that it fundamentally changes the nature of the data stored.
  The other side of it was the parity of information. You knew about the people who knew about you. Further, you knew who knew about you and for the most part, you knew what they knew about you and what they didn't.
21. Re:I believe so. by Anonymus · 2012-03-04 23:48 · Score: 2
  
  That's so cute, you think the corporations aren't the government :)
22. Re:I believe so. by Boscrossos · 2012-03-05 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This. Companies like to see big fat black numbers at the bottom of the balance sheet. They really don't sit around stroking a pet of some kind and cackling maniacally at their next scheme to put one over on those nasty consumers. Truth is, they don't care about you, they just want your money. If they see ways to get at it better, they'll use them. In this case, targeted advertising should be more effective,, since it will offer you stuff you want (if the targeting system is halfway smart, at least), so you would more likely be interested. Meanwhile, the company can save money because now they just have to advertise to the people who might buy their stuff instead of to everybody, hoping to hit the few % of consumers who need their product. Basically, it's smart missiles vs carpet bombing, and I think we can all agree that smart missiles should cause less collateral damage.
  
  Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea: I am 100% against companies gathering (and holding indefinitely) personal data of people who did not give it up freely, knowing what they are getting themselves into. But I am also cynical enough to believe that a large percentage of Facebook, smartphone app, etc users would just shrug if you told them, and say they don't really care. Frankly, I myself don't much care if the corporate world knows I want to buy an inflatable pool, a bulk amount of whipped cream, and a used industrial vacuum cleaner. Let them make of that what they will. I do, however, draw the line at personal information I did not give to them. I do not want to receive mail/phone calls/creepy ads that state my (alleged) location/names of my close friends/etc, unless I gave that information to you personally.
  
  --
  Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
Data Protection Act by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-04 10:57 · Score: 2

Not entirely sure about the reference to the UK, as we have some of the best data protection laws there are.
1. Re:Data Protection Act by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-04 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  We do have these laws, but I have yet to see them enforced against a US-based company. Even one with a significant UK presence, such as Google.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:Data Protection Act by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-04 11:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They certainly do get enforced - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094253/Google-breached-UK-data-protection-laws-says-ICO
  Google also respond to Data Requests under the DPA.
Semantic Gripe, incoming! by PessimysticRaven · 2012-03-04 10:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

I take serious issue with anything that implies a person's problem is because of "The Internet." Like the poster above (and many more to come, I bet), people simply don't care anymore. If the Internet can be held responsible for anything, anymore, it's enabling people that are so desperate for attention, they need to inform others of every minutiae of their life.
Or I could have simply interpreted the title incorrectly; it is a silly thing.

--
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
Just try shutting down your facebook account by multiben · 2012-03-04 11:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just try shutting down your facebook account and then answer this question. My fingerprints are smeared all over the internet mainly because of Facebook alone. The cat is out of the bag and no matter what I do I can't get it back in. I don't really have much to hide, but man I shudder for those that do.
1. Re:Just try shutting down your facebook account by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 11:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You have plenty to hide. You just don't know who it needs to be hidden from yet.
2. Re:Just try shutting down your facebook account by cr_nucleus · 2012-03-04 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  I believe The Onion has it right.
3. Re:Just try shutting down your facebook account by StripedCow · 2012-03-04 13:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The cat is out of the bag and no matter what I do I can't get it back in.
  Well, the one thing you *can* do, is to inject so much noise into the internet about your persona, that the information that is currently on the web becomes practically useless.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The irony by kakyoin01 · 2012-03-04 11:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?

--
The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
1. Re:The irony by robably · 2012-03-04 11:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Just you and Alanis Morrisette, at a guess.
2. Re:The irony by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-03-04 11:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?
  Seems like the opposite of ironic to me. If you think leaving a permanent record of your actions on the internet is bad for you, then it stands to reason you would do as much as possible to remain anonymous in those actions.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:The irony by multiben · 2012-03-04 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  Looks like you may need to pay a quick visit to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Info about me by Skapare · 2012-03-04 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny

I am called Skapare. I've been called Skapare since I played text MUD games online. I do my best to annoy Slashdotters. My phone runs Android. So now I guess everyone knows everything there is to know about me.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Tinfoil hats aside by Wolfling1 · 2012-03-04 11:09 · Score: 2

I quite like the notion that advertising companies are relatively smart about targetting ads for me. Actually, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to register my interests in a central database that helps me mould and shape my advertising experiences. To me, this seems to be a logical progression - and would put a lot of the control of my personal information back in my own hands.

