(1) Right now your privacy online is not protected by law in the United States. This means that a corporation operating a website that states no explicit privacy policy may track your activites on that website and any information you input into that website, compile the information, enter it into a global database contributed to by other websites and sell the database to anyone willing to buy it - as long as your are an adult. These activites may render the corporation running the website liable under fair trade and deceptive trade practice state laws. This is alleged in the ongoing cases Judnick vs. Doubleclick inc. and Universal Image Inc. vs. Yahoo, Inc. However even if Doubleclick and Yahoo lost in those cases which is by no means certain, the conclusions reached would be limited to the state in which they were decided. On this point the American Bar Association in "Facts About Privacy and Cyberspace" (2000) writes the following:
Few laws limit what the private sector can do with information collected in cyberspace. Unlike Europe, the United States has no omnibus bill covering the private sector's processing of personal information. There is a patchwork of laws regulating different types of information. There are numerous statutes covering consumer credit, education, cable programming, electronic communications, videotape rentals, motor vehicle records, and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. However, in toto, information collectors can largely do what they want with most information collected in cyberspace.
Note that a contributor's right to contribute to a journal anonymously has no impact whatsoever on a contractor's [ie. websurfer's] right to protect personal information from commercial exploitation.
(2)Even if the federal legislature were to pass laws creating a certain minimum threshold of protection from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of private information, large companies would circumvent these laws forcing web-visitors to agree to limit their rights - just the same way software developers currently circumvent fair use copyright law allowing backups through software licensing. In other words Amazon would say: "let us collect certain information or shop somewhere else" [in fact Amazon does say this if you read the contract] Most people will agree.
Belief in privacy is like belief in God - a conviction suspended above logical enquiry. In an ideal world those who want their privacy [ie. personal details] protected should have their wishes fulfilled. The meaningful question is not "Are they correct?" but rather "Is it feasible to prevent corporations from commercially exploiting personal details?" I think the answer to that question is no.
The following conversation probably would not have occurred between Bill Gates and e.e.cummings, prompted by Phaid's comment
B: e. old buddy, as a token archetype of free-spirited non-conformists I would like to mention to you certain misapprehensions in Phaid's comment which I fear might be common in people of your ilk - enumerated 'cuz I know that that will
piss you off.
(1) The article may have got the facts right - but it's lacking where it counts. The headline was "P2P piracy? Don't get too worked up yet". The conclusion was "Which is why peer-to-peer data piracy may not be quite such an apocalyptic peril after all." Which leads me to question when Mr. Bray thinks businesses should get worked up - when the technology is viable, perhaps? But then, it is too late. Because business plans take time to implement, and forming a business plan when the Barbarians are past the gates and absconding with your women-folk is not a way to run a business. P2P current impracticality is no reason not to worry. And who amongst us believes that there will never be an idiot proof, retail level p2p network? Conclusion: current impracticality is worth precisely nothing. Future viability is what Mr. Bray should be concerned with - and isn't.
(2) Alluding to the wants of companies [they don't want to hear this, they want to turn the internet, they want to put us in glass bulbs and run their computers off our body heat, etc.] is a fool's game. Companies don't have wants. CEO's have wants. They want to have brilliant careers and defend their companies against technological threats which would render their business obselete. That is what they are hired for. Shareholder's also have wants. They want their shares to make them filthy stinking rich. A very stupid CEO might think that demonizing the internet and attempting to make it passive [whatever that means - is he going to confiscate our keyboards?] would enhance his career. A smart CEO will look at a new technology, realize that it is going to destroy his business and, if the technology cannot be subverted [Internet, arpanet, figure it out] try to make his business work in the new environment. This isn't deep. This is f***ing obvious.
(3) Phaid seems to think that reports that file-swapping networks are a threat to music sales are actually propaganda spread by recording companies, the RIAA, and possibly the bastards who sent our boys to fight in 'nam. If you haven't figured out by now that file-swapping is going to cannibalize off of CD sales - perhaps not now but certainly in the near future - then I strongly suggest you give it some deep thought Let me help you on your way...
(A) The relatively low subscriptions has kept file-swapping to singles, however the explosion in broad band technologies which we are experiencing right now will encourage the "napsterization" of entire CD's at a time. The Economist has projected that by 2004 Cable and Dsl subscribers will outline dial up subscribers - the technology is not in issue. And whereas the singles which are commonly traded now may whet the appetite, whole CD trading, once it hits the mainstream will sate it. This is why near campus sales have been hit already by napsters - students use broadband. Conclusion: when whole CD's are traded online by more people, fewer will buy CD's.
