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.'"

14 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.

  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!
  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. 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.

  10. 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."
  11. 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...

  12. 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!
  13. 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