Slashdot Mirror


Don't Build a Database of Ruin

Hugh Pickens writes "Paul Ohm writes in Harvard Business Review that businesses today are building perfect digital dossiers of their customers, massive data stores containing thousands of facts about every member of our society. He says these databases will grow to connect every individual to at least one closely guarded secret. 'This might be a secret about a medical condition, family history, or personal preference. It is a secret that, if revealed, would cause more than embarrassment or shame; it would lead to serious, concrete, devastating harm,' writes Ohm. 'And these companies are combining their data stores, which will give rise to a single, massive database. I call this the Database of Ruin. Once we have created this database, it is unlikely we will ever be able to tear it apart.' Consider the most famous recent example of big data's utility in invading personal privacy: Target's analytics team can determine which shoppers are pregnant, and even predict their delivery dates, by detecting subtle shifts in purchasing habits. 'In the absence of intervention, soon companies will know things about us that we do not even know about ourselves. This is the exciting possibility of Big Data, but for privacy, it is a recipe for disaster.' According to Ohm, if we stick to our current path, the Database of Ruin will become an inevitable fixture of our future landscape, one that will be littered with lives ruined by the exploitation of data assembled for profit. The only way we avoid this is if companies learn to say, 'no' to some of the privacy-invading innovations they're pursuing. 'The lesson is plain: compete vigorously and beat your competitors in every legitimate way, except when it comes to privacy invasion. Too many companies have learned this lesson the hard way, launching invasive new services that have triggered class action lawsuits, Congressional inquiries, and media firestorms.'"

24 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, Anomalous Coward, I am involved in a sexual relationship with a goldfish.

    Basically, if I can make up enough too-crazy-to-be-true BS and post it all over the internet, nobody will know how much I am attracted to giraffes.

    DAMMIT.

  2. Re:Resistance is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did Ohm meet Resistance?

    (-;

  3. Correction by MacroRodent · · Score: 5, Insightful
    >Too many companies have learned this lesson the hard way, launching invasive new services that have triggered class action lawsuits, Congressional inquiries, and media firestorms.

    Shouldn't that read "Too few companies have learned ..."? Otherwise the problem would not exist.

    Anyway, I think this can only be fixed by legislation. Companies have too much monetary incentive for privacy violation to do anything else than token improvements. "Industry self-regulation" is nothing but newspeak for "foxes guarding the henhouse".

  4. Re:Resistance is the answer by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 5, Funny

    hide. If you have something to hide then you should have done it on your neighbors wifi it in the first place.

    Fixed that for you

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  5. Orwell was wrong. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He missed a vital element when writing 1984. Looking at the oppressive governments of the time and the rise of extensive government monitoring, it was easy to imagine governments of the future would be able to take it to an extreme. He completly failed to see the rising power and influence of commercial interests, motivated not by power but by money.

    1. Re:Orwell was wrong. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no he wasn't. In his future, the difference between the state and the corporation was zero. We're damned close to that now where one passes the puck to the other to get over some legal or functional limitation the other isn't limited by. When it's done, the puck gets passed back.

    2. Re:Orwell was wrong. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holy fuck how did this get modded up? As someone else said already, money IS (one form of) power.

      To me, Nineteen-Eightyfour is first and foremost about language that deceives and cripples critical thought, not about televisors and war with Eurasia. Those things have been made possible by the actual subject matter of the book, namely the obstruction of the ability to say 2 and 2 make 4. But don't feel bad, most people seem to miss that.

  6. Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . than how come I am not interested in any of those products that Amazon tells me should interest me?

    Maybe there is something wrong with me?

    Maybe not conforming to their purchase expectations is a sign of criminal activity . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is a really important element here, I think you have nailed. Its not a big deal that Amazon or Target can guess you are pregnant from the products you buy.

      So could they guy running the general store in your small 18th and early 19th century town. It was the only place you had to go for goods and his list of customers was short enough he could pay attention to everyone's specific needs, which he did so he knew what products to order / stock. He also knew allot about you regardless of how much or little your spoke to each other because of what you bought and how often. It was only a brief period human history late 19th thru 20th century that our economic options for providers grew faster than our ability to collect and correlate information about individuals.