The problem as I see it is about the value (or price) of privacy. There have not been sufficient legal precedents to put a dollar value on this stuff, and that is the only thing that large corporations will respect. I suspect that many people will stop being so high and mighty about their privacy when they discover that it is only worth 47 cents.
1. Re:Tinfoil hats aside by Unipuma · 2012-03-04 20:05 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that targeted advertising can be to your detriment as well, right?
  Because if a company knows more about you, they can also find out how much you are willing to pay for their goods and services, and tailor their prices to your profile. Which could also mean they raise the price they show to you, if you have a good income. It's called dynamic pricing, and you can be sure that central database will feed into the algorithms.
But really what are they collecting? by Apothem · 2012-03-04 11:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think it'd bother us as much if we knew EXACTLY what data they were collecting. Perhaps a policy of some kind when a company is collecting information, they would have to show a sample of what the collected information would look like and how it would be protected. If you think about it, if there is physical proof that your information isn't as identifiable as everyone may think it is, it would probably put a lot of fear at ease. Especially if one knew that the stuff that would make anon data identifiable was missing as a whole.
Nah by Colin+Smith · 2012-03-04 11:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Chill. Entropy wins every time.

--
Deleted
Re:I live in the EU by x1r8a3k · 2012-03-04 11:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Do you really think that its not happening wherever you are too? Like Google, Facebook, etc. Europe isn't spying on you just as much as Google, Facebook, etc. in the US is?

As much as you like to poke fun at us Americans(often rightfully so), we're all in this together.
Profit by Jazari · 2012-03-04 11:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

While the corporations that use our data have profited much, so have users. I certainly have profited *hugely* from Google's free search engine, free email, free Docs service, free apps on iPhone and Android, etc. I guess some people also consider that they've profited from whatever benefits Facebook and Twitter offer as well.

The real problem is that the information that these companies accumulate can be captured by the government, and that the logs may go back years (or forever)...
Straw man by mauriceh · 2012-03-04 11:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are we so stupid that we do not see Microsoft and Apple spread rubbish like this to attack Google?
They like the old order where they were kings.
If you are concerned and worried about your privacy, start at home with your government.

--
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
No, you gave it away by mindcandy · 2012-03-04 11:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

It wasn't "lost" nor was it "taken" .. you traded it for better prizes (free search, free storage, whatever).
To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Privacy is a commodity - a private commodity
Each of us has our own privacy, and each of us interpret "Privacy" a little bit differently
As to whether we have given away our privacy to the corporations, I think it's too much of a blanket statement
You see, privacy is ours to begin with. The decision of whether not our privacy is handed over to the corporation largely falls into our own hand
If you decide to value your own privacy, then you won't reveal your own real identity online - and there are many ways to keep your real earth identity separate from your online identity
Plus, if you are so afraid that huge corporations like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook may be gathering your privacy, then you should take step to ensure that whatever they gather from your activities online would not reflect who you are, in real life
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
And one more very important thing - Your privacy is not only in danger on the Internet
There are other areas that your privacy might be revealed to others - like your medical history, your driving licence, your voting records, the secret files the government (governments ?) keeps on you, et cetera
Do not think that just because your online privacy is threatened that your off-line privacy is not

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-04 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
  As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search.
2. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
  As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search
  When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
  After all, the word "Privacy" came from "Private", and the most "Private" thing there is yourself - yes, your very own self
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
3. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I agree, living in a bubble is awesome! Steve Jobs did!
  It's not "living in a bubble"
  It's merely living your own life without having to tell the world everything about yourself
  I've friends who are loud mouths and they will tell everything about everybody, including everything about themselves to the world
  Hey, to those people, they are willingly revealing where they work, how much they earn, who their doctors are, what type of disease they have, what political inclination they belong to, and so on ...
  For people like that, don't blame the corporations if one day they can't purchase health insurance no more because everyone know that they gonna have cancer to the liver/lung/whatever in the future
  
