So you are saying that government can be the solution to some problems when they are at the will of the people and when people aren't lazy and ignorant we can keep them from being the cause?
I never bought political one liners. Thanks for understanding there is nuance and a middle way.
"The skies should belong to the people, not the government. "
You mean the government for and by the people? The ones we elected to make up that list? Your exercise of writing those letters shows regulations should be at the behest of the people and this isn't us vs them.
So please drop this "people or government" dichotomy. This sets us all back. It's ignorance, it goes against your point and tells people the government isn't ours to control. It's how we get regulations we don't like. Instead keep the first half of your sentiment and we can have both, regulations by and for the protection of people.
But the phone doesn't have to call 911. My locked phone gives me super fast access to emergency calls already.
But I used this app for quite some time because I would find myself in dodgy situations weekly. I knew there was a potential for harm, but I knew 911 wasn't going to be my best bet. Instead I already had my "team" know where I was heading and what time - and dialed them if needed so they could relay to 911 what the situation was. Thankfully I only needed it once and showed that I had and it was a deterrent to save my face, teeth and probably my life. In my case the thug I was dealing with was smarter than the woman who called 911 over nuggets of flesh.
Basically - not every situation is 911-worthy, but in some cases you may need help from a friend quickly and there are current solutions.
Wait, lets clear up one thing; Russians are wanted worldwide for more than copyright infringement. Globally that is actually worth fighting, America's exports are dying and entertainment is still a viable export. And it's not just digital goods, it's violation of trademarks (counterfeit goods, which even private goods, have fallen under the realm of the Secret Service for it's entire existence).
But back to my original point, credit card theft and computer assisted fraud is alive and well around the globe and Russians lead the charge. Money, sometimes cash from checking accounts is being siphoned into Russian (and other) banks and being taken from innocent people - is this not worth pursuing?
Snowden is entirely another matter, but given the Russian state written news program RT and their constant American bashing I can't believe for a second they want to just keep Snowden safe. They have their own motives. It's to smear America worldwide. That thought can exist separately from the idea that what Snowden is doing is "good". Russia isn't helping Americans find out the truth about their government, they are helping themselves. The way the leaks help you is a secondary thought to Putin. He doesn't care, just look at their own brutality in Russia, how they treat their own free-speaking patriots.
Let me see, the film has caused a violent backlash and Google is wanting to block people from seeing in areas that further cause a violent backlash? I'm not at all concerned about the implications. As stated many times, it's their service, if Al Qaeda want's to spread it they can make VHS (VCD?) copies or whatever and do so. The film maker who is certainly enjoying the violent response (that he aimed for) is more than welcome to ship copies anywhere in the world he wants.
Spare me the false logic arguments of "what's next?". Google does not have to be the hosting provider of hate speech if it doesn't want to. And they certainly have the right to be selective on what airs where. I see it as good "citizenship" in a way. They already can remove my videos calling for the mass murder of all Slashdot readers - just because, never mind it's not even constitutionally protected speech.
I'm pretty sure by looking back now at Google, Twitter and Facebook they didn't discourage spreading information that lead to violent revolutions (Wikileaks still shows up in searches for example) in these countries when the causes were noble (i.e. toppling un-wanted and brutal/corrupt leaders). The track record thus far has shown they self censor when appropriate.
I get slippery slopes and all that - and I get that you don't have the right to not be offended... but today money is speech, corporations are people and hate speech is lauded over violent reactions. Even shooting and killing your own citizens to defend an embassy of another country isn't enough to satisfy those who want to further fan the flames of hate. In what world is is okay to continue answering hate speech with more hate speech and then cry foul when it comes down to blows? There is less civility in civilization every day. What happened to "mutual respect"? Why sabotage years of peace just because you can?
For goodness sake, do you think the people who died want the video spread even more? Don't you think their families hold both parties accountable (of course the killers more so - but still)?