(B) Napster is becoming exponentially more popular. Media Metrix reported that the Napster application climbed from 1.1 million unique users at home in February 2000 to 4.9 million unique users in July, a 345 percent increase. You've seen these numbers. If the trend continues, by next Christmas primitive New Guinean tribes-people will be using Napster. And if x million people are using it then n/x are using it to the exclusion of buying CD's where n is rising and x is rising. Do the math.
Point is the reason that Record Companies don't want to believe that Napster isn't hurting sales is because even if it isn't right now, it will be. And if it gets shut down then a viable true P2P or a server/P2P Napster clone running from the Island of Tonga will take it's place. Do you get it?
Slashdot Mirror
(2)Even if the federal legislature were to pass laws creating a certain minimum threshold of protection from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of private information, large companies would circumvent these laws forcing web-visitors to agree to limit their rights - just the same way software developers currently circumvent fair use copyright law allowing backups through software licensing. In other words Amazon would say: "let us collect certain information or shop somewhere else" [in fact Amazon does say this if you read the contract] Most people will agree.
Belief in privacy is like belief in God - a conviction suspended above logical enquiry. In an ideal world those who want their privacy [ie. personal details] protected should have their wishes fulfilled. The meaningful question is not "Are they correct?" but rather "Is it feasible to prevent corporations from commercially exploiting personal details?" I think the answer to that question is no.
The following conversation probably would not have occurred between Bill Gates and e.e.cummings, prompted by Phaid's comment
B: e. old buddy, as a token archetype of free-spirited non-conformists I would like to mention to you certain misapprehensions in Phaid's comment which I fear might be common in people of your ilk - enumerated 'cuz I know that that will
piss you off.
(1) The article may have got the facts right - but it's lacking where it counts. The headline was "P2P piracy? Don't get too worked up yet". The conclusion was "Which is why peer-to-peer data piracy may not be quite such an apocalyptic peril after all." Which leads me to question when Mr. Bray thinks businesses should get worked up - when the technology is viable, perhaps? But then, it is too late. Because business plans take time to implement, and forming a business plan when the Barbarians are past the gates and absconding with your women-folk is not a way to run a business. P2P current impracticality is no reason not to worry. And who amongst us believes that there will never be an idiot proof, retail level p2p network? Conclusion: current impracticality is worth precisely nothing. Future viability is what Mr. Bray should be concerned with - and isn't.
(2) Alluding to the wants of companies [they don't want to hear this, they want to turn the internet, they want to put us in glass bulbs and run their computers off our body heat, etc.] is a fool's game. Companies don't have wants. CEO's have wants. They want to have brilliant careers and defend their companies against technological threats which would render their business obselete. That is what they are hired for. Shareholder's also have wants. They want their shares to make them filthy stinking rich. A very stupid CEO might think that demonizing the internet and attempting to make it passive [whatever that means - is he going to confiscate our keyboards?] would enhance his career. A smart CEO will look at a new technology, realize that it is going to destroy his business and, if the technology cannot be subverted [Internet, arpanet, figure it out] try to make his business work in the new environment. This isn't deep. This is f***ing obvious.
(3) Phaid seems to think that reports that file-swapping networks are a threat to music sales are actually propaganda spread by recording companies, the RIAA, and possibly the bastards who sent our boys to fight in 'nam. If you haven't figured out by now that file-swapping is going to cannibalize off of CD sales - perhaps not now but certainly in the near future - then I strongly suggest you give it some deep thought Let me help you on your way...
(A) The relatively low subscriptions has kept file-swapping to singles, however the explosion in broad band technologies which we are experiencing right now will encourage the "napsterization" of entire CD's at a time. The Economist has projected that by 2004 Cable and Dsl subscribers will outline dial up subscribers - the technology is not in issue. And whereas the singles which are commonly traded now may whet the appetite, whole CD trading, once it hits the mainstream will sate it. This is why near campus sales have been hit already by napsters - students use broadband. Conclusion: when whole CD's are traded online by more people, fewer will buy CD's.
(B) Napster is becoming exponentially more popular. Media Metrix reported that the Napster application climbed from 1.1 million unique users at home in February 2000 to 4.9 million unique users in July, a 345 percent increase. You've seen these numbers. If the trend continues, by next Christmas primitive New Guinean tribes-people will be using Napster. And if x million people are using it then n/x are using it to the exclusion of buying CD's where n is rising and x is rising. Do the math.
Point is the reason that Record Companies don't want to believe that Napster isn't hurting sales is because even if it isn't right now, it will be. And if it gets shut down then a viable true P2P or a server/P2P Napster clone running from the Island of Tonga will take it's place. Do you get it?
e. : F*** you, Gates.