  One other thing, these "other ways to protect your privacy" cost money. So, either way companies are still making money off of you.
  Who says that you need to pay to protect your privacy?
  All you need to do is to zip your mouth shut and to be extra careful of what you do online and off-line
  If I do not want people to know where I shop, when I shop, how much I pay for milk a month, I don't shop in ONE store and I don't use my credit card when I do my shopping
  If I do not want people to know the frequency of my travelling from Detroit to Chicago, then I change my mode of transportation often - fly some times, drive some other times
  It all boils down to what you do with your own live
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
4. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 11:58 · Score: 2
  
  When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
  I really don't think I can keep my friends/relatives from knowing my name...
  True, but do they all know your social security card number?
  Do they know your credit card number?
  That's the gist of it
  There are things that we simply can NOT keep to ourselves, like our names
  But there are _still_ many other things that we can keep under wrap
  I know, it takes efforts, and sometimes it seems like it's unnecessarily troublesome to be so extraordinarily careful with our own lives
  But that's the cost of living in this modern society, where we are no longer a "Human Being", we are merely a "Number", a "Blot" on the statistical charts somewhere
  And if some of your information is already on the internet (address, etc), someone could use that name to find out even more.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
5. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-04 11:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is the difference between the US and the EU. In the US privacy is perhaps a commodity. In the EU it's a fundamental human right protected by the constution.
6. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  This is the difference between the US and the EU. In the US privacy is perhaps a commodity. In the EU it's a fundamental human right protected by the constution
  In this world where data-mining is practised by almost everybody and their great-grand-mother, it does not matter if your privacy is protected by whatever "constitution", if you keep on revealing who you are to the world, then the world will know about you, and they will know something about you that you yourself haven't yet realized
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
7. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-03-04 12:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Your approach is way too randian.
  For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address.
  I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems. That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous.
  The only alternative then is to live in a bubble of isolation, refusing to interact with anyone using modern means for fear of disclosing information to the wrong people.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
8. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by RicktheBrick · 2012-03-04 12:20 · Score: 2
  
  I make comments on digg and soulpancake. I recently did a google search on my user name. I discovered that all of my comments on digg and soulpancake were listed there and they were on the first page. Not only was my username there but also my real name and a picture and my hometown. I did notice that slashdot was not listed so I am grateful for that. I do not know how they associated my real name with my user name. Even though it is possible to know my real name from this I doubt that anyone has taken the time to do so.
9. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by ArundelCastle · 2012-03-04 12:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to
  
  I'm not sure why it's chilling either. Spidering the link immediately delivers "relevant" ads to your Gmail window right away. That is how Gmail is meant to be.
  Chilling would be if your robots.txt is set to turn down spiders and they do it anyway. Chilling is when they don't play by their own rules, not the rules themselves.
10. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-03-04 12:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your approach is way too randian
  No, it's not randian, but instead, it's the most practical way to live one's own life in the world we are living in
  It's the you-are-responsible-for-your-own-wellbeing way of living
  In this world where everything could be archived somewhere, if you reveal things about yourselves, like the water that has splashed out of a cup, there's no way to get the genie back into the bottle
  
  For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address.
  I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems
  This world we live in is indeed very different from the world our forefathers lived
  And the way we live in this world should also be very different from the way our forefathers lived in their world
  We must change faster than the pace the world is changing, or we will be consumed by it all
  
  That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous
  If you think that it's ridiculous, think of the world our offspring will inhibit
  Their every-day-lives will be recoded somewhere
  Their presence in every place will be noted, what they said and do will be archived, everything including their shoe-size will be known to people who wants to know
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
11. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by next_ghost · 2012-03-04 13:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Encryption is always an option. You can interact with people just fine, just ask them to use proper measures and teach them how if necessary.
12. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by godel_56 · 2012-03-04 13:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search
  When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
  After all, the word "Privacy" came from "Private", and the most "Private" thing there is yourself - yes, your very own self
  I saw someone on TV on the weekend quoting figures that 30% of US companies said they would not hire a job applicant if they saw a picture of them holding a glass of wine on a social media web site. So all it takes is some dickhead labelling a picture of you at a party on THEIR Facebook page, and they may have damaged your reputation for years.
  No action from you required
13. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by ATMAvatar · 2012-03-04 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  Really, they just need to put their date of birth and address. Since many people do not move far from their birthplace, you can use those two pieces of information to extrapolate their social security number to within a couple digits.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
14. Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy by u64 · 2012-03-05 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  "It all boils down to what you do"
  This moves a burden of privacy-protection over on the individual. I think privacy-by-default
  is good. And anyone who wishes to be tracked should have the right to freely
  make that informed choice.
  These days, the important details are hidden deep in obfuscated Agreements. But most often
  without Agreements, for example, visiting a site and instantly being silently tracked.
  These days we're NOT informed about where and when and how we're tracked.
  We're all screwed-by-default.
Name changes will become the new norm at 18. by WiiVault · 2012-03-04 11:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