      The issue do we need to address / control what information entities are allowed to exchange with each other. Target knows my buying habits, I shop there. That is sorta implicit in the activity. Should there be rules about them selling / giving / exchanging information with other entities be they corporate, government, individuals? Knowing my buying habits at Target and having access to the other sources you mention paints a much more compete picture of my life and destroys my ability to protect my privacy. Where if there was some product I needed that I was really really embarrassed about before for example I had the option of driving across town and making a single purchase at some other vendor.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation and, if it were not also the system controlling society, they would soon merge the two and run both.

      The scum who fit the mold for the flaws in a system always end up running said system, if there is any benefit to them to do so. The system in question just so happens to be one favoring extortionists. They are one of the worst types of scum to give a foothold to, and by virtue of human nature one of the hardest to get rid of, which is why the entire idea presented is so thoroughly disturbing.

    3. Re:Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you remember the 1950's - you will know it was not necessarily nice knowing that the store staff knew all your business - and could add salt and pepper to the truth knowing what would fly and what would not, and then pass it on. People rushed to supermarkets as soon as they opened to avoid this. Perhaps there is a lesson for someone here?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  7. Re:Resistance is the answer by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    spill everyones secrets at once so we all look dirty and would be hypocrites for judging anyone else. then any demagogue can have all of his problems pointed out by the opposition so he has no power either. When everyone knows your dirty secret it has lost its power because you also know theirs.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  8. Re:Exploitation? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yeah because you know, when cable tv showed up, it claimed zero ads on its premium non-movie channels.. now look at it.. tons of money and it's loaded with them.. You are purposely misconstruing the actions of advertisers.. if all they were doing was throwing up billboards, that's one thing.. active electronic surveillance of buying habits is COMPLETELY different.

  9. The crash... by Genda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of human culture colliding with human technology. As long as we continue to honor our lowest primate drives, then the amplifying effect of technology will generate results with greater and greater negative impact. The good news, is that such circumstances would be unsustainable, precisely because they would be socially unacceptable. At some point human beings will communicate at the speed of thought through imbedded technology. Secrets will become passe even impossible. Humanity will have to evolve into a species that is capable with dealing in absolute truth, and it will not be a society any of us recognize today.

  10. Re:Resistance is the answer by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stupid jokes aside, not giving a shit is compelling, but it's a tall order, and one we have to do all at once for it to be effective

    Nah, it's definitely something that makes you feel better as soon as you do it. Try it. You'll feel better.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Appealing to ethics is utterly futile here by Sarusa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Realistically, you have to look at a Wal-mart or a Bank of America or a Progressive and ask 'Are they really going to hold back on egregious privacy violations just because it's icky?'

    The answer, of course, is hell no. As Corporate People they're rapacious sociopaths who'd happily burn puppies or African orphans to death for a few extra cents of shareholder value. There is no possible appeal to ethics here, the best you could do is appeal to possible corporate black eye that would outweigh the profit. Which I don't see.

    And then of course there's Homeland Security with their Spy on Everyone Echelon type initiatives and fat pipes right from the heart of every telecom company.

    Your Database of Ruin already exists somewhere(s). You've just got to assume it does and figure out how you deal with that.

  12. techno-deterministic dystopianism; a false premise by bigmammoth · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we already seeing the initial phases of this. Non-totalitarian societies will adjust and normalize to be more accepting of digressions, and otherwise damaging historic and contemporaneous behavior which will be more transparent for more and more people. What seems like absurd levels of privacy violation today / yesterday, will be taken for granted in the future / present.

    To the extent of increased personal hardship from these databases; in non-totalitarian societies its unlikely to result in significant transition towards worse ( or better ) treatment of people outside social and political norms. People outside social norms have been "abused" in small circles for ages; in a larger more "anonymous" society the abuse is built into other layers of the social fabric ( id cards; state oppression etc ); Not to say all circles are created equal; but techno-deterministic dystopianism is a false premise. Technological social changes are bound to the societies in which they take place.

    Within "our" global "democratic" "free market" capitalism context the macro implications of concentrated power being able to better micro manage public opinion with powerful tools for life pattern recognition models; may be more problematic then direct loss of privacy abuses that the article outlines. That is to say; all our search for "personal" connections with others may be easier to be mediated. i.e an online video chat "hang out" support group which is moderated by an inquisitive supportive digital agent. That in addition to connecting us to exactly who we needed to talk to and giving us heart felt sense of well being in the short term; is simultaneously creating voids in meaningful existence by commoditizing your values towards particular life style choices, entertaining distractions, and consumption habits that don't enable a sustainable social structure.

