Slashdot Mirror
Profiling A Nation
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, Australia's biggest media company and allied to Microsoft, has teamed with IT services company, Acxiom, to create that country's biggest private data repository, according to this story. It will hold the cross-matched details of Australia's 20 million people culled from government electoral rolls, Microsoft-related Web sites including Hotmail and Passport, credit card reports, casino records, bank statements and a variety of undisclosed other sources to provide marketing profiles of the country's entire population. The plan is then to sell these to marketers, insurers, banks and others. Naturally, consumer advocates and privacy groups are wary. A similar Government-sponsored scheme, the Australia Card, was universally rejected by citizens more than ten years ago. Australians are generally not protected by any privacy laws.
What do you think: is it ok for private enterprise to hold such detailed information on our private lives, offering these to the highest bidder? Is privacy dead?
Sorry about the excessive bold text, I tried to turn it off but obviously typoed it. Lesson: NEVER submit without a preview :o(
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Your idea is interesting, and not without merit, but probably would not be effective. Like smacking an errant child, this is not the correct way to handle the problem. Keeping tabs on companies is a good start, but how many people are really going to pay attention to which companies are stealing our data and which ones aren't? And suppose it turns out all computer manufacturers abuse your data, do you stop buying computers? The only lasting and effective solution to the privacy problem is to get laws passed making buying habits, demographic information, etc. the exclusive property of the person generating the information.
So much of the power held by data miners is power we give them.
For the sake of convenience, we choose to utilize stores, utilities, etc. which give out our information to all takers.
So that we may spend less time doing "worthless" things, we will willingly charge our purchases, use our ATM/debit cards, etc.
It's well acknowledged that, time consuming as it might be, if we did more of our purchasing in person, in cash, we'd be a lot less trackable.
But instead, we're taken with the ease of online and mail consuming, which of course hand our information right over to the waiting miners.
Interesting idea just occured to me...have you ever tried refusing to give out information to the folks at Radio Shack or Best Buy, et al., when they asked for it? What would they do? I've never seen anybody do it, I think it's assumed that you have to. But do you really? *blinks* There are so many things that we assume are beyond our control, that are just done as a matter of course...but maybe, they are actually quite within our control, and it's that assumption of lack that the sellers are depending on?
Listen to me Peter, I want this bench. You go sit on that bench over there, and if you're good I'll tell you the rest of
If you **READ THE ARTICLE** you would know that this kind of database already exists in the USA.
Fat lot of good your guns did us....
0 1 - just my two bits
I apologize.. that should have actually been directed one up as a comment to the original poster :) My bad.
THEY decide what is wrong. That's the frightening part. Who are THEY? The silent rulers who are above the laws that THEY made.
Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
There was a great three-part article in the Post last year about privacy in the digital age (really the lack thereof). Acxiom figured prominently into the story.
Most notably, the article said that Acxiom, in a nod to self regulation, allows consumers to opt out of the database. While I agree that opting-in is far preferrable for consumer rights, at least make the most of the current system (assuming you give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll do what they say). The company said that only 300 people had opted out prior pre-1998(!)
I actually went through the trouble to follow up on this after reading the article, and found out how to do it. Send them an email with your name and snail mail address and they send you a pretty package with a form to fill out and send back to them. Costs a stamp, but I'm of the opinion that these mega-snoops have too much to loose by getting busted directly violating what they say they'll do - so I had them take me out.
How about a ./ effect that spills over to snail mail?
optout@axicom.com gets you off of their marketing lists. They still have you on their other lists, which include credit info, etc, but are much more restricted. Still looking into getting off of those lists... /.ers, you can also opt out of direct marketing, tho I don't know the contact info for that. The national opt-out list in the US is run by the Direct Marketers Assoc. or somesuch.
Also, for US based
For the truly private, a few thoughts:
-pay cash or check, only
-don't ever fill out any sort of survey.
-when registering with utility co., insurance,etc where you have to provide some degree of info, specify that you want your info to remain private
-write your govt. reps, let them know how you feel
itachi
Possible, but doubtful,
Even with a repubilcan president and a republican congress they'd still have to get it past the Supreme Court (and we all know the ACLU will take every single law like this to court).
Theoretically if there were a long string of Republican Presidents and Congresses (at least 25 years worth) they could change the Supreme Court by appointing conservative justices when current members retire. Even this has it's pitfalls as there are many justices who completely change their stances after about 5 years in the Supreme Court. Justices are also in for life after they've been appointed so there's no way to get rid of them other than killing them or letting them die off from old age. Rosevelt (FDR) tried to increase the size of the court from 9 to 13 so he could stack the court with justices more open to his ideas, and the whole idea promptly got smacked down.
According to the story the only gvt involvment was supplying the electoral roll. In Australia not only is the electoral roll public, electoral enrolment is compulsory.
However since the Australia Card was rejected 10 years ago, there is no crossreferencing of the electoral roll with other gvt records (tax returns or social security or the heavily subsidised healthcare).
Because we have no bill of rights defining our privacy there's a lot of room for abuse here, by both private industry and government (would the department of social security be interested in buying this data from Packer? Probably). And instead of addressing the lack of a bill of rights, we had a referendum on whether to mention aboriginals in the preamble to the constitution.
*shrug*
Any rich countries out there want a web developer?
opt out, dude
itachi
Well I have seen many complaints about big corporations using this kind of thing to be able to taget their marketing better. Annoying as this may be, this is still about the most harmless use.
./ Password finally arrived. Thanks:) )
Consider that this database might contain data about purchases of medicaments. Maybe you are addicted to painkillers, this would easily deduced from the data. And you expect to get a job with that if there are other Canidates?
But the worst (IMO) missuse is the possibility of both, corporations, political entities (legal and illegal) and even individuals (providing they have enough $$) to weed through this material and isolate people that match certain patterns.
Radical racist organisations will _love_ to find out the adresses of their enemies, its going to make live a lot easier to them. And that is just _one_ example.
Ciao, Peter (Who's
The information in these databases isn't always correct, and provide a way for the rich to rule the less fortunate. Take, for example, when I bought my current house. I had a $30 debt on my credit report from a company that had never done a damn thing for me. I had three choices: 1)pay $60 to take them to court or more to hire a lawyer 2)not buy the house (they wouldn't give me a loan without the removal of this 'debt' and I didn't have 180grand on hand) 3)pay off the bastards. I paid the $30.
All the company had to do was make a report and leave it on my record until I really needed credit. They are not required to do anything and I'm guilty until proven innocent. The large database owners have become a center of power that rivals the US government. They can unilaterally punish without recourse (unless your independantly wealthy, denial of credit equals punishment in the US since there is no way an average American can by a car or house without it). These databases must be controlled by the government (eg, the power structure controlled by the people).
On the flip side, if Traveler's Insurance tells the world that they paid for me to have herpes treatment, what's to stop them (as long as they actually paid for it). I may not like them for it, but don't they have a right to tell others what they paid for (barring a privacy clause in our contract)? Would it be OK for me to publicize that Traveler's tries to avoid paying claims? Is it OK for Joe Bartender at the local pub to tell his girlfriend that I like gin? Is it OK for the mop boy at the local pub to tell the police that I like gin? Why would it be OK for me to tell my drinking buddies that Joe Bartender's gin sucks? Is it OK for my ISP to tell the NSA my IP address? If not, then why is it OK for me to tell you that the ISP's service sucks? At what point does it become illegal for business people to pass on information that they are party to?
What I'm trying to get at is that when you make a law you are drawing a line. That line must be clear so that everyone can understand and obey it, or you end up with silly lawsuit and rich lawyers. Where is the clear line between protecting peoples right from unlawful searches and the companies rights to compile and publish factual information? (OK, I agree that corporations don't necessarily have rights, but a database company could easily be run by a single person and a fast computer -- theoretically at least.)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Don't complain about that, I re-shingled my roof with the CDs AOL sent me.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
If privacy isn't dead now, it will be very shortly.
SPAM openly welcomed. I do charge a 500$ proof-reading fee though. Any complaints may be directed to the brick wall to y
I agree, we need a Constitutional Amendment and I think you have the wording right or close to it.
Now where's my quill?
I think "personal knowledge" is a perfect term, one who's definition could take 200 years to fathom.
because the Chinese government figured out how to numb their population: they're getting them hooked on the same drug as Americans, materialism.
An interesting way to put it. And accurate, something that you work hard far, spend money on, and provides intense yet fleeting feelings of pleasure, quickly replaced by a longing for more. Yup that's cra^H^H^Hmaterialism. I still wanna new PC though, maybe I should see somebody..:)
+&x
I think it's outrageous that large companies would even think to do this. I don't want to sound innocent, they're obviously doing this for profit, but they must realize that it will backfire when everyone gets disgusted by their tactics. Oh, well, just my two cents. We are not numbers! Fred
Most list companies (as we call them) are receptive to individual requesting removal, there aren't that many.
This is true. Lots of annoying DBs and snailmail spam, etc have opt-out procedures. They either have 800 numbers, webpages, etc, someone (hint, hint) should get a listing together, and post it somewhere. If you know an opt-out, post it.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Oh, so they have a joint portal partnership in NineMSN? That proves it, then! They're allied with a hideous blood pact, and they're going to destroy privacy as we know it.
(It would take an anthropologist to understand Slashdot.)
How can Australia blow the whistle on Echelon, and then turn around and pull a stunt like this?