This is not at all recommended. Pick up three different wall-warts ready to accept the standard USB interface and read the amperage and volt output. Each model of phone does not conform to the same output and while there is typically protection on the side of the phone - you have no idea. So stop, please.
I've seen.7 to 1.1 amp outputs from HTC to Samsung to others (in current phones - older phones I've seen up to 5 Watts of output total). We aren't talking USB via your PC - we are talking about an AC adapter (AC/DC converter) which is why you read in this very thread different charging times based on which wall warts are used against certain devices. The question is - was your manufacturer smart enough (or not cheap enough) to be able to handle a variance from what they supplied you because you have 5 wall-wart (AC/DC converters) laying around from devices from almost 10 years ago.
Protip; this is why your Nokia chargers changed overtime. It's not the phone connector that mattered - it was the converter. They were protecting your phone from a surge.
USB On-The-Go is supported in the 3.0 kernel used on Android devices, thus any ICS or JB phone - unless the manufacturer compiled the kernel without it on purpose. Which would be strange because the Android crowd tends to be more technical and this is (an albeit growing) selling point.
Since the data handling via USB on smartphones is not standardized, meaning that there is not necessarily any interoperability between devices with a particular accessory...
Not true, there are various standards - among them USB-On-The-Go which will even allow a phone act as a USB host, many Android phones/tablets can use the PS3 controller with no additional setup. There are Bluetooth standards for wireless devices and so forth. The only issues is non-standard interfaces on particular phones, such as the LG Vortex (as marketed by Verizon) or the HTC Droid Incredible which try to continuously load drivers and bloatware onto Windows machines. Or possibly no support in various ROM kernels for USB OTG (or even Bluetooth profiles for that matter) - which can be possibly fixed in updates or custom ROMs/kernels.
In fact, I don't know in any way Android accessories aren't compatible among differing devices unless the software on the accessory is vendor-locked to a phone itself (unless you count docks that conform to the form factor of a phone you don't actually own...). But there is no mandate from Google, Motorola, LG, HTC, Samsung, etc who cause these types of problems. Apple will never allow the PS3 controller to work with the iPhone (you'd need to do hardware hacking alone before you could even start) and yet you can plug it into a Nexus 7, Transformer Prime or even possibly the OUYA Android based game console.
The notion that classes should get "the same baseline of opportunity" is ridiculous on its face; it's people who should get that, and the only way you can do it is by refusing to categorize them into classes in the first place, and treating any case of unwarranted discrimination equally.
And thus it is revealed. People and classes can have that same baseline. It's not that we realize the class differences and there is elements of discrimination does not mean we are the cause of it. Hate crimes don't create hate crimes because the law exists - the laws exist due to the offenders, it is reactionary due to American society (and frankly others too).
There is no class, even those you say aren't protected, the un-named majority, that can't sue or be viewed as a victim for their so-called class. There is nothing in these ideals that elevates anyone in society over another - in fact it seeks to establish to the people the playing field should, in fact, be leveled. For your "people" to be afforded a certain baseline of opportunity we have to have recourse when someone pushes that baseline back/down/whatever to a person because of a class they saw/heard/assumed when they met with them, etc.
"Hardly" - It is not just hardly his fault. The action led directly to those consequences. You are telling me that shaming a man for sleeping with another man - and he kills himself - and that's not a hate crime - and it was hardly his fault? Are you on the defense team because I am getting that you are against all allegations against the man, for whatever reason. Seems to be either an incidental hate crime or one in which he was more negligent than aggravated... but I can't tell you if he meant to shame him for being gay or not. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it, he didn't know he was gay?
At what point of setting up a camera and recording are you responsible for your actions - something has to be done, at least there was a trial.
"Justice" - that word means whatever you want to make it mean. You can make justice an eye for an eye or even harsher if you say that is "justice" where ever you may be. Revenge and justice - who cares? The dead man isn't trying to take revenge. Given there is probation, counseling and other attachments to the short sentence, I'm okay with that. There is a potential there to land in prison for 3 years - or his life can be saved if he's not really dumb enough to do it again if he didn't actually mean to do it.