    Where by every piece of information we look for and every social connection we make is mediated towards these "a-political" life style choices bounding political discourse and participation making it impossible to regulate such abuses enabling increasing concentration of power etc.; there-by creating a vicious cycle in which our autonomy is transformed even more dramatically then in the previous century of mass media consumption.

    ... But this is far from pre-determined, and these crude statistical models geared toward increased consumption of tomorrow; may in the near future give way to more holistic pictures of who we are with the disposal of much more computational resources and vastly more connected data about our increasing transparent existence. Independently of a slide towards totalitarianism; these databases and cognitive pattern recognition systems; could just as well support connections and social bridging of a cornucopia of personal identities; histories with digressions; and everything in between. If we expand access to build these system with human values we wish to amplify; it could just as well increase "freedom" "autonomy" and sustainable"well being" among the techo-societies participants.

  13. Re:Pay Cash by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you drive a car to the store?
    ANPR cameras now have your plate number.
    Buy cigarettes, liquor... or ever been sick (cold medication is now a restricted substance)?
    A little mag strip on the back contains everything listed on your driver's license.
    Ever want to make a purchase over about $500?
    You'll need to pay with something other than cash... and all those other somethings have your name on it.
    Ever order anything through the mail?
    Post office now keeps permanent records of the to/from addresses, package size, and description.
    Did you ever live anywhere other than a cardboard box or your parent's?
    You had to submit to a credit and background check.
    Ever owned a cell phone, signed up for internet access, or needed, say, electricity?
    Yeah. more information on your credit report. Bonus: Your internet habits, electricity usage, and where you live can tell me loads about you. I can buy a report on all of those for less than $5.

    The list goes on. And on. And on. You can't simply unplug and walk away. Sooner or later, someone's gonna have something you want -- and chances are good they'll record that transaction in a computer. Which goes to a database. Which becomes part of other databases. It's like rain -- eventually, all the water runs to the river, and the river to the ocean. The problem is not that the information is being collected... it's how it is being used. And let's be honest: The only way you're going to get your personal data back under your control is over their dead body.

    On an unrelated note; Aren't we a bit overdue for storming the castle and killing rich people? You know, for oppressing us? Whelp, better go find a ringtone to match my unique and dynamic personality for only $0.99!

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  14. Re:Resistance is the answer by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have some potential differences with his current opinions.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Re:Resistance is the answer by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that certain jobs - hell some entire fields, like health care - do care about what you've done in the past, and will actively discriminate against you. That's not a problem if you're, say, fifteen, because you don't have a real job yet, and you can steer yourself toward other things. Not so great if you're in your forties or fifties and trying to save for some hint of retirement. Plus, every life insurance, etc., form I've ever seen has a box that says "have you ever used an illegal drug?" Canceling seventy percent of America's cheap term life policies could be a problem...

  16. Levels of "public" by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are different levels of the word "public". You can look through my windows and see the interior. So that view is "public". Any burglar who wants to break in would have to come to my house and look inside to see if there is anything of value. If the same view is visible on Google Streetview, it is by far more public. Burglars can monitor thousands of addresses from their own home, without being seen themselves. This is why harvesting public data can be enormously evil.

    The ability to pay anonymously is getting less and less by day. In Europe, it is not yet that bad that you are seen as a terrorist if you pay cash, but there are far too many places where you have to pay, but real money is not accepted. So you may think people are stupid if they pay with a credit card, but often there isn't even a choice.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  17. False is even worse by markdavis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Even worse is when this "database of ruin" makes FALSE categorizations/predictions about an individual and then treats them as such. It already happens.

    Welcome to the future- guilty without proof, guilty until proven innocent, guilty without due process, guilty by association, guilty without even knowing it.

  18. Re:Resistance is the answer by Phreakiture · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that most of the things people hide are things about their sex lives.

    Dr. House has the rule that everyone lies. I have my own rule, which is this: Everyone is a pervert. There are no exceptions. The only differences between us are what kind of pervert we are and whether or not we keep it under wraps.

    The Database Of Ruin[TM] will reveal what kind of pervert everyone is. As a result, we can all come out of the closet. While ultimately this has some potential to be a Good Thing [TM], the destruction that will be caused in the short term is too terrible to contemplate.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  19. Re:Exploitation? by number11 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What stops you from not having a membership card, and paying in cache ?

    I tried that once, I dug a hole behind the tree at the intersection, put my money in, and left a square rock on top to identify the place. But the seller claimed they never got it.