I'm sorry, this just may be me, but this is downright Orwellian. It makes me very glad I do not live in Oz. After al, if anyone could just access any information they wanted about me off of a website, including consumer records, websites most visited, etc, what would be the point in maintaining any semblance of a private life.
You say you want a revolution....
If marketers are going to collect stats on me, at least send me something I could use. There's only so many 100 hours of AOL FREE cds a person can take without going raving mad.
they're not a "supercompany" out to sell your info to the highest bidder.
- ----------
at least as far as I know...I'm just a lowly IT intern...but they're so hyped about security it's not even funny (the door to the snack room has a card reader)
I don't think this is the end of privacy.
dunkman
----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Time Flies Like the Wind, Fruit Flies Like B
Of course, we'll won't need to be so concerned with Australia's privacy problems should Echelon prove to be real.
This isn't a big surprise anymore, not after hearing about Echelon and Net Nanny-type crap. The question, it seems, is not 'Do I have privacy?' but 'Do I have control over MY privacy? And if not, who does?'. People argue for the freedom of information at the same time they beg for anonymity....Things are screwed up because we can't decide what the hell we want.
Who says that the information is actually staying within companies and business? Maybe anyone with an agenda could just as easily purchase a profile on someone...What kind of security is being used to protect the information? These are the questions we should be asking, not just why and how. I don't advocate this, but find it hard to prevent. Things like this most likely can't be prevented, and if not, personal protection is always an option.
Is anyone here fed up enough to just move away? This stuff makes me really sick, I have always dreamed of starting fresh. Maybe the /. community could pull together and buy a small Pacific island (preferrably one near underwater telecom cabling). We could set up our own Country with strong privacy laws, a secure data repository, etc., etc.
I just need to win the lottery, or inherit from a heretofore unknown rich uncle to be able to afford this.
Any takers, other ideas?
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Let me work this out aloud.... devil's advocate style.
Maybe this is a good thing. Imagine getting advertisements that you WANT for a change. Like one person above stated, how many AOL disks can ya get? These companies are trying to cut down on your annoyance factor.
The problem is that they now, essentially, know more about you than you know about yourself becasue they can take Asmimovian psycho-historical, sociological data and absract it into a 'personality'. The problem here is not privacy, it is that we feel like we are being grouped and categorized, and we geeks and techno-philes don't like that.
But lets TAKE the privacy issue. So what if someone knows what i do? If you are doing something you don't want someone to know about, do it under a guise/anonymously/etc. Its kinda like Neo in THE MATRIX. He does all his normal stuff as Mr. Anderson (pays his taxes, helps with his neighbors groceries....), but then does stuff he WANTS to do as Neo. You want to protect your privacy? create a 'new you' a Neo-persona, and let that persona go wild. Just make sure that the persona is not assocaited with your 'real' persona (if there is such a thing).
On a meta scale, we don't need to stop companies from gathering data, we simply need a way to abstract ourselves FROM that data. We need to make it easy for the average person to make a persona that cannot be traced. Really, it is that simple. Anybody got ideas about that???
--
Instead of messing directly with the cookies file, why not run a filtering proxy, like Muffin, or JunkBuster, or AdBlocker, or pick up IBM's WBI and write your own filter to discard cookies or something.
Or, heck, just turn cookies off.
I, personally, need to have several cookies, one for Slashdot, one for Yahoo, and some others. These I wouldn't like to be mangled but all others can. I tried making cookies read only, but that didn't work. Would changing the owner of the cookies file do this?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
According to the ABC (the .AU one, not the American one), this will be covered by new privacy legislation. Whether this is effective is a different matter.
/.ers who were saying that the Australian media doesn't care (mainly in yesterday's article), this led the 6pm news on ABC today. Maybe the ABC reads slashdot...
For all the
Don't get me wrong--I use computers for work, all day, every day. I use them for play as well. But there is much more out there than the internet, and much more to you than your .sig file.
However, the power of computers lies in this: There is very little effective electronic legislation in place in the world today (example: cryptography is governed by munitions laws of all things). Most legislation aimed at the electronic world is a badly rehashed attempt to apply existing policy to new ideas--generally by politicos who don't understand the first thing about it.
This is where you, the internet user, come into the picture. Take advantage of the fact that electronic law has not yet coalesced into any strong set of guidelines. Take it upon yourself to protect yourself and show others how to protect themselves. If people become accustomed to preserving their online privacy, they will be a lot less willing to give it up when the time comes.
ps: give carmack a break. some of you petty little fuckers need to wake up and smell the coffee if you think that's a threat.
But, I, too, am interested in the private life of companies and the people who run them.
So, what about a database of private informations about theses privacy-invaders companies and their top-workers ?
I'm submitting this anonymously because I don't want to lose my karma.
It would be ironic because, for the next two days, I have a few moderation points to dispense and I think the lead story could be down-rated with a "-1 Flamebait" or two. I mean come on:
"is it ok for private enterprise to hold such detailed information on our private lives, offering these to the highest bidder? Is privacy dead?"
You've got to know half of the Slashdot community is libertarian and the other half is conservative. What purpose could that rhetorical question hold except that of fanning the flames?
Everything in moderation - including moderation.
Which brings me the problem of having my private information online, or in a database sold by the Australian government to Macy's. Sure, I hate getting mailers and catalogs. They drive me nuts, and since we have a trash can by our mail kiosk, they go straight from the mailbox into the garbage 99% of the time. This isn't an invasion of my privacy, but of my time. (There are ways you can legally force egregious catalog-senders to stop sending, btw, but that's another topic altogether.)
So what about this database? Has any human being ever read my personal information? Well, except for phone solicitors, no. (There are techno-fixes for that particular problem though; for example, you can put blocks on all numbers or specific types of callers.) Will anyone see it after it gets sold by the Australian Gov't? (I'm not an Aussie, but if I were...) No. Does anyone have access to it that might peep in my bedroom window to get his jollies or attack my wife and I at our door? No - no-one who wouldn't already know where I live. It's computers talking to computers, folks.
The computer you're staring at right now has tons of personal information stored on you. For most of us, our computers contain information that could get us fired or divorced or publicly embarrassed, if taken in the wrong context. These databases don't. Unless you went to prison (in which case it's public record anyway, and you're already required to divulge it to most of the people who would care), no corporate database is going to contain embarrassing or incriminating information about you. No human will ever see it, just another computer, printing another automatic mailer, writing your address on it and sending it in the mail, to be deposited straight into the trash.
I feel sorry for the pulp trees, but I have a hard time mustering any rage against the machine for these corporate databases.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I always supported labor because they didn't do everything they could to keep the poorer people oppressed (eg full fees for universities etc.) One of the most impressive things that I ever heard about the labor government, was that from when they got into power in 1983 (or so) to when they were booted out in 1996 (or so) the gap between the lowest 20% of the population, and the top 20% of the population remained the same... The Howard government has done its best to fix this.
:)
I think this is all part of Howards payback to Packer for all the pro-liberal propeganda that Channel nine spews out.
This is offtopic when compared to the story, but not when in reply to the above post. (IMO
As an Australian, I think I have some right to request this.
Please, please, please write articles that portray us as idiots, not only on this issue, but especially on the who internet censorship thing.
Usually, Austrlians like to think of ourselves as pretty practical people, who don't put up with bullshit, and are honest enough with ourselves to admit we listen to what others have to say.
If people start writing stories saying how dumb some of our recent technical decisions have been, the media here will pick up on it.
Please help.. if you need ideas, email me.
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com
I've always supported the Labor part becuase I've never thought the Librals had what it takes to govern in the second half of the 20th century, let alone the next. As for the Nationals!! Wow!! Lets ride our way out of this on the sheep's back again.
ANYWAY....
Having said that, apparently the government is putting a bill foward that will give us opt out rights for databases like this.
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com
Like smacking an errant child, this is not the correct way to
handle the problem.
There are widly separate views on whether punishing a child is the correct way or not. In fact, there are widly different opinions if either the "psycological approach" (trying to explain to a child why something is wrong at an age when they can't even comprehend half the words you say) or the "best friend" approach (trying to be your childs best friend instead of an authority figure when it comes to correcting abnormal destructive behavior) contributes to the situation we in the USA are facing right now where the severity of crimes committed by young people not yet legal adults had excalated drastically, or possibly a combination of these two "new" methods is to blame. Anyway, your use of the term "smacking an errant child" clearly shows your stance on the topic and gives the impression, at least to me, that you believe you are 100% right with no possibility of a better way in any circumstance. Besides, other than the "fringe" parenting groups who I personally think border on the criminal and sometimes cross it, the vast majority of people who do use "physical" punishment to correct abnormal behavior mean a smack on the but or hand used to get the childs attention and know that you are upset with them for thier actions, not laying the child across your lap and beating them for 5 minutes to cause physical damage.
I do believe gathering data on the personal financing of corporate officers who make the decisions (or hey, what about the corporate lawyers?) would be an effective means of stoping this. I think you fail to get the point entirely. The point is that we will put presure on corporations to stop gathering "personal" information by gathering "personal" information about the corporation ourselves. As I think it would be fair to estimate that most if not all corporations of the size that would be involved in these actions have a few skeletons in their closet they wouldn't necessarily want the "public" to know about, it may be the only way, other than new laws, to stop them.