Anytime someone dies it's hard to swallow 30 days + attachments is enough to even resemble justice when there is a chain of events where said person on trial is along the chain of events that led up to such a situation.
Legality is established if you have access to those channels, those shows, that have already aired. You are essentially time-shifting. Mr. Rogers (RIP) would argue it.
What can't be done due to agreements between other parties not involved in the recording, transcoding and distribution of the files themselves is... distribute them (even after they air in this case mind you).
Movies, TV shows, music - they are restricted by who can distribute them, and that's the problem. It's like being able to have drugs (TV recordings for shows you [paid for and] missed) but no one can sell them but other parties who have agreements in place to be the sole distributor. And that's a civil matter except now we have laws against not agreeing to an exclusivity contract that you were never presented with. I don't even understand how some of these cases actually proceed when I think of how ignorant the argument is - however, I do understand very much so everyone wants to get paid.
There is your golden ticket, content delivery over the internet that is as fast and reliable as pirates that is freely shared and money changes hands to pay the original owners of the works.
It's not really data about people - it's just data. That's it. People are just part of the entire model (and the hardest to analyze). Today using Google Music I realized their strategy is simply to collect as much music as possible, from as many sources as possible to do their own internal analysis (who likes what, what types of varieties people tend to like in conjunction, what is most popular, how to catalog it - based on sound, how to develop music searches that rival anything ever seen). The next step is the monetization of that analysis.
Google's business is a three step process. Acquire data, then analyze it and then maybe offer search or another service, depending on what they find. It just happened that the web was all there for them to grab. Then newsgroups... then they bought map data (and companies) and etc. The latest, buying travel booking software (in whatever order). Along the way, and still, they are breaking down web data into new types of searches, through analysis - news, now recipes.
Not to say there might be something nefarious at play - but I don't think this is it. Android handsets would be the way to do it - if they were going to at all.
I agree, I am with you. I replied once to a survey card at 14 years old saying I made $250,000+, was the CIO (or the equivalent), and made the purchasing decisions for 10,000+ employees. For a year I received a free copy of a weekly IT magazine. I loved it - but can't remember the magazine's name.
The value you mention is accuracy - which is not that sought after in the current market. Right now if you create a mailing list for motorcycle owners, which no one can actually use (DMV laws against it) and instead use inferred data - you will get the same response rate as you typically do. It's really up to the analysts. Facebook can gather data, but the question is can they actually leverage it - or will they sell you a data dump? Will it be an external or internal cost? Right now, you can place ads there, but you can't just buy from them a list of names and interests (income, and etc).
In that regard Facebook could at most, right now, give me partial information - name, city, phone number. If they are provided. E-mail would require a TOS change. They don't ask for a street address. So I would then need to do a merge with my existing consumer database and find out where John P. Smith lives, if I have him, or do I have him as John Smith, no initial.
There is another side to it - that you don't mention, and I failed to - a channel to reach consumers. Facebook, beyond interstitial ads, could be the mailing address, the inbox, etc for individuals and households you would like to hit. E-mail laws are in place, phone laws are in place (snail mail - forget it - bulk mailing supports the post office). There is no reason Facebook couldn't suddenly turn on a way for someone to send marketing material to users directly.
If facebook's data collection really was no more egregious than current practices there is absolutely no way wall-street would be drowning in their own drool over the company.
I disagree. They are valued because of the user-base and the eyeballs for ads right now - and using the data generically to target ads (they are horrible! I would do much better with a custom list... and probably charge less). They can not learn any more than what Visa is telling Experian, etc. Why do you think you have been urged to get that Debit Mastercard? The credit card companies, and their ilk, the houses who collect, analyze and sell this data - some totally private - are valued indeed. Facebook has yet to be traded in a way to let the market actually decide their value. It's a guess - and it's the internet - it's fleeting at best.
