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.'"
If the information is so trivial... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the information has value, why don't they pay me for it?
Is there any validity to the theories (and software) of social networking?
sPh
to paraphrase... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go a lot further. (Score:1, Insightful)
I standardly use Tor for most important websites too.
I refuse to give up any of my privacy just so someone's advertising or demographics are more accurate.
I'd rather be paranoid now than when its too late.
Re:Just fill out fake info (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumb ass question alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. You don't have the right to be paranoid... no one can stop you from being paranoid... but that doesn't somehow impart a right to you in the same sense that you have the right to free speech or to practice your religion. Sure, you might want to be paranoid, or be inclined to be more paranoid... but that's a behavior and action a choice on your part, not some sort of right. If anything our "rights" are being assaulted by careless use of the term "right"... everything is a right so that truly important rights become lost in the sea of rights to paranoia, and right to wear a tinfoil hat in public, and my right to run Linux on every single thing that might sustain an electric current.
Please just disregard this idiotic thread.
It's the accumulation of data on the longer term (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we are overreacting but what happens with this data in the long run? Who controls it? If the company that holds it goes bankrupt or is bought by another, where does the data go?
Oh, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying something isn't unethical "in my opinion" borders on redundancy. Ethics are simply a set of defined rules, and by definition are subjective. But that's not my real point.
Targeting advertising email is spam. The thing that distinguishes spam is the sender's attitude toward non-respondents. A spammer doesn't care what his non-respondents think of him -- he's only interested in the response rate. An advertiser with an ounce of sense realizes that he's going to drive away people by spamming, and doesn't want that. A spammer doesn't care.
A targeted email campaign may be more effective than simple spam, but it's still spam. Cleaning up your list will improve your response rate, but it still is going to drive people away.
I'm not generally in favor of the death penalty, but in the case of people who use my inbox for their foul spam, I'm on the fence.
My take: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prvacy violation or not, the information is obviously of value to the advertisers, especially if they're paying a third-party to collect it. If it's valuable enough for them to pay money for it, it's valuable enough for me not to part with it without seeing some of that money.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
As advertisers work to get into my home more and more, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of them. Unobtrusive ads that don't collect or use peronal information on me, I'm fine with. But when they start serving me ads based on what country I live in, or pester me about what my age is or are louder then the shows I'm watching, I become annoyed. It isn't about privacy, it's about comfort. I'm not going to provide them with my personal information, unless they offer me a damn good reason for them to have it. They should use what information I naturally give them, and be happy they get that. The idea that it's perfectly fine for shops to expect me to answer any questions they want, is ridiculous (IMO). I'm going shopping to buy items, I'm not going shopping to provide them with demographic information for them to utilize/sell. They should remember what the purpose of their stores are, and to stop trying to be advertising firms. I'm not going to lie to them, I'm simply going to refuse to tell them. If they're going to annoy me with asking for my personal information, I'm going to annoy them by not playing along.
Tigerdirect rebate is no rebate at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
But on another issue, I find the linked article itself to be a troll. The framework of the question starts out right off that bat as "is this sane or insane privacy". By polarzing the issue into a "sane or insane" we lose perspective on this issue and start fighting for one of the two particular sides the author has chosen. This sounds more like a Crossfire! type discussion than a real look at the issues.
Stepping back from the linked article perspective, I'd like to present a different one. Is not providing all the rebate details upfront a breach of contract? If I advertise a $20 rebate for a product, but fail to disclose that you'll have also have to buy $200 in magazine subscriptions until after you've already bought the product, that's not a valid contract.
My major problem (and I think the original posters major problem) is the lack of upfront details on the rebate. Had they told him you'd have to provide job function, company size, etc before they'd issue the rebate then you can make an informed decision if those specific details are worth the rebate price. When they don't tell you the full details of the contract then I think that's at least an ethical violation, and possibly an invalid contract. If you dig deep enough you can eventually find the form to fill out without first buying the product, but who expects a rebate form to ask anything but where to send the check, and who to make the check out to? I certainly don't.
But as I said previously, tigerdirect isn't exactly well known for holding up their end of the bargain.
Re:There such a thing as too paranoid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dumb ass question alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, see the Ninth Amendment:
I freaked out my local Albertsons (Score:5, Insightful)
I freaked out the people at my local Albertson's a few years back (side note: If it's "My store" why is it called "Albertson's"? My name isn't Albertson) when they started doing the valued customers card or what ever it was they called it. Every time I went in, they kept asking me if I had my card yet, if I wanted to get a card, and so forth. And they kept going on about how much I would save.
Every time, I said no.