If you think it's more realistic to believe that we can effectively "lobby" our representatives and have them pass the appropriate laws before we could gather sufficient information about the companies that do this I believe you are living in a fantasy world.
Yea, I think someone has to re-read the moderator guidelines.
Browning Arms R&D'd the electronic trigger ~1977 while I worked at their corporate headquaters. Now they have only to R&D the biochip to read your id for firing.
-r
Yes, Get Off Your Ass!...There's a huge, global job that needs to be undertaken.
Every person should be PAID for access to their personal details. It's unjust that companies can collate individuals' details and sell them for millions of dollars to other companies. Your free info = money in their pockets.
This isn't new either. Insurance companies have been paying banks for a long time for access to their customers' details in order to market products to them and give them leads for business insurance markets. And mail-order catalogs constant;y buy or swap each others' lists of customer details.
The only difference now is that entire online companies' stock is valued by the sophistication of customer detail they can deliver to the highest bidder.
Do you really think Amazon and AOL valuations are about their "product"? Hell, no...it's because they can spit up detailed demographic lists of who is buying what, when, how, and by what form of payment.
Just about every company out there is killing themselves to get more and more user info so they can increase what they charge advertisers.
Which is EXACTLY what Andover has done with the purchase of Slashdot and Freshmeat and Animation Factory, whether they admit it or not.
Now, maybe right this minute it's not SO ominous as all it takes for advertisers to throw money at you is by simply saying you have millions of page views BUT the time is already upon us where advertisers will pay sites MORE whose info on their users is not just the number of them but other details as well. This will then cause sites to fall all over each other trying to build the most sophisticated back-ends in order to cough up more of YOUR info so that they can continue to increase their "value" in the eyes of institutional investors and advertisers.
I am not making this up. NewsTrolls has been approached by several parties who have been boldly upfront about what they want. More info on your site's users = more money for you.
It's disgusting and I'm fighting it in my own small way but it's going to take all of us around the world fighting against it, demanding payment for our details.
The question is: Do people really give a damn or are they more interested in Quake and Buffy?
Wake up, people!
--diva
diva Pasty Drone NewsTrolls, Inc.
The EU has almost as strict regulations - some EU countries such as Sweden even stricted.
In fact, due to this the EU almost made it illegal for companies in the EU to export information about persons to the US because of the lack of privacy protection in the US...
If something like what is suggested in the article happens in Australia, it will likely mean even harsher responses. EU regulations explicitly disallow a company from exporting personal information to a country with less stringent privacy regulations...
Boycott products of any International company that buys this information, or any company profitting from this
Libertarian myth: no law is needed, since customer can 'vote with their feet' and boycott products that they oppose.
The reality: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know everything a company is doing. How do you plan on figuring WHO buys this data? What if this data is bought by a marketing consulting agency, which then in turn works for some ad agency, which then in turn works for <insert big consumer product company>? How do you know?
It is impossible!!!
The free market economy is based on the principles that the consumer is intelligent and knowledgeable.
--
I think this is fair if a consumer has the right to see everything in the database under his name and delete it if he so wishes
Two problems with this:
If you're lucky.
Naturally you won't be able to remove that little incident with the dope at college (where you didn't inhale), or your heroic stint in the school crossing patrol during Vietnam (or whatever else your presidentials have been up to lately).
Last year I bought a house; a mortgage debt repossession. I still receive interesting mail related to the previous owner, I still have an amusing time with my business bankers (I also work from home) and I (rarely) get big guys in long coats turn up on the doorstep. Fortunately I have a lot of sympathy for the previous owner and the sense of humour that finds debt collectors on the doorstep funny (so long as they're not really after me). Yes, I have taken the appropriate measures to correct the UK's centralised databases on all this, yes, I still get the fallout.
The poor will have none of this. They'll collect whatever petty judgements against them (maybe a trivial fine, maybe missed payments on over-priced credit), and they'll be blacklisted from future credit or employment as a consequence. This is a fundamentally divisive measure for society as a whole. We already have a big problem in Western society where kids from large "sink" estates are blacklisted as proto-criminals before they've even left school. This measure will extend such lifelong marks of Cain from the housing ghetto to the information ghetto.
It's quite likely that there are things you do that aren't wrong, but you wouldn't like the whole world, or even anyone else to know. For instance.. I may not want people to know I go to a prostitute, even though it may be perfectly legal. But if I do, I don't go around telling my mom.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
http://www.cnn.com/US/9 911/29/internet.murder.ap/index.html
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
I do use junkbuster on a few of my browsing accounts. It is awesome, a very good thing.
But some places over-use cookies, forcing you to turn them on for that site. Not just slashdot and the New York Times -- I am not sure how they could avoid using them. But try to go to mapquest or cars.com and refine a search several times with cookies turned off. cars.com doesn't work at all; it keeps the zip code in a cookie (and also uses java, unfortunately).
Right now I turned off junkbuster filtering for slashdot and nytimes.com. It works ok -- I remove the junkbuster proxie when I have to use mapquest or cars.com. But a more general solution might drive a more societal change, and stop these people from feeling so free about tracking you in the first place.
"The economy is good, our personal profits are high, so we really don't give a damn as long as we can keep filling up the 42 gallon tank of your suburbans with $1.50 gasoline that craps up the air we breath. "
Oh my... couldn't have put it better myself - Are you saying that Capitalism is willing to convert all values and basic rights into solid money (two examples were shown here: Privacy and Ecology)?!
Would you give up your Freedom of Speech (or any other Constitutional Right, for that matter) if you knew it would result in incresing your income? can everything be displayed in fiscal values and then converted??
I believe not. I believe there are some basic human qualities that simply can not be exchanged into physical entities, and are given to us for the very fact that we are Human...
The act of giving up your right for Privacy is like giving up your right for Freedom of Speech, and that is one thing im not giving up so easily.
To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish. ---Euripides
Well, no. At least, not based on the current evidence.
The dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans is more complex (and less extreme) than this snippet implies
Al Gore is one of the chief backers of national ID cards. He's not a Republican! In fact, a Republican Congress would probably help retard moves in that direction should he become President; they've rejected already movies for centralized government repositories of medical information which were essentially the same thing. (In fact, the silly
There are both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this issue, I'm sure, but often with different motivations. Both of the not-so-different mainstream political parties in the US claim to be for the American Way, the Constitution, blah blah blah, but they do not agree (evidently!) on what this means. Republicans tend more toward conservativism in their interpretation of laws, including the Constitution (hence their designation as conservatives, though they tend to be conservative in money matters as well for the same reasons); Democrats tend more toward liberal interpretation of the rightful powers of government, hence their designation as Liberals and their spending patterns.
In both of these, I say 'tend' because neither side has a good, prudent spending record, and William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards, which publicize terrible spending projects, show that there are exceptions to both patterns.
I'm in neither one of those Parties, since (my opinion, natch) they're both basically composed of powerlusting estasblishmentarianists who spout off about trigger-issues fervently in public, but have in fact similar attitudes toward the public. There are smart people in or aligned with both of them, but that's no reason to join up as far as I can see.
Anyhow, my point is that I think if you are going to generalize one US political party as being in favor of national(ized) ID / information, it's *not* the Republicans, who tend to be more biased in the favor of individuals on issues like this. (Or at least no less biased -- there are data points all over the place and lots of interesting exceptions
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Now, the problem is, the CNIL's power has kept diminishing over the years. Still, they're getting some press lately that might help publicize the issues
--
Not for me. maybe for companies, but they are evil anyway. I say take any opportunity to mess with companies. false info. order something, and cancel the order just in time, anything to annoy the evil marketeers
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Yeah, sure you can Opt-out.
Just like AOL, but your privacy preferences expire after 1 year. SO you must opt-out on a yearly basis.
Multiiply that by the number of ISP's, credit cards, and other services you have and companies you do business with, and that's a whole lotta opting-out you have to be responsible for. Especially if the policy changes to expire monthly, or if it's engineered to have a pain-in-the-ass user-interface (how do I find the damn opt-out page on your damn web site?), or if there's no way to VERIFY that your personal data wasn't sold off by this company regarless of your opt-out status, or if even you VERIFY that they did violate your wishes, there was an enforceable law with teeth that could be used by the consumer to recover damages, or deter corporations from doing this.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
hm. maybe I should become a corporation.
More rights, less taxes to pay, and hey, power power power!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And if you DO have a baby on the way, make sure your OB knows your wishes about your information;
Or suddenly, you will be innundated with advertising materials from diaper manufacturers, formula producers, kiddie clothes, toys, books, magazines, all the paraphanalia. I don't know if it's done by the Hospital, or the insurance company or what, but once this happens, you're marked for life.
They even change the spam as your kids get older, you stop getting formula ads, and start getting babyfood ads, then toddler food ads, older kids clothes and toys, etc. What's next I wonder - college applications?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Things have moved on in the Netherlands too since Pulp Fiction:
According to this (try Babelfish on it if you don't speak Dutch) some politicians are proposing to give police officers the right to do 'preventive searching' of visitors to bars and nightclubs. It's just an idea still, right now the police must have a strong suspicion (they will have to convince a judge that it was a reasonable suspicion) that someone carries a weapon or drugs before they can search him/her.
