Such a Thing as too Paranoid About Privacy? 231
jackoahoy! writes "As we become more connected, we have the right to be paranoid. But the question is: where do we draw the line between sane and insane privacy? CoolTechZone's Gundeep Hora tackles this issue and uses a recent blog entry on Infoworld to illustrate his point. From the article: 'Whether it's OnRebate.com or any other rebate managing company, asking for the industry you work in and your job function aren't the most personal questions they could possibly ask. However, they must carefully define the conditions for collecting such information. Targeted advertising by user opt-in newsletters and e-mail campaigns (unlike spamming) or internal market research to get a grasp on its customer base isn't unethical, in my opinion. And people making a big deal out of two vaguely placed questions is insensible and out of proportion. If you really are that paranoid about privacy, then do what this reader did and put in wrong information under those questions.'"
Re:Persistent and Annoying (Score:0, Informative)
So put in a fake name and email address.
Then I had to update the iPod software. I was forced to enter my name and email address and opt-out for spam.
So put in a fake name and email address.
Then I had to update the iTunes software, where I was yet again forced to enter my email address and opt-out for spam.
So put in a fake name and email address.
On the odd chance you actually want a reply, set up a hotmail account, use it once, then throw it away.
Re:Persistent and Annoying (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:3, Informative)
Every breath you take... (Score:5, Informative)
Joe Dogooder is not a criminal, in fact Joe is your average, well do-gooder. Pays his taxes, supports his family, visits his community church, where mind you, he's visited since his days as an altar boy. Normally Joe wakes up around 5:00am in hopes of making some decaffeinated coffee, followed by a quick glimpse at the New York Times Online [nytimes.com], while his television is tuned to the news. Today however, Joe woke up at 5:30am - and although he won't be late, he decided not to watch television. Instead he is going to work early in order to catch up with some work.
After his shower, getting dressed, kissing his family goodbye he grabs his trusted cellphone, and heads for his car. "Welcome to OnStar [competitionchev.ab.ca]" flares for a quick second before he turns the service off. He'd know his way to work driving blindfolded, he's been there plenty of times. After stopping for some coffee and paying with his credit card at the local 7Eleven at 6:15am, he makes a right on Main Street leading to the turnpike. Joe always has money on his EZ-Pass [infoworld.com], and although it has been hacked in the past, his information is now safe. He continues to work and breezes right through the toll-booths it is now 6:21am and he's right on time.
Getting off at the Broadway exit, Joe is running pretty early, 6:41am. Pulling into the Shell gas station at 6:45am, he fills up his car and swipes his credit card again through the machine so he doesn't have to walk an extra 20 feet to pay the cashier. Stops at the local Megasupershopper store and buys some chewing gum, a soda, and some shaving cream [bbc.co.uk]. Back in his car, he finally pulls into the corporate garage at 7:00am, swipes his identification card, and continues on his way. This is pretty much a daily routine for Joe, and millions like him.
So who is this average Joe and why should you care? Joe is noone really important, what's important is that you understand how Joe's movements were tracked and how dangerous can be at some point. TiVo recently shoved their foot in their mouths [cnn.com] when they announced that Janet Jackson's breast of mass destruction was the most rewound video capture. Meaning? Watch a TiVo, they'll know it, what time, what it was, and who did it - you do after all have your information attached to it.
Joe also decided to check the news via the New York Times [nytimes.com], and he had to sign into his account in order to do so, meaning his information was gathered there too. What time he logged in, and from where. Sure he could have registered with false information, after all it's free, but unless he decided to manually change his IP address somehow - whether via proxy or other means - the New York Times [nytimes.com] has his information. This is not to say in any way the New York Times [nytimes.com] is selling your information or using it against you, I don't know their policies, I'm simply trying to make you aware of the signs of the 'Times'
We can also average out a time where Joe starts his car every single day for as long as we'd like using his OnStar information [competitionchev.ab.ca], we can determine a definitive pattern of his daily life with ease. What about the chewing gum?, simple, RFID tags gave us that info. Now this may not be a big deal considering Joe Dogooder is an upstanding citizen so he would have nothing to hide. John Cheatman is an altogether different story.