I don't even come to say I support all of this marketing stuff. I was called scum, over and over here - and I take it with a grain of salt and all. I was floored myself when I learned how it all worked - but we have to make money. Creating a mailing list isn't exactly dumping petrochemicals in the river by the playground. In reality, no one looks at the names - no one checks up on people. The lists are actually made to be small - and not to bother people who won't reply (it's a higher cost per contact/response/order/etc).
Yes, I'm amoral because I used the data others collected to send you bulk mail - highly targeted bulk mail that you likely responded to because I was good at my job.
It's my fault someone collected it. If I didn't have the job, my boss would have bought the data and had someone else do create the lists...
But you don't understand my point. You say you don't want this happening, but you are doing nothing to stop it - but bitching, right? Because you really lost the ability to control this a long, long time ago.
It's as bad as people saying they don't want to use Facebook because, gasp, "they" will learn about you. I worked as a marketing database analyst - they have known about you for years. For pennies I could buy demographic data (per household) for my metro area telling me if someone was likely to own pets, what type of money they made, what their job was, their ethnic background and other mundane details. If people are really concerned about their privacy, as much as they claim here, I wonder how they even get to Slashdot. How did they sign up for Internet service - if stolen, how did they get their PCs? Did they ever do anything that could have been sent up to companies like Experian? Because if so - "they" already know.
And really - "they" don't care. Then just want you to buy more tanning visits.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that government can be the solution to some problems when they are at the will of the people and when people aren't lazy and ignorant we can keep them from being the cause?
I never bought political one liners. Thanks for understanding there is nuance and a middle way.
"The skies should belong to the people, not the government. "
You mean the government for and by the people? The ones we elected to make up that list? Your exercise of writing those letters shows regulations should be at the behest of the people and this isn't us vs them.
So please drop this "people or government" dichotomy. This sets us all back. It's ignorance, it goes against your point and tells people the government isn't ours to control. It's how we get regulations we don't like. Instead keep the first half of your sentiment and we can have both, regulations by and for the protection of people.
No where.
And if you are going to protest foreclosures, protest banks, the places that laid you off. Fuck.
But the phone doesn't have to call 911. My locked phone gives me super fast access to emergency calls already.
But I used this app for quite some time because I would find myself in dodgy situations weekly. I knew there was a potential for harm, but I knew 911 wasn't going to be my best bet. Instead I already had my "team" know where I was heading and what time - and dialed them if needed so they could relay to 911 what the situation was. Thankfully I only needed it once and showed that I had and it was a deterrent to save my face, teeth and probably my life. In my case the thug I was dealing with was smarter than the woman who called 911 over nuggets of flesh.
Basically - not every situation is 911-worthy, but in some cases you may need help from a friend quickly and there are current solutions.
Yes. Trust China. They don't spy.
Your metaphor falls apart because I'm running free software that allows me to run either one.
Wait, lets clear up one thing; Russians are wanted worldwide for more than copyright infringement. Globally that is actually worth fighting, America's exports are dying and entertainment is still a viable export. And it's not just digital goods, it's violation of trademarks (counterfeit goods, which even private goods, have fallen under the realm of the Secret Service for it's entire existence).
But back to my original point, credit card theft and computer assisted fraud is alive and well around the globe and Russians lead the charge. Money, sometimes cash from checking accounts is being siphoned into Russian (and other) banks and being taken from innocent people - is this not worth pursuing?
Snowden is entirely another matter, but given the Russian state written news program RT and their constant American bashing I can't believe for a second they want to just keep Snowden safe. They have their own motives. It's to smear America worldwide. That thought can exist separately from the idea that what Snowden is doing is "good". Russia isn't helping Americans find out the truth about their government, they are helping themselves. The way the leaks help you is a secondary thought to Putin. He doesn't care, just look at their own brutality in Russia, how they treat their own free-speaking patriots.