About privacy regulations: they are pretty cool around here: If I'm not mistaken, I can ask someone to remove information about me from their records, and they will have to comply unless they can give a valid reason why they wouldn't have to (for instance: a service contract for some product). And oh yeah, they will have to notify you when they store information about you! It makes tracking information about you a lot easier. Try this (and have your Babelfish ready) for the full text of the law on registration of personal information.
In the US, Europe and Australia we are seeing the same kinds of stories over and over again. Governments are seeking to restrict our freedom and invade our privacy. Corporations are increasingly enabled by absence of legislation or the introduction of new legislation to do the same, through unauthorised collection of private information and through aggressive pursual of intellectual property rights.
As thongs stand, parliametary democracies as in the UK, US and Australia allow governments with a strong majority (achieved through electoral processes which favour the powerful) and individual lobby groups to ride roughshod over our rights and freedoms.
It's high time that we got ourselves some government that serves the interests of the people.
We need to establish a new kind of democracy that removes the ability of corporations to buy political favours, that forces governments to listen to their electorate and to act in the way we tell them to.
In my opinion we have in the internet a very useful tool via which to organise ourselves politically. But our governments want to control that too by censorship, by outlawing the private use of encryption, and by continually snooping on our conversations with the likes of Echelon and upcoming advances in AI-directed intelligent listening.
The window of opportunity is closing rapidly. If we don't get our act together soon, it will no longer be possible to change anything.
If you want your children to be free, then we must all campaign, demonstrate, orchestrate petitions, write to our MPs or Congressmen, boycott goods produced by corporations, make our voices heard.
Ranting about it on slashdot is just preaching to the converted.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Did any one else read the article and notice that there are 330 million records on people in the USA? According to the CIA World Fact book, the USA has a pop. of 272,639,608 (July 1999 est.). So, where did the extra 60 million or so come from? Bad data gathering? And how much are people going to pay for this data? Sounds like another lawsuit to me...
To be honest, I'd rather have the government keep all my buying habits and personal details rather than ten or twenty private companies who will sell my personal info to the highest bidder.
Privacy is virtually non-existent anyway - the amount of computer related junk mail I receive shows that they know my demographics pretty well...
This is one of those life-imitating-art-imitating-life recursive things. Apparently Mr. Youens, some eight months before he committed his acts, signed a guestbook at this site, which is specifically about murders -- serial, mass, and otherwise. After he did the deed, the site owner put up a page *about* him, noting that "this is the first time that I know of any of you lot [i.e. guest book signers] going through with your plans." (The site contains a link to the guestbook).
Nerd relevance: the family of the victim is now calling for ' regulation of the internet, "I'm angry because we as a public have so little control over what is on the Internet." ' They go on to say that sites like this, which "advocate criminal actions" should be removed from the net. Needless to say, the site's owner is "astounded" and finds such suggestions "ludicrous".
BTW, Youens' occupation is listed here as "software engineer" [third-hand info, tho].
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Well, this is bad, and it must be stopped. But how?
:)
I am no Australian OR lawyer, but what *do* Australian laws say? How can Australians fight this?
As for us non-Australians, I guess we can do the following:
1) Boycott products of any International company that buys this information, or any company profitting from this (IE: Canadian company X has shares in Aussie company Y. Y buys the info. I boycott X). Make sure you state *why* you are boycotting the company. I can already start on the MS boycott
2) Make this public. Be loud about! This STINKS! Bad international press can cause a country to change for the better.
3) I wonder if lobbying to the UN can help. Maybe there is something in the UN charter that makes this illegal (is privacy a right declared by the UN?). International pressure has worked before (South Africa?).
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Yes, i do have a tax file number, and as far as i know only 2 groups of people other than myself know it: my bank, and my employer. Its not used in the same way as the australia card was proposed. a cop cant pull me over and ask me for my tax file number. and even if he did get it, or anyone for that matter, it wouldnt bother me, because at the best they would only be able to find out what bank i use and who my employer is, not 2 details i hold that close to heart.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I agree. Cookies are a sort of hack in the first place...what really needs to be done is some new way of supporting (preferably secure and private) sessioning over HTTP.
/everything/. If I'm going somewhere where I know they will try to shove cookies on me, I will usually temporarily turn off cookies.
Some proxies will let you define rules that can mask out or mask in certain addresses, so for instance, you could deny *.*.*.* but allow slashdot's IP and whatever other sites you visit.
Netscape has 3 cookie settings, but unfortunately they don't allow one to make deny/allow rules, so the settings effect
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Some posts said that collecting and mining customer data will improve life for everyone since advertising, special offerings etc. will be suited for the recipient.
I don't think so. Data Mining will enable companies to find out their valuable customers and identify those who are not interesting. Let's assume you have had a bad year and damaged your car three times, involving damage to other cars. Your insurance company dumped you, and you call Insurance X to get a new insurance. Before they even answer your call, they can have all your data (including insurance history) on a monitor, seeing that you could be a troublesome customer. They could refuse to give you a contract -- they wouldn't even have to answer the phone!
I'm sure we will se a lot of cases where companies will tell you more or less frankly that you are not attractive as a customer for them.
Your buying pattern will make you, nolens volens, part of a certain class of customers. If you don't like this class - tough luck. It will determine the treatment you get from a company.
This will affect a lot of businesses, not just insurances. There will be warning messages along with any customer record saying "complains a lot", "easy spender" etc. that will be gathered by mining the customer's history and sold to whoever can afford it. This will make good service for good customers and bad or even no service for not-so-good customers.
Yes, you are right there. -- Another glass of champagne?
Find out Where Acxiom gets its Data, and how to opt out (or try, anyway -- good luck):
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
As I said, smacking an errant child is not the correct way to handle the situation. The word smack implies a careless, angry attack. This has nothing to do with the question of correct behavior modification patterns for children, but with the question of motive. If a child is whining, you don't haul off and smack him one in anger without thinking. By the same token, you don't monitor corporate officers to gain retribution for the immoral data-harvesting their companies engage in. A corporation doesn't operate like a person; a corporation doesn't have morals. Anything they think they can get away with, they will. Laws are needed to stop them from doing these things. I agree that to get these laws passed, information needs to be gathered on how companies are abusing our information. But that's a far cry from turning the tables on the corporate executives, and even farther from hoping some kind of grass roots campaign is going to make them change their ways.
Supermarkets in the netherlands do this too. But...
By law they are required to give you the card anyway, even if you don't feel like giving them your personal data. Needless to say that I have the card, but they don't have my data
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
In a sense, this says just as much about the vast abyss of unethical corporate behavior, as it does about how much we really care about it. We're so wrapped up in our immediate, consumeristic, material greed that we're literally selling our souls to the devil in order to get our fix.
It privacy really means anything, we *can* get it back - but it will take something that few people are willing to exercise these days: DISCIPLINE. Find out which companies are using the services of companies like Axciom - and DO NOT BUY FROM THEM. PERIOD. Will it mean inconvience? Probably. Will it mean foregoing some of life's immediate "pleasures"? Probably. The bottom line is this: what does ANY of this mean if you can't live with any sense of dignity, knowing that to someone on the other end of the phone, you're nothing but a summary, a profile, a collection of life-events that is really none of their damned business?
The problem is that rights generally apply against the government, not the private sector. Similarly, you can redress your grievences to government, but a company can just kick you out the door--not to mention the government will listen to it's grievence well before yours.
The solution is a simple change in contract laws. Now, when companies contract with each other, they always include a non-dislosure clause. Similarly, a consumer's interaction with a company should not be disclosable to a third party without the consumer's express seperate consent.
A rule like this over contracts would stop corporations from "arbitraging" personal information for profit. In fact, the same companies that are saying we have no right to our personal information are now lobbying the US congress to provide copyright-style protection for their resulting databases of our information! Not just the form of the databases, but the information itself. (In effect, a company would have exclusive rights to whatever information it gathered on you!)
Just make consumer interactions presumptavely private, with a seperate agreement required to disclose to third parties. That would at least be a start.
Being an australian, i think i know a bit about the australian psyche. Usually we are a pretty good bunch (not to be making a too sweeping generalisation), but compared to what we see of america i think we do ok. Our legal system is fair, and alot of the time i think our attitude comes down to 'she'll be right, mate'. /. for bringing to the attention of the world how behind we can be with some issues. But unfortunately, our easy attitude prevails with ppl never really getting off their ass to do something, unless they are threatened with a pay cut.
This makes day to day living kinda cool, but the flip side being that when something important comes along, we do little to stop it. Just a few weeks ago we had a national refferendum to see if we wanted to become a republic. The history of past refferenda guided the outcome of this one, a 'No' vote -- a sad day for me personally. What im trying to say is that there is a general apathy here which is amplified when it comes to 'technical' issues, look at the work of Richard Alston (a federal senator) who is passing all that crap trying to ban porn on the internet..
At this stage i would like to thank
Here i go, i make a call to ppl to do something. I dont know what, but do something. Help us.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
title says it all. Any database is subject to the second law of thermodynamics (in a closed system, entropy increases). Give them a little help.
This sounds like a good idea to me ...
I was thinking of something similar myself, however my version was just going to delete any non-specified cookies.
-> basically I was going for denial of information, however your idea ("give them lots of information, but make it useless") seems even better.
My programming ain't too hot at the moment, but if you want some help (and to help my programming) then feel free to email me at slashdot@europe.com
(Yeah, throw-away free email acount -> when/if you get in touch I'll give you my real one!)
