Actually, this is exactly what I argue in my book. Companies and the government are using this digital profile to make decisions about people's lives. The problem is that this digital profile is composed of information fragments taken out of their original context, and sometimes polluted with false information. Nevertheless, it is assumed that this information represents people. So the problem is a combination of the fact that these profiles are telling in some respects and false in others. It is obviously problematic when the profiles are false. But when the profiles are used to predict behavior to some degree of success (abeit imperfectly) I argue that there are problems as well.
The ChoicePoint security fiasco is part of a larger problem -- the fact that companies dealing in personal data are not providing adequate security and that they are not well regulated. What makes matters worse is that ChoicePoint is increasingly supplying its information to the government, including the FBI and IRS.
Back in December 2004, I along with the Electronic Privacy Information Center wrote a letter to the FTC arguing that the FTC should open an investigation of ChoicePoint: http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/fcraltr12. 16.04.html
This letter might be of interest, as it explains the extensiveness of the data companies like ChoicePoint have and how it affects people's lives.
I also argued in my new book, THE DIGITAL PERSON: TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE, that identity theft and other privacy problems are caused not by technology but by irresponsible business practices. Everybody seems to be saying that in today's world of information technology, privacy is dead. The culprit is technology, and since it is foolish to believe that it can be stopped, there's little hope. I argue that this isn't the case. The culprit is government and business practices. There's a "digital person" that is a counterpart to people, not composed of flesh and blood but of bits and bytes of personal information gathered together in databases. The digital person is a representation of ourselves in the world of computers. But this is only part of the story. Increasingly, decisions about us are made by looking to our digital person. What happens to our digital person in the digital world is increasingly having effects in realspace to our real person. It is this problem that I explore, and I argue that the answer is regulating government and businesses - not technology. For those interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the FTC letter as well as my book. Here's the book's website: http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Solove-Digit al-Person.htm
Slashdot Mirror
I am a law professor who specializes in information privacy law. If you're interested, I have blogged extensively about this case in many posts: Curtailing Anonymity on Wikipedia Fake Biographies on Wikipedia This is on the Adam Curry case: Wiki Thyself I also blogged about an earlier potential defamation case on Wikipedia: Suing Wikipedia Posts on anonymity: A Victory for Anonymous Blogging Is Anonymous Blogging Possible? Using Lawsuits to Unmask Anonymous Bloggers
Actually, this is exactly what I argue in my book. Companies and the government are using this digital profile to make decisions about people's lives. The problem is that this digital profile is composed of information fragments taken out of their original context, and sometimes polluted with false information. Nevertheless, it is assumed that this information represents people. So the problem is a combination of the fact that these profiles are telling in some respects and false in others. It is obviously problematic when the profiles are false. But when the profiles are used to predict behavior to some degree of success (abeit imperfectly) I argue that there are problems as well.
The ChoicePoint security fiasco is part of a larger problem -- the fact that companies dealing in personal data are not providing adequate security and that they are not well regulated. What makes matters worse is that ChoicePoint is increasingly supplying its information to the government, including the FBI and IRS.
. 16.04.html
t al-Person.htm
Back in December 2004, I along with the Electronic Privacy Information Center wrote a letter to the FTC arguing that the FTC should open an investigation of ChoicePoint: http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/fcraltr12
This letter might be of interest, as it explains the extensiveness of the data companies like ChoicePoint have and how it affects people's lives.
I also argued in my new book, THE DIGITAL PERSON: TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE, that identity theft and other privacy problems are caused not by technology but by irresponsible business practices. Everybody seems to be saying that in today's world of information technology, privacy is dead. The culprit is technology, and since it is foolish to believe that it can be stopped, there's little hope. I argue that this isn't the case. The culprit is government and business practices. There's a "digital person" that is a counterpart to people, not composed of flesh and blood but of bits and bytes of personal information gathered together in databases. The digital person is a representation of ourselves in the world of computers. But this is only part of the story. Increasingly, decisions about us are made by looking to our digital person. What happens to our digital person in the digital world is increasingly having effects in realspace to our real person. It is this problem that I explore, and I argue that the answer is regulating government and businesses - not technology. For those interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the FTC letter as well as my book. Here's the book's website: http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Solove-Digi