John has been having an affair on his wife of 30 years, and he happens to be a millionaire. Wonder what he'd do if someone threw together a video portrait of his weekly (T
Re:I'd go a lot further. (Score:3, Informative)
I once subscribed to a national magazine, to remained unnamed, that had a disclaimer at the bottom of there subscription form stating that all data supplied would be kept confidential. Out of curiosity I supplied a fictitious middle initial with my name. It didn't take long before I started to receive junk mail with that very obvious marker showing up.
Needless to say, the letter I wrote the magazine wasn't very nice and to this day I still occasionally employ that trick that to maintain honesty.
I often find myself... (Score:5, Informative)
The result is the typical baffled look, since it isn't the typical "paranoid" response. I then ask them how much their company paid for the "collection module" for their POS software - I know it isn't cheap. I then ask what they paid to have it setup, and have the results of this current campaign implemented. That isn't cheap either.
I then ask how long it takes the average cashier to gather the desired information. 15 seconds? How long does the average cash transaction take without this? 30 seconds? By gathering this info, we've effectively cut the cashier throughput - meaning to maintain that throughput, the store needs to increase its cashier staff by that amount... a full third in this example. That is NOT cheap.
Clearly my zipcode is worth an assload of money, I conclude... and if they are willing to spend THAT kind of money to get it, then I'm an idiot to just GIVE AWAY something they deem so valuable.
That's the general concept, at least... and it is quite effective as it cannot be argued against. This information clearly has significant value; Paranoid has nothing to do with it.
Re:No no no! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dumb ass question alert (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:5, Informative)
Why? All ya do is say, "I forgot my card, scan a store card". If they refuse (happend to me once) tell them you aren't buying *anything* without the discount. It's much easier for them to scan a store card
then to put back everything they scanned if they dont.
I never do *any* cards for discounts
Complete privacy unobtainable (Score:2, Informative)
Bad example (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, maybe the customer didn't see the indication, but it doesn't seem like TigerDirect was purposelly trying to hide it in order to make him think he had to give the information. Or maybe the customer tried to send the form without filling those fields and got an error (I've had similar problems), but in this case this would be a very different issue and should have been mentioned in his story.
I understand the point the Infoworld writer is trying to make: I frequently feel that I'm being asked too many questions when filling forms (both on- and offline). But this was not an appropriate example.
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody can require you to show a driver's license except a policeman pulling you over for a traffic violation. Driver's licenses are for driving only.
There is no requirement in the United States to even possess, much less carry, *any* identification *whatsoever*.
Re:Sure, because we can trust advertising companie (Score:3, Informative)
Our country is pretty far away from Hong Kong (on the Orwellian map), where you get 10 years prison for spitting gum out on the sidewalk.
You're thinking of Singapore, perhaps, where streets are clean, and the girls are oh so hot. Hong Kong also has hot girls, but the streets are dirty and the sky is brown.
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:4, Informative)
Paranoia is not a crime...? (Score:2, Informative)
Privacy is not a crime, but it's starting to seem like one... A little paranoia is healthy, but in this information age the individual is powerless to controll any of this so paranoia is just more stress in this case. Until there's some sort of privacy revolution in this country the paranoid will have no choice but to behaive like the man is always standing behind them watching (which he is). He knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake. Merry Christmas.
Re:No choice... vote against the big two. (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, part of the GOP strategy seems to be to shift to the reactionary right (past conservative), and then tar the moderates with the Liberal Brush.
In addition to the Bush administration vastly expanding the power of the Presidency (past Constitutional limits, imo), Bush has also embraced a sort of corporate socialism, where his "close friends" in the private sector get special treatment (no-bid contracts [wikipedia.org], regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] (see FDA, FCC, Dept. of Interior, EPA, the rape of California by Texas energy companies, Cheney's secret meetings with energy companies, etc.), and an unprecedented and well oiled propaganda machine.
These days I am not proud of the GOP. I'm not extreme enough to be a libertarian because I think there should be some social services and social welfare after we can afford them and we're running in the black. The GOP has shown itself to be worse pigs at the trough than the Democrats since they've gained power over both the legislature and the executive.
Also, I'm now considered a traitor by the majority in my party that marches in lockstep with their beloved President. I think part of the reason I'm still a registered Republican is so I can piss these people off.