Privacy? What is privacy? You think YOU ever had any? Hah! I laugh at you, silly person. You never had any privacy, anywhere, and you never will, particularly not now. You're just a commodity to an info broker, no more, no less. You're just a taxpayer ID number to the tax authority, a license number to the DMV. You will be bought and sold many times over in your lifetime, same as you always have been, same as people always have been since the dawn of civilization.
Ok, a bit dramatic, but essentially true.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Is this as pure as evil gets?
/government/ in cohort with advertising agencies to reap data and profile its own population then sell it! Where is the democracy in /that/!
Egads a
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
But please think about user profiling for a bit: It isn't inherently evil. Most people don't want all their personal data floating from corporation to corporation. But unless this information is being used against you in some way, why do you care? In fact, it might be beneficial to you. How many times, guys, do you sit through some feminine hygeine commercial on TV, wishing they would realize they're missing their target? It is pretty much a fact of life, especially on this still-free network of ours, that advertising will be pretty much everywhere. If you're going to be subjected to all sorts of inane advertising, wouldn't you rather it be about something which you might be interested in? Just some thoughts to chew on.
I don't definetly see this as the end of privacy, sure the idea of privacy will change, but as long as there is some level of anonymity on the net, there will be some privacy. The best way for companies like this to stay in business is to earn the people's trust. There should be a checkbox(or some equivalent) on a page that asks whether or not you ant the information to a database so that all the ads and spam that you recieve relates to your own personal interests. ~Adam
All good technology should be used to piss off people's parents. --Neil Gaiman
I see that there is already a similar database for the US.
Coperations should be allowed to compile and use demographics. I am not a big fan of them as they tend to produce bland, for-almost-everyone, overmarketed products. But I don't really care. However when a company can access a database with lots of detailed information on a specific individuals or familys that is going too far. The company probably needs some information to conduct bussiness with me, but they don't need to know everything.
Stuff like this just pisses me off. I put some effort into trying to protect my privacy. I put effort into protecting my privacy and not doing something that could be seen as fraud and breaking the law. However, if companies no longer wish to honour my request for privacy, why should I honour their request for correct personal information?
Anyone know where I can get a good set of fake IDs?
dammmm every time i think my country couldnt possibly disapoint me any further it finds a way... I'm getting so sick of the way this country is run and that sucks cause it really is a nice place to live otherwise. It's getting to the point that the only entities that have any rights in this country are corporations and the only opinions that are listened to are those with a few billion$ to back them up.
.. than .. nuts.. run out of suitably outraged metaphor :)
We have a constituion that guarantees nothing much more than free trade between the states, more pollitions per head of population than any other country on earth and less desire as a nation to change our lot than (see recent attempts at becoming a republic for eg) than
- PrinciplyUncertain
my "office" (read as place where all the interns lounge around when not forced to work) is in the same room as the data servers for the company. I can tell you that the telemarketers at the company have access to all the data on it. I've seen the customer profiles, by customer I mean the companies that buy the info. I've talked with the people who administer the polls. They don't just sell it to whomever. sure, they know what kind of toothpaste you use, but really, do you care that they know? dunkman- ----------
----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Time Flies Like the Wind, Fruit Flies Like B
I think this is fair if a consumer has the right to see everything in the database under his name and delete it if he so wishes.
Lord knows I would.
Imagine life in the future where there is a single huge repository of all marketing information on every single person in the entire world. Imagine what a different life experience people would have if they opted out of that particular database compared to those who choose to stay in? The person in the database would have every single piece of advertising directed specifically to him (remember this is the future) whereas the person who opted out would get the very basic stuff, maybe nothing if such a thing was a rarity (one can dream). Imagine the social implications! Would people in the "advertising club" look down apon those who are not because they are not part of "society"? Weird thoughts I just had.
I think the worse thing would be if people were not given the opportunity to opt-out of databases such as these. I don't like people being able to find out what type of ice cream I like or the last time I bought a newspaper. I have an inherent distrust of all marketing people and car salesmen.
I wear pants.
I'm going to be spreading this story around to all my Oz friends, and suggest every /. does the same. First its Austrailia then its the world. Microsoft has a big investment down under. Lets not forget where one of their launch parties for Winblows 95 was. Sydney. This really doesn't suprize me.. scare me yes.. Suprize no. I mean look how much information the average person is willing to give out without knowing about it as it is. IDsoft is gathering who knows what from your computer if you play their quake game. RealMedia is gathering your musical tastes. We will soon be living in a world tailor made for us by those wishing to sell us more and more stuff. *Sigh* Stop the bus I want to get off.
Runestar
"In the US, Acxiom has established what it claims is the world's largest database, which holds personal details on 95 per cent of all US households, or some 330 million people."
How long do you think it will be before they decide to implement this here? (Not to mention, they'll probably patent this "great, new technology" =-P )
Now, when you receive spam from some fly-by-night company, they already have an order form enclosed with your home address, credit card number, and favorite color filled in for you. The question is, when do they start signing your charges for you?
Visa Operator: What do you mean you didn't order a $500 Hawaiian print shirt, Mr. Johnson? It is in exactly your size.
--Too lazy to log in
S"Q"K
If this turns out to be a single source for all information, what determines its correctness?
What if companies use that information to restrict my freedom?
I don't think that either of these issues will be addressed as long as the company's (and government's) senior executives feel that they still have their privacy. So the solution I suggest is to collect and publish as much information about all of them as possible. If we open-source their lives, I'm sure they'll come out as better people for it.
There has not been privacy in a long time. Those that think something is private are mistaken. Anyone who wants to know something about someone and has the money or the will can find it. The big question isnt so much my privacy, granted if I thought I had any privacy I might be worried about it, but since I dont believe that I have any my big concern is whether or not the garbage collectors have been given correct info about me (or anyone else for that matter) I would hate for people to be getting bum scoop ;-) The reality is...privacy is a hoax... There is none...Think about it...satellites can map the earth within inches of accuracy, we can look at things on other planets with such attention to small details...does anyone really think that they actually have or have had any privacy...? If you do I suppose as the saying goes....Ignorance is bliss.... note: of course there are no ignorant people on slashdot because that would be an impossibility due to the very nature of slashdot...;-) Take care
Is this more Microsoft bashing? The story mentions "Although relatively unknown in Australia, Acxiom is a $US2.5 billion company with more than 450 corporate clients, including IBM, American Express, Wal-Mart and AT&T."
/. knee-jerk Anti-MS stuff?
Microsoft is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the story. Where is the MS connection, or is this a standard
Who decides what is wrong?
This pertains to Americans, since I don't have much experience elsewhere.
...Linux!
Privacy has been dead for a long long time. We don't really care, though many of us still spout off about the degredation of privary. Any discussion or demands for privacy in this country are purely academic. The issue as killed and buried by Corporate America long ago. All America cares about is making a buck. This is not limited to Corporations. We are a capitalist nation, everything we do is, almost by definition, for profit. The US economy is raging right now. One indicator I use of the the US economy is the cars we drive. In the 90's, especially the late 90's, the car have gotten bigger and bigger, and they eat more and more gas. The same thing happened in the swinging post WWII economy. We don't care about privary either. Telemarketing companies buy and sell personal information between themselves and others. All in the name of profit. I use a piece of plastic for almost every purchase I make; allowing my bank to know what I spend and where. Grocery stores offer club cards; in exchange for good deals, you give up some privacy. They can keep track of your purchase history. Why do we trade our privacy for a buck? Because Americans, for the most part, do not value privacy. The economy is good, our personal profits are high, so we really don't give a damn as long as we can keep filling up the 42 gallon tank of your suburbans with $1.50 gasoline that craps up the air we breath.
If we really care about privacy, there needs to be cultural change in our view of the value of privacy. This won't happen until after our privacy is exploited to the point of hurting people. When the sale of personal information prevents people from getting jobs, inssurance, food, etc. we may start to value it more. But because our privacy was sold at aution years ago, it's going to be an uphill battle to get it back.
Frankly, I don't want it back now. I'm the first the admit that I'm a raging capitalist. I'm willing to sell my privacy for profit, I carry a grocery store club card. I don't care if online bookstore know what I purchase and read. It makes my life a little more comfortable.
Andrew
--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
If you live in the United States, you could not vote for Bush.
"There should be limits to freedom."
If anything, I would vote for McCain, even though I vote democratic. And note to Mr. Profiler, you can put that in my file. At least McCain has enough balls to have his own opinion, and even if he isn't the best on privacy, he is big on finance reform, which at least could reform politics from the big money crap of Bush and Gore. It is sad how many people say "Well, I voted for so and so because he wasn't as bad as the other guy." That's just the state of affairs I guess.
Back on topic... You can keep yourself out of most junk mail as long as you shop wisely and find their non disclosure agreements. I can't find one for school, however, so I get stuff due to that. Bleh.