With the continued backlog of potentially negative data soon to be facing young-adults as they leave childhood and enter the job market, I expect Facebook will bring about an era where name changes upon adulthood become common place. Of course some people will go ahead and be stupid with their new identities too as many do now. But what other option will today's kids have to remove affiliations from their latest Beiber hate rant of drunken high school tweet?
Re:yours, not mine by multiben · 2012-03-04 11:52 · Score: 2

That's a very naive view. Your privacy remains intact until one day one of your friends or business contacts accidentally or deliberately forwards on a private email. Once that happens good luck getting it back. It happens every day.
Re:Technological parallels to innate abilities by Aguazul · 2012-03-04 16:12 · Score: 2

It would make it very difficult if not impossible for evil to exist.
It would make it impossible for free will to exist.
I don't think knowing everyone else's thoughts excludes either evil or free will. Say for example there is a genocidal or warmongering group in power with enough popular support -- us knowing what they are thinking doesn't stop them acting. Even if we know their plans, they know we know, and the balance of power probably can't be shifted by that. Transparency may reveal evil but doesn't stop it. People in general are incredibly selective about what they believe, and psychic powers are unlikely to change that. If they prefer the illusion, unconsciously they'll choose not to investigate or challenge it, even if they have the ability.
We here on Slashdot are more aware about a lot of things than perhaps our relatives are: 419 scams, virus risks, pump-and-dump, good security practice, MS FUD, whatever. We SEE and KNOW -- they don't. It is not so different to reading thoughts -- having the insight to understand something that others are not aware of, even though they could learn if they wanted. However that ability gives only limited power to change the world. The knowledge can't be made to work unless other people can be persuaded to give it importance. Sad but true. No end to evil just yet.
Privacy is [finally] becoming more important... by dtjohnson · 2012-03-04 16:32 · Score: 2

5 years ago, you were considered a little nutty if you ranted about the loss of privacy on the internet. Now, in 2012, people are finally starting to realize that 1) loss of privacy on the internet has big consequences and 2) loss of privacy is not mandatory or required to use the internet. Those 'free' email addresses on gmail or hotmail are not really free but are paid for with your personal information and...that price is high.
Not true by dutchwhizzman · 2012-03-04 21:36 · Score: 2

Until very recently, it was very hard to get private data on anyone else than the roughly 500 people you would encounter most of your life. If you'd move to the next town, only a few people would know just a little about you. If you moved a bit further, you'd be a stranger amongst strangers. It's not since we started automating our records that we have had a real serious problem.

Keeping records may sound nice, but what purpose does the record hold? If you don't really absolutely need the information, you may want to reconsider. Modern history has plenty of proof where "innocent data" has been used by people for not-so-innocent purposes. The first true example in my countries history, sorry to Godwin here, is in World War II. The Dutch were very meticulous about registering everyone in local government administration, including their religion. Once the Germans got here, it was a breeze for them to single out every Jew, go to their home and put them on a deportation train to the camps. It hasn't been the only example in history and it won't be the last.

Keeping records and tabs on everyone will not be purely beneficial. Sooner or later, giving up the data might just not be a benefit to you anymore and you regret you gave it up in exchange for something trivial. The more we do it, the bigger the chance that we get hurt. E-mail spam has grown to such a level that it takes an enormous effort just to keep e-mail as a system practical and controllable. The more data you leak, the more targeted spam you'll get. Not just in e-mail, but your phone, you IM, your social networks, everything is spammed to bits.

It's not just spam. How would you like to have to pay more for your health insurance, because your insurance company found on your FaceBook that you practice a sport that they think is risky? How about paying more for your car insurance, because you know how to properly use your car and the black box put there by the company registers your higher curve velocity as "dangerous driving"? How about being fired for results from a medical test taken in a hospital for something unrelated showing you have been smoking something your employer disagrees with? I can keep on giving examples and sooner or later, there will be one where even you will say "Sorry, but that is just too much invasion of my privacy".

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?