Let me see, the film has caused a violent backlash and Google is wanting to block people from seeing in areas that further cause a violent backlash? I'm not at all concerned about the implications. As stated many times, it's their service, if Al Qaeda want's to spread it they can make VHS (VCD?) copies or whatever and do so. The film maker who is certainly enjoying the violent response (that he aimed for) is more than welcome to ship copies anywhere in the world he wants.
Spare me the false logic arguments of "what's next?". Google does not have to be the hosting provider of hate speech if it doesn't want to. And they certainly have the right to be selective on what airs where. I see it as good "citizenship" in a way. They already can remove my videos calling for the mass murder of all Slashdot readers - just because, never mind it's not even constitutionally protected speech.
I'm pretty sure by looking back now at Google, Twitter and Facebook they didn't discourage spreading information that lead to violent revolutions (Wikileaks still shows up in searches for example) in these countries when the causes were noble (i.e. toppling un-wanted and brutal/corrupt leaders). The track record thus far has shown they self censor when appropriate.
I get slippery slopes and all that - and I get that you don't have the right to not be offended... but today money is speech, corporations are people and hate speech is lauded over violent reactions. Even shooting and killing your own citizens to defend an embassy of another country isn't enough to satisfy those who want to further fan the flames of hate. In what world is is okay to continue answering hate speech with more hate speech and then cry foul when it comes down to blows? There is less civility in civilization every day. What happened to "mutual respect"? Why sabotage years of peace just because you can?
For goodness sake, do you think the people who died want the video spread even more? Don't you think their families hold both parties accountable (of course the killers more so - but still)?
I'm confused at this whole story because there is already a Do Not Track extension for Chrome.
This is not at all recommended. Pick up three different wall-warts ready to accept the standard USB interface and read the amperage and volt output. Each model of phone does not conform to the same output and while there is typically protection on the side of the phone - you have no idea. So stop, please.
I've seen .7 to 1.1 amp outputs from HTC to Samsung to others (in current phones - older phones I've seen up to 5 Watts of output total). We aren't talking USB via your PC - we are talking about an AC adapter (AC/DC converter) which is why you read in this very thread different charging times based on which wall warts are used against certain devices. The question is - was your manufacturer smart enough (or not cheap enough) to be able to handle a variance from what they supplied you because you have 5 wall-wart (AC/DC converters) laying around from devices from almost 10 years ago.
Protip; this is why your Nokia chargers changed overtime. It's not the phone connector that mattered - it was the converter. They were protecting your phone from a surge.
USB On-The-Go is supported in the 3.0 kernel used on Android devices, thus any ICS or JB phone - unless the manufacturer compiled the kernel without it on purpose. Which would be strange because the Android crowd tends to be more technical and this is (an albeit growing) selling point.
Not true, there are various standards - among them USB-On-The-Go which will even allow a phone act as a USB host, many Android phones/tablets can use the PS3 controller with no additional setup. There are Bluetooth standards for wireless devices and so forth. The only issues is non-standard interfaces on particular phones, such as the LG Vortex (as marketed by Verizon) or the HTC Droid Incredible which try to continuously load drivers and bloatware onto Windows machines. Or possibly no support in various ROM kernels for USB OTG (or even Bluetooth profiles for that matter) - which can be possibly fixed in updates or custom ROMs/kernels.
In fact, I don't know in any way Android accessories aren't compatible among differing devices unless the software on the accessory is vendor-locked to a phone itself (unless you count docks that conform to the form factor of a phone you don't actually own...). But there is no mandate from Google, Motorola, LG, HTC, Samsung, etc who cause these types of problems. Apple will never allow the PS3 controller to work with the iPhone (you'd need to do hardware hacking alone before you could even start) and yet you can plug it into a Nexus 7, Transformer Prime or even possibly the OUYA Android based game console.