Of course, I'm trusting them to non-disclose, but since I only get student credit card applications, I think I have done fairly well.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
they've confiscated the citizens' guns (after first saying the required registration of arms would never be used against gun owners, fwih), they're restricting free speech on the internet, and now MS and friends have come in to profile and catalog every citizen's activities. hopefully, EFF and other groups will lobby and inform more .au citizens of what's going on. and don't think this couldn't happen in america; we're already on our way, in the same direction.
i'm not saying that this invasion of privacy is a good thing, it's definitely not, but if this does eventuate, what becomes of the small businesses who can't afford to pay for the info and whose only advantage over large corporations is that they know their clients (and/or potential clients) and their history through past dealings with them. Once larger corporations have access to the kind of information we're talking about, could not legal action be taken against the providers of the info? it seems like a greater monopolysing of the advertising industry.
blackmerlin
Consider that the technology that's being developed will allow companies, governments, or anyone else who cares, to track your movement anywhere that there are cameras. Consider a store which keeps track of where all the customers spend their time (They already can keep track of who buys what with those sill cards) using face recognition software. Then the company that can easily track who spaens how much time in lunch rooms, the government agencies that keep passive records of who is where.
In prisons retinal scan systems have already been implemented to prevent prisoners swapping postions, and there was talk of having ID chips implanted under someone's skin so that the ID can be made without persons subjecting themselves to an obvious scan.
Forget having databases about your taste, but now everyone will be tracked automatically. The technology exists. The data storage and processing is well within corporate means. Remeber big brother, he is real.
Sorry to sound so paranoid, but I was thinking about setting up something like this somewhere, and studying the results as a sort of sociology project.
Evil Bill: "You see mister Bond, with the press of this button all your personal info will be broadcast to the world... and your spy career RUINED.. muhahahaha"
007: "You can't do this... you... you... you monster! Ok ok I'll talk"
Evil Bill: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"
Blender And Linux Fan
I do.
I miss Meept.
There was a site on how to do it.
Seach through memepool.com and you'll find it somewhere.
Do you get the fractal type things for AOL CDs in the microwave? Just wondering, you know.
Offtopic. My bad. But my grandma gets AOL CDs for some reason. She doesn't have a computer yet. I'm still pushing the topic though. Maybe one of those Astro thingies...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
Someone give me $10 million, and an EMP, and I'll go take 'em out!
.AU and the one here is that the one here was totally a private operation. No goverment help, AFAIK. When the government starts asking companies to do this, and helps them, then it's time to throw a wrench into the works.
The above is a joke for the FBI afflicted!
I live roughly 10 miles away from their HQ in Conway...
The only difference between the one in
Side note:
Kinda strange to think my mom might have been one of their Database Administrators. Only problem was that she would be on call 24/7, and she would have been required to travel when asked (hmm....).
Now that governments and companies -- notably ones in Australia -- have the technology and the will to snoop on everyone and compile huge databases of detail on private citizens, stop to think who is left out of this snoop-fest. Companies and governments. Why are they special? Why are they not routinely snooped on by private citizens, and each other, with all details reported to the public at large, out our use? They collect info on us for their use. Turn it around!
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle; we cannot reverse technological and social trends and restore privacy to all citizens everywhere. But we can deny privacy to the snoops! Who will watch the watchers? We can. We will, to quote AT&T. The only rational response to steady erosion of privacy is no privacy at all, and be gung-ho about it! Lobby for laws requiring full disclosure of all government and business documents! Outlaw NDAs! Get the credit reports for corporations, public and "private." Subject corporations to the death penalty (i.e., revoke their corporate status if they commit felonies).
A single standard!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Note, that was not a Biblical reference
Michael threw a hissy-fit today about id Software sending back graphics card information and now we have this. This is a real privacy concern. The problem isn't with the information being so openly available, it's with it being so tightly controlled, not just by one organization, but by a combination organization/government body. Business/free-enterprise/commercial world is not a democracy. Once the government immerses itself in this world, some of the democratic freedoms (mostly those based on Socialist ideas) become lost as business takes over the legislative workings. This isn't lobbying we're talking about here, this is direct cooperation and the line is blurred between government and the private sector (ever see Robocop?). I don't mind businesses collecting data and I don't mind governments collecting data, but I mind them doing it together, because government cannot effectively regulate when it is part of the process (we see that too much now already).
Slashdot readers who posted over 600 comments today about video card information should open their eyes to this real problem. Whether or not the situation is exactly as it is presented here, someone (not just me) should get on the horn to consumer rights advocates right now and make sure that the world's largest conflict of interest doesn't become a reality.
Firstly, where is MS mentioned in the article? Secondly, "don't think this couldn't happen in america"? Wow, what an amazing thought. It's a good thing you've got all them guns to stop this kind of thing. Wait a minute: the database already exists there! Gee, those guns have really helped!
Perhaps it's juvenile, but often when I send off to some company for catalogs, I give a false name. These false names get traded to other companies. Also, there are a few misspellings of my name which seem to have been passed along from company to company.
If Acxiom thinks it's got info on 95% of Americans, I wonder if their figure is inflated by people like me with multiple mail personalities. Judging from the number of names on my junkmail, I could count for about 1% of the USA population all by my lonesome.
I guess that I am not like most /.ers then. I was born before 1970.
Companies want to learn more about their customers in order to decide how and what to market to each person. I don't know about the rest of the planet, but I cannot remember the last time I was motivated to purchase something that I saw in a commercial or an advertisement. Instead, I've enjoyed the ability of the Internet to quickly find the things I want (for instance pricewatch.com and cdnow.com). I think these companies have everything completely backwards - give more easily accessible information to the consumer, rather than gather more information about the consumer.
If you follow the above link to ninemsn you can discover that "Ninemsn is an online joint venture between the Microsoft Corporation and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL)."
It should also be noted that, besides Microsoft, Inside Rugby magazine and The Australian Women's Weekly are in on the evil conspiracy. In fact, if you click down far enough, you get to Rupert Murdoch and Bart Simpson.
But the list of conspirators is very long, so by the usual convention it is abbreviated to "Microsoft Corp.".
--
but this is nothing like the info we can get in America. Trust me, it's easy. If anyone wants to submit an address I can tell you all sorts of generalities about you and the people you live with. With a few list appends I can find your phone number, car you drive, annual income, marital status, etc. etc. etc. All of this information is out there and for sale (Mostly from credit companies, they keep *very* up to date records). The company I work for buys it all the time. We do marketing. We figure out the right audience and reach them. It's rather scientific actually.
There really isn't that much to fear. There is a margin of error that will always exists. If you try hard enough you can reach it. Most list companies (as we call them) are receptive to individual requesting removal, there aren't that many. You need to realize (as much as many of you hate it) that marketing makes markets more efficient, and the U.S. (and it looks like Aussieland too) use free-market economies. This information, en masse, is worth money and so a market develops. There are limits to the information available, but nothing that couldn't be obtained from a decent private eye, to help put it in perspective.
+&x
Considering Australians don't even have the constitutional right to free speech, have the most ill informed internet censorship rules, have a maximum of MA rating on software (under 15 only with an adult buying it), has the only national postal carrier collecting and selling customer data, has admitted to (but not stopped) Echelon, why does this suprise anyone?
Of course I'll read your SPAM, if you can reach that far up your ass to get it.
The main section that I can remember (since AustLII doesn't appear to be up at the moment) is that you have the right to review any information held on you and ask for it to be corrected if wrong.
I am not overly concerned by people attempting to do targeted marketing or to have a profile of me to make my customer experience more worthwhile, provided it is for a specific company. For example, I like having account records for the phone company so that they can suggets I change to a different mobile phone charging plan to save me money. It's a lot like having the waiters/waitresses at my local Italian restaurant knowing what I usually order. I get good service, and they get repeat business. This is good for both sides.
What I don't like is for a private company to gather information from disparate sources, throw it into a database and sell the extracted information to someone else that I may or may not have had any previous dealings with. If you check the fine print on most forms, there is a little section which says "If you sign this you agree to let us give/sell this information to a certain select few groups (eg: police)", so I have, in a roundabout sort of way, given my permissions to have this information gathered. of course, not signing the form denies me the services of that company, which is akin to blackmail in my mind.
What is more concerning is that with the speed of SMP computing and some rather funky algorithms it is possible to glean a great deal of information from trend analysis and similar techniques. This is information that you have not explicitly provided, but which has been deduced from your spending habits, amount of insurance, type of car, marital status, credit rating, etc.
Now I'm sure most of the uses for this information will be benign (if annoying) things like directed advertising, because the majority of people aren't interesting enough to be subjected to the wild schemes others here have concocted. A few will be though, and reality is often stranger than fiction. I don't want to be the guinea pig for one of those schemes. I want the opportunity to opt out, which should be my right as a consumer. Others may not be bothered by this company's motives. Fine. Let them remain in the database. I want out though.
If I am not given that option, then I may need to start taking subversive (yet amusing) action. A few random thoughts (please comment if you really are a lawyer):
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
I understand most people's concerns about this issue, but I'm not sure everyone realizes certain things. For example, most information (especially in the U.S.) that Acxiom gathers results from public information at most courthouses. Anyone in the world can walk in and request most of this info. (Yes, that IS scary.) Other info. is gathered from *public* purchases. Unless you explicitly say, "Don't let anyone know about this," it's perfectly legal for a corporation with whom you've dealt to spread their data on you.
:), but in actuality, most of the data held by Acxiom is completely public. The only way to not let this information about yourselves out is to live like the Unabomber.
As for Acxiom, I have recently worked there as a software engineering intern. The people I worked with were great and understand that some folks freak out about this stuff. And, they *DO* have ways to "opt out" of their massive DB's (Admittedly, it's not well publicized.)
As someone else mentioned, it'd be nice to quit receiving those #$^@-ing AOL CD's, which is precisely what Acxiom tries to do in many cases. It's intended to save corporations $$ on mailings and free product offerings by collecting data for precision marketing.
I understand everyone's paranoia to a certain degree (I'm paranoid, too
---------
Mark Staggs
Disclaimer: This started out as a response and turned into a bit of a rant, though I believe I've made my point adequately.
I think this is fair if a consumer has the right to see everything in the database under his name and delete it if he so wishes.
The problem is that we don't have the right and the government will not doing anything useful on its own initiative. The only good thing that I've seen from the current government is the intervention in the East Timor situation. Prior to this in the same term John Howard's government has screwed the university students over and allowed Brian Harradine, the 80-something year old codger from out-of-touch-with-reality-ville Tasmania, to force the draconian internet censorship laws through parliament. While this is a little off topic, I've always been a Liberal supporter because I believed that they had a genuine ability to do good for the country and repair some of the damage that has (arguably) been done as a result of the Labor governments over the last 10 years of their reign. If I was willing to stay in a country run by this bunch of dickheads any longer, next election I would be voting for National party, whose members were part of the few to oppose the censorship laws.
I digress.. The government seems willing to good, but lacks any clue on modern issues and relies on its anachronistic values to pull it through contemporary decisions - and in my judgement it is failing miserably. On issues in the public eye it is quick to action, not necessarily the right action but action so it is seen as acting. On peripheral issues it lacks the willingness or ability to do anything beyond burp and stutter, then pass some bet hedging legislation that ends up screwing the people over that it is supposedly there to protect.
Back to the issue at hand.. Australians have voluntarily been contributing to such schemes for years. Fly Buys is the best example. For those non-Australians here, Fly Buys is a scheme where when purchasing from any number of stores you use your Fly Buys card to accrue frequent flier miles (this seems to be the generic currency of such schemes) which may then be used to exchange for goods and services (anything from televisions to plane tickets). Does anyone believe that Fly Buys exists cause the big companys want to give away televisions and send you on holidays? Does anyone believe that there really is value in purchasing based on the gain of Fly Buys and not purchasing cheaper from a competitor? Unfortunately there are people that believe one or both of those options. Fly Buys exists for the sake of convenience of companies involved in the Fly Buys scheme. When you purchase a tank of petrol, it's recorded. When you buy the bag of kity litter from the Supermarket, it's recorded. When you buy a set of kids clothes from David Jones (like Maceys in the US?), it's recorded. Then X company does the numbers and figures it's a family household and send its brochures about Dreamworld holidays to you just in time for summer. Maybe this is a convenience for you, maybe not. Myself, I dislike being spammed, no matter how close to my interests it may be, and I dislike it even more when the spam appears in my mailbox with my name on it. I only want to receive what I've requested, and that should be the default option for anyone.
I say I ain't giving you no tree fiddy you goddamned Loch Ness monster, get yo own goddamned money!
Buying milk from a man in New York.
He said "Aren't you out of roast pork?"
I said "How'd you know I'm empty?"
"Because you come from a land of plenty!"
(and he said...)
"You come from a land Down Under!
Where we can tell by your number,
That you're ready to be plundered.
You'd better run-- you'd better take cover..."
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
"Hello, little brother. Welcome to the world of DoubleClick Inc. "
--
Yup, we have it up here in the North too... a good example is Safeway, a large supermarket chain if you don't know. They decided to scrap all savings coupons and use a swipe card instead... to get a swipe card you have to fill out a form completely with all of your information... name, address, age, marital status, even household income I believe (I refuse to get one so I am not too sure on that one). So, you want deals, you need this card... they swipe the card after all of your items are swiped through, and bam, they get a detailed history of your buying habits, tacked on to your profile.
Glad I live in a "free" country.
jaraxle
I'm a software developer at a large US Auto Insurence Company (which shall remain nameless.... but if you call us we'll give you the rates of two other companies, sometimes we're the lowest, sometimes we're not). In my first month on the job I found that privacy is already dead in the United States. Data Warehouses have everything on you already that you can think of. They keep track of who lives in what house with whom and anything that you ever bought with a credit card. I used to be a big privacy advocate.... but I've given up that fight. Its a battle lost long ago.
That's it, I'm sick of corporations stealing my personal details and selling or trading them in this manner. I'm having a solicitor (lawyer for our good American friends) draft an End-User License Agreement (EULA). My personal details are my property, and any corporation that wishes to use them from now on is going to have to sign an EULA that expressly prohibits disclosure and places tight restrictions on the use of the personal information. It is my personal information after all, and some of it I must pay for (residential address from a rented flat, telephone number, car registration and so forth).
Any company that refuses "as a matter of policy" to agree to the EULA must instead provide me with reciprocal data for all of the board members. If they want my name, they must tell me the board members' names. If they want my home address, they must tell me all the board members' home addresses. If they want my income, they must tell me all the board members' incomes. And so forth. Turnabout is fair play, after all.
Corporations have been stealing my personal details from me and other citizens of Australia and other countries for too long, and this blatant abuse of privacy is the result. "Private and Confidential" seems to mean nothing to companies any more.
I intend to claim back my rights to my personal details, the right of disclosure or non-disclosure as I see fit, and the right to consider them as my personal property for my sole and exclusive use.
Who will join me?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Unfortunately, even if there are legal restrictions on databases like this, they are unlikely to stop the project.
:) practically has the Australian Government in his pocket anyway....
Andrew Robb, the head of Acxiom Australia, was federal director of the "Liberal" (actually conservative) Party of Australia, and managed Prime Minister John Howard's original election campaign in 1996.
Kerry Packer, who controls PBL (known in Australian press circles as the "Evil Empire" long before they hoooked up with M$
When these people want something, they are likely to get it.
Things aren't looking too good down under....
Fixing copyright
Well I'm not kidding. The FBI and the CIA can screw themselves. If I had EMP equipment I would disassemble it in the US, have it sent over in pieces, or have someone build it there, fly over, bring the machine to within effective range, have some people go ahead for distractive effect, and activate it and obliterate their database.
Screw the cops. Screw the feds. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
What price will you pay for freedom?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
For all those who have been saying how shitty a place Australia must be to live, given the events of the last few months, you may want to get a little introspective.
I could turn around and say "Americans profile their own school children to weed our the mass murderers? Danm the United States must suck!"
On the whole, Australia is a great place to live.
It's open, relatively in touch with what is happening around the world and, for the most part, consists of an extremely diverse set of people and cultures, who generally get along very well.
At the moment, however, we have an overly conservative government in place, thanks to the economic hardships of the previous decade, (global recession etc). They're currently doing all of the things that overly conservative governments do everywhere around the world (and stepping on toes in the process while claiming a greater good)
In the not too distant future, however, there will be an election, and this overly conservative government will be tossed out having pissed too many people off, as it almost was in the last election, and Australia will be the better for it.
I am not entirely familiar with the US system of government - but if the US had a republican president and a predominantly republican congress and senate, wouldn't the US be in a similar situation right now?
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
http://www.cnn.com/US/9 911/29/internet.murder.ap/index.html
The killer used online research agencies to find out information about his target. The killer even advises: "It's actually obsene (sic) what you can find out about people on the Internet".
Take his advice: refuse this gross invasion of privacy.
I think the real issue is not whether people have this information or not, they are going to have it and in many ways it does us more good than harm as long as we dont do anything wrong. I think the main problem is that if such information is going to be available it should be FREELY available to everyone, its not unlike the issues of free software, free documentation, free education
Well, one way to handle something like this is start gathering and making information available on the gatherers. The problems with this sort of snooping arise because there is an imbalance present. You may not have any privacy, but if they don't either the tendency to misue the information would be in fact tempered by knowledge that reciprocal misuse could be just as painful.
There is an interesting and comprehesive discussion of this concept in David Brin's 'The Transparent Society'.
OK I just did some research on this. What is happening is that the Packer Empire (owned by the richest man in Australia). Has just launched a new comsumer database company. OK the database this company has, has about 15 million Australians on it. Now the federal governement has been asked to find out where the details on those 15 million people come from. And one of the early answer suggest that some of the info comes from the the Australia Electoral roll. Now I have to point out this is illegal (very very illegal). If it is true the Packer company is in a shit load of trouble. So no this is not the government creating a commercial database. It is just some bastard of a company stealing the info off the electoral roll and claiming they had the government's OK. They didn't, it is being investigated now, so wait and see what happens.
I recall reading within the last 12 months or so, about how the EU had created some strict E-commerce laws.
This mainly dealt with consumer privacy when using credit cards/other electronic payment methods. It forbid merchants/credit agencies from giving out any information about the consumer. They had to agree to only use information about people to conduct their day-to-day business, and not to sell it. (Hey, I think this makes a lot of sense. Sure, VISA/the bank/whoever can know my name/address/whatever, but only so they can bill me/chase me down when I don't pay.)
They stated that anyone who wanted to do E-commerce with the EU had to agree to these strict privacy concerns, and the good 'ol USA had a fit, said 'wait a minute, let's talk about this' and the EU basically said 'No, no talks. Either you agree, or don't do e-commerce with us. it's up to you'. I don't know whatever came of it though..
About 10 years ago, I created an "artificial" family. A wife, two kids, hobbies, etc... all fictional. I based it on my roommates in college at the time.
I use this fictional family whenever anyone asks for personal information. Warranty cards, whatever, I fill it all out.