Everyone knows South Korea is the center of the gaming universe.
Jokes aside, what about the OUYA? Why are we on Slashdot talking about closed-source patent and license heaving gaming systems?
To be clear; glquake make 3D video cards take off in the consumer market. I would have never purchased one until glquake promised me reflections.
And all was holy. And I loved it. Canopus, first adopter here.
Exactly, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Then again, Carmack wrote games for OpenGL (when Windows didn't support it without extra drivers...).
So it's not even about Windows vs. Linux. It's about killing Direct X with OpenGL - because, I'm guessing, most programmers are lazy.
The notion that classes should get "the same baseline of opportunity" is ridiculous on its face; it's people who should get that, and the only way you can do it is by refusing to categorize them into classes in the first place, and treating any case of unwarranted discrimination equally.
And thus it is revealed. People and classes can have that same baseline. It's not that we realize the class differences and there is elements of discrimination does not mean we are the cause of it. Hate crimes don't create hate crimes because the law exists - the laws exist due to the offenders, it is reactionary due to American society (and frankly others too).
There is no class, even those you say aren't protected, the un-named majority, that can't sue or be viewed as a victim for their so-called class. There is nothing in these ideals that elevates anyone in society over another - in fact it seeks to establish to the people the playing field should, in fact, be leveled. For your "people" to be afforded a certain baseline of opportunity we have to have recourse when someone pushes that baseline back/down/whatever to a person because of a class they saw/heard/assumed when they met with them, etc.
"Hardly" - It is not just hardly his fault. The action led directly to those consequences. You are telling me that shaming a man for sleeping with another man - and he kills himself - and that's not a hate crime - and it was hardly his fault? Are you on the defense team because I am getting that you are against all allegations against the man, for whatever reason. Seems to be either an incidental hate crime or one in which he was more negligent than aggravated... but I can't tell you if he meant to shame him for being gay or not. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it, he didn't know he was gay?
At what point of setting up a camera and recording are you responsible for your actions - something has to be done, at least there was a trial.
"Justice" - that word means whatever you want to make it mean. You can make justice an eye for an eye or even harsher if you say that is "justice" where ever you may be. Revenge and justice - who cares? The dead man isn't trying to take revenge. Given there is probation, counseling and other attachments to the short sentence, I'm okay with that. There is a potential there to land in prison for 3 years - or his life can be saved if he's not really dumb enough to do it again if he didn't actually mean to do it.
Anytime someone dies it's hard to swallow 30 days + attachments is enough to even resemble justice when there is a chain of events where said person on trial is along the chain of events that led up to such a situation.
Legality is established if you have access to those channels, those shows, that have already aired. You are essentially time-shifting. Mr. Rogers (RIP) would argue it.
What can't be done due to agreements between other parties not involved in the recording, transcoding and distribution of the files themselves is... distribute them (even after they air in this case mind you).
Movies, TV shows, music - they are restricted by who can distribute them, and that's the problem. It's like being able to have drugs (TV recordings for shows you [paid for and] missed) but no one can sell them but other parties who have agreements in place to be the sole distributor. And that's a civil matter except now we have laws against not agreeing to an exclusivity contract that you were never presented with. I don't even understand how some of these cases actually proceed when I think of how ignorant the argument is - however, I do understand very much so everyone wants to get paid.
There is your golden ticket, content delivery over the internet that is as fast and reliable as pirates that is freely shared and money changes hands to pay the original owners of the works.
Also, we have to take his word that he has friends. And they are at Google.
It's not really data about people - it's just data. That's it. People are just part of the entire model (and the hardest to analyze). Today using Google Music I realized their strategy is simply to collect as much music as possible, from as many sources as possible to do their own internal analysis (who likes what, what types of varieties people tend to like in conjunction, what is most popular, how to catalog it - based on sound, how to develop music searches that rival anything ever seen). The next step is the monetization of that analysis.