A few years ago, my brother, who works for one of the major credit card companies, was testing out a new consumer database that someone was trying to sell them. The vendor was bragging about how accurate the database was, that it was based on the most current public information, etc... So how do you test something like that? Feed in family members, of course.
So my brother calls me and says "Todd, why does this database show that you have a wife and two kids?" 8-)
I agree with the sentiments voiced so far:
- currently, it's an easy system to jam
- you probably volunteered the information in the first place
- i'd rather see an "opt-in only" law rather than any form of serious government regulation. If I want to trade my privacy for convenience, that's my right! In the words of the Dead Kennedy's, Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!
-Twid
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
- Apple have always referred to me as Ms since I bought an orignal Newton Message Pad
- A local coin collectors place used to refer to my mother and I as Dr & Ms C & J Johnson - but she's the doctor. When I corrected them the next mailout arrived as Dr C & Ms J Johnson.
- My mother and I have swapped our flybuys cards. This means they think I regularly buy petrol, but I don't own a car
- There is a Mr Chris Johnson who works in a surgical centre at 39 the street I live in - I live at 31. I've been getting his calls and mail.
- Many American web-based services think I live in Washington, USA - I live in Western Australia, Australia (WA).
And these are just the ones I know about - yet these places build these data warehouses in the belief that they're Right, they're The Truth. That's what worries me. We don't need the right the view or delete the data, we need the right to fix it.I think the solution to this kind of thing is to give all personal information the status of personal property. I.e., if someone wants to use my personal information, they have to get my permission, and pay me a royalty on it. That would make doing this kind of thing prohibitively expensive, both in royalty payments and administrative costs.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
I don't think it's really accurate to describe the Australia card as being a similar scheme to this. It was a fair while time ago, so my recollection is rather fuzzy but I believe the Australia card was supposed to be a universal ID and index for government services. I think it was to be fairly similar in concept to the French ID card (which has been around for quite some time, and as far as I know is not massively unpopular).
While that certainly has privacy concerns it wasn't, unlike this scheme, about collecting data for the express purpose of selling market information. While having large government databases with personal information is a cause for concern, to my mind having similar privately held databases is much, much worse.
It's federal law that all telco's must be able to provide "access" to all their transmissions to law enforcement or whatever. Even if the telco encrypts your data (like over the digital phone network) they have a legal responsibility to be able to decrypt it if the right people ask them to. That's one of the reasons it took so long for ISDN lines to be rolled out, and it's probably one of the things slowing down DSL.
This story is being reported very differently in Australia than it is on Slashdot. I don't know which account is true, but the news here has reported that this large data-gathering facility is a private enterprise, like others all over the world, and there has been no mention of government involvement with its establishment, apart from Australian Electoral Rolls being (allegedly) illegally accessed. Also, the Government is drafting a law to restrict activities of these databases.
5 007_1.htm
According to news reports, the Government is investigating how those electoral rolls were accessed, as gaining access to Electoral Rolls is a serious crime in Australia, because voting is compulsory (IMHO a good idea), so almost everyone over the age of 18 is on the roll. The Government is also drafting laws to make sure Private Data-Gathering Warehouses follow strict laws.
So, in Australia the story is being reported VERY differently, with the Government investigating the data gathering facility, rather than supporting it. I would personally like to know which version is true, as the two reports seem in direct contradiction of each other.
Here are some comments by the Australian Attorney-General on the laws the Government is introducing:
"There will be an obligation on ACXIOM when our legislation is passed to maintain the standards
that are set out in the bill,"
"In respect of any information that is collected retrospectively, they will have obligations of data security, data openness, data quality and restrictions on transfers overseas."
Further information on this matter is at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/1999/11/item1999113017
In summary, in Australia it is being reported that the Government is not involved with this data warehouse, and it is similar to many already established overseas. Instead the Government is drafting new laws to RESTRICT the activities of data warehouses such as these.
There have been signs of these portents in Australia for months.
First, gun control.
Now privacy.
The horror began a long time ago.
It'll happen here when I'm no longer able to use
my index finger to send rounds down range...
Been a while since I was at their site, but I recall that Junkbusters has a lot of this information. Reminds me that I want to go there and opt out of every credit card list (can we say identity theft waiting to happen? Thought you could...).
The thing that really freaks me about these databases is that you know people you don;t want to get access to them will get access to them. Imagine a pair of burglers casing a neighborhood... a net-connected PDA and access to this database would be all they need to choose a victim. "Letsee... this house here, yearly income $250,000... single female... bought lots of jewelry recently... just had a credit card activity several states away... let's go for it..." Sure, sure, peole like this won't be allowed to access the information. Yeah, right.
Consumer privacy advocates should start building databases of information about businesses, companies, and corporations. i.e., lists of complaints against, lawsuits filed against; and their outcomes; including unproveable complaints and pending ones, what they've invested in (including employees' 401K and pension funds), fines assessed against the company; by what gov't agency, for what reason, the salaries they pay their employees; broken down by occupation; what medical benifits are provided; comparisons of these with that of other companies. Results of health and safety inspections; environmental compliance; infractions. Lists of projects, past, present, and future, detailed investigative level backgrounds on top company execs, credit standing, crimilan history and records; if any, outstanding bank loans; and to whom; and for what purpose. All companie policies; both public and internal, lists of software used on company premisis, etc. Other companies opinions of said company, etc. Turn the microscope around on them and let them writhe in pain for a while. They will complain... loudly. Like a young errant child who pulls a cat's tail, they need to be hurt themselves or they will never understand what it is to hurt.
Whenever I'm *forced* to fill out some stupid form to access some web-based resource I lie. Databases gathered from unchecked sources will tend to be full of errors -- one of these days some big organisations are going to end up in court because they distribute inaccurate, unchecked data.
As an Australian who is sick of the lack of clues that our government has when it comes to technology, I'd like to suggest that articles like this come under a new heading -- "Stupid developments from down under" -- maybe have an icon of a dead koala or something.
/. is getting, maybe this could even help change the situation, I can imagine some hip MP saying "the government's latest proposal is so flawed it has gone down on Slashdot's list of dumb ideas from down under."
I'm sick of people thinking of Australia as a backward nation, but when it comes to things like this, it's even worse that it's actually true. With the increasing credibility and attention
First they ban all the porn sites and now they do this. They're basically saying you can't view pornography but we can mine data about you and sell it.
All over the world, government officials at all levels are eager to sell out their people. Drivers license bureaus want to sell info on people to the highest bidder. This is folly. No good will come of it. People will get hurt in ways no one can predict.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Would big companies follow a EULA like that anyway? How would you prove it if they didn't?
BTW, the board members of Australian companies must declare their incomes, including the value of fringe benefits, in the company's annual report. That's a bit of legislation the government did get right, even though they just copied America. Getting their addresses could be harder though . . .
Ever since that slashdot article on cookies in ad banners (I recommend reading it if you haven't already -- it is here: http://slashdot.org/yro/99/10/22/0249212.shtml) I've been thinking of ways to make it hard to track me via cookies. I'd like to automate something so I wouldn't have to do it by hand. What I do currently is edit ~/.netscape/cookies in emacs while browsing, and randomly change things. I set any dates I see to be right after Y2K, to help them in their testing, and transpose blocks of letters.
(Another post below observed how much of the information mined is wrong -- titles and address wrong, for instance. I always give a mangled address to the Radio Shack people who insist on asking for it when you make a purchase. I know someone who was called for a political poll, and instinctively lied to say he was supporting the underdog, figuring it was in his interest to see the front-runner campaign a little harder. I think it is in our interest to lie as much as possible to these sorts of people. Hey, I just convinced myself to go to the local grocery store and sign up for some fake discount cards.)
But anyway, back to cookie-diddling. What I want to do is write a shell script wrapper that spawns of netscape and a second process, which watches the cookie file and does the following sorts of things:
-- I want it to keep a number (say, fifty) New York Times account passwords and usernames. As I browse the nytimes.com, it should switch them in and out at random from the cookie file. This way, nytimes.com sees a number of users making random deep requests into the site, and cannot track the series of articles I read. It should be able to occasionally abandon a username password and pick up a new one automatically.
-- Play with advertiser banner ad cookies: either scramble them and let the site retrieve them, or better yet, somehow trade ad cookies back and forth with several users, thus mixing our viewing histories. The more people the better. Maybe we can set up some type of server that everyone can use.
-- Retrieve new cookies off the web that don't represent a page view, and allow them to be retrieved by the site later. It could submit a randomly choosen dictionary word to yahoo or alltheweb and crawl those links til it got some nice cookies, and toss them in the cookies file. In fact, writing a continuous low-level background task to do this all the time might be good too.
-- Finally, I want to be able to view some sort of statistics on what sites set the most cookies, how often they retrieve them, etc. Basically, the problem here is that I can't get a good idea of what information they are collecting. I can set netscape to pop the annoying little window everytime someone wants to set a cookie, but I'd like to log when they are retrieved as well. Anyone know how to track that ?
I think my last point is the most useful. While engaging a little guerilla war with data miners might be interesting for a while, what would bring real change is if the major browsers automatically kept track of them keeping track of you and allowed you to view the information in an understandable form. This might upset enough people that things would actually change -- those trusting techno-impaired out there would see this and begin to modify their buying practices.
If anyone out there has already written this sort of thing, could you please share, rather than making me re-write it ?
--Rob