Google's business is a three step process. Acquire data, then analyze it and then maybe offer search or another service, depending on what they find. It just happened that the web was all there for them to grab. Then newsgroups... then they bought map data (and companies) and etc. The latest, buying travel booking software (in whatever order). Along the way, and still, they are breaking down web data into new types of searches, through analysis - news, now recipes.
Not to say there might be something nefarious at play - but I don't think this is it. Android handsets would be the way to do it - if they were going to at all.
(I'm the parent poster to the AC)
I agree, I am with you. I replied once to a survey card at 14 years old saying I made $250,000+, was the CIO (or the equivalent), and made the purchasing decisions for 10,000+ employees. For a year I received a free copy of a weekly IT magazine. I loved it - but can't remember the magazine's name.
The value you mention is accuracy - which is not that sought after in the current market. Right now if you create a mailing list for motorcycle owners, which no one can actually use (DMV laws against it) and instead use inferred data - you will get the same response rate as you typically do. It's really up to the analysts. Facebook can gather data, but the question is can they actually leverage it - or will they sell you a data dump? Will it be an external or internal cost? Right now, you can place ads there, but you can't just buy from them a list of names and interests (income, and etc).
In that regard Facebook could at most, right now, give me partial information - name, city, phone number. If they are provided. E-mail would require a TOS change. They don't ask for a street address. So I would then need to do a merge with my existing consumer database and find out where John P. Smith lives, if I have him, or do I have him as John Smith, no initial.
There is another side to it - that you don't mention, and I failed to - a channel to reach consumers. Facebook, beyond interstitial ads, could be the mailing address, the inbox, etc for individuals and households you would like to hit. E-mail laws are in place, phone laws are in place (snail mail - forget it - bulk mailing supports the post office). There is no reason Facebook couldn't suddenly turn on a way for someone to send marketing material to users directly.
If facebook's data collection really was no more egregious than current practices there is absolutely no way wall-street would be drowning in their own drool over the company.
I disagree. They are valued because of the user-base and the eyeballs for ads right now - and using the data generically to target ads (they are horrible! I would do much better with a custom list... and probably charge less). They can not learn any more than what Visa is telling Experian, etc. Why do you think you have been urged to get that Debit Mastercard? The credit card companies, and their ilk, the houses who collect, analyze and sell this data - some totally private - are valued indeed. Facebook has yet to be traded in a way to let the market actually decide their value. It's a guess - and it's the internet - it's fleeting at best.
I don't even come to say I support all of this marketing stuff. I was called scum, over and over here - and I take it with a grain of salt and all. I was floored myself when I learned how it all worked - but we have to make money. Creating a mailing list isn't exactly dumping petrochemicals in the river by the playground. In reality, no one looks at the names - no one checks up on people. The lists are actually made to be small - and not to bother people who won't reply (it's a higher cost per contact/response/order/etc).
Yes, I'm amoral because I used the data others collected to send you bulk mail - highly targeted bulk mail that you likely responded to because I was good at my job.
It's my fault someone collected it. If I didn't have the job, my boss would have bought the data and had someone else do create the lists...
But you don't understand my point. You say you don't want this happening, but you are doing nothing to stop it - but bitching, right? Because you really lost the ability to control this a long, long time ago.
It's as bad as people saying they don't want to use Facebook because, gasp, "they" will learn about you. I worked as a marketing database analyst - they have known about you for years. For pennies I could buy demographic data (per household) for my metro area telling me if someone was likely to own pets, what type of money they made, what their job was, their ethnic background and other mundane details. If people are really concerned about their privacy, as much as they claim here, I wonder how they even get to Slashdot. How did they sign up for Internet service - if stolen, how did they get their PCs? Did they ever do anything that could have been sent up to companies like Experian? Because if so - "they" already know.
And really - "they" don't care. Then just want you to buy more tanning visits.