Finally, I made a form asking for basically the same information they wanted, and offered to pay 10% more every time I shopped if they would just fill out the form and give little cards with bar codes of my choosing on them to all the checkers, so I could scan them with my cuecat each time I checked out. Easy as pie, and it would probably double their profit on my purchases.
This resulted in very amusing conversations with the supervisor, and assistant manager, and a manager--throughout which, I'm proud to say, I kept a straight face. The upshot was, they said no.
I said that was fine, but they really were passing up a good thing, and I'd be sure to make them the same offer the next time I came in. And the time after that.
Oddly, I don't think they ever tried to sign me up for their stupid program again.
--MarkusQ
Re:Sure, because we can trust advertising companie (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all that difficult. Things start to slack, that info is some mighty fine barter to the right buyer. A 'partnership' later and our data collecting friends have a nice influx of new capital, and some marketing firm claims 'preexisting relationship' and spams/telemarkets the hell out of us.
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the buy out a box of hot pockets was $2. Now they're $3, with card and signs telling you of your HUGE savings with the card - they're $2 with the card. Cheap bag of chips were $1.50, now they're $1.50 with card, $2 without. Diet Coke $1 before and with card now, $1.50 without. And so on with damn near everything in the store.
To get this card I have to give out my home phone number, address, email address, and show my drivers license to prove I am who I say I am. My state uses my social security number as my driver's license number.
My mom signed up for this and they took that information to spam her email box, do telemarketing, put her on a crapload of junk mail lists, sell that information all over the place, and fuck knows what else. For what? To pay what I paid at regular prices before they bought the store. And then when I decline to sign up for the card the employees not only look at me like I have a third arm growing out of my forehead, but actively argue with me.
This seriously pisses me off. I miss the days when the owners lived a few streets down from me, I really do. I now pay a $30-60/mo surcharge just to be left the hell alone.
What you have to remember when discussing privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Persistent and Annoying (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure, because we can trust advertising companie (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you haven't moved out of your parents basement yet -- when you get your own place, you'll find out it is NOT too expensive. In fact, 100% of mail I recieve is unsolicited advertisements. I have opted for paperless billing with every company I legitimately do business with. I go to the mailbox 2-3 times a week just to throw the junk mail away because the Post Office will slap me with a fine if I ignore it.
They won't call my cell phone because I'm on the do not call list and will file a claim if they do.
The only fine ever levied as a result of the "Do Not Call" list was recently to DirecTV. DirecTV was the number 1 offender with over X complaints, and was fined $5.4 million for 1.4 million complaints -- or less than $4 per complaint, not per illegal call. Incidentially the maximum fine is $11,000 per complaint, so they got off cheap. All of the other offenders haven't been touched at all.
They can send email but Thunderbird's got a great spam filter.
This costs me real money in bandwidth charges, as well as hard drive space (either locally or on my mail server), and a sysadmin (me or my ISPs) to maintain that spam filter.
The problem, besides "a little bit of inconvenience", is that it costs me both money and time to deal with this problem. Normally when you deal with someone elses problems you get paid for doing work for them. Normally when someone makes a career out of making problems for other people, they go to jail for Organized Crime.
~Rebecca
Re:If the information is so trivial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman's good points and "too much privacy" (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman is mainly concerned with Freedom, not privacy. The two do happen to overlap, of course, but there's no reason to insult the man for caring, and for being aware of the issues. That's why most of us are here talking about it. Also, what Stallman seems "paranoid" about generally turns out to be the reality of the situation just a few years down the line. The man is a visionary, not a quack. The success of the Free Software movement, Open Source, and Linux, and the attempted corporate dominance of Internet Explorer, Microsoft, and others are all here as evidence of Stallman's deep understanding. Probably best not to deride the guy who's kept your online world sane, huh? ;)
Setting that aside and addressing the article itself, I would point out that privacy is always a trade-off with ease of use. Regardless of what the ideal level of privacy is, we do need good privacy, which few of us have achieved. Real security and privacy is hard, and you're far more likely to run into usability issues before you run into overkill issues.
So, I think it basically boils down to this: implement the best security and privacy you can reasonably expect yourself to keep up without getting lazy.
Re:Every breath you take... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a big deal, and most of us have nothing to hide that isn't already hidden, so what exactly is your point? 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 (Thursday 7:00pm to be exact) sexcapade with his executive assistant. I wonder how much he'd be willing to pay to stop that from being exposed. Hell, one could make a fortune between him and his wife if they wanted.
Oh, so you're saying that the information can be used to obtain video of someone cheating on their wife? Well how about this, you shouldn't cheat on your wife? No? We should all be allowed to do that? Ok how about this... most people who are considering cheating on their wife, know not to use their EZ Pass, pay for everything in cash and keep no receipts. Also, I've driven in a ton of cars with onstar and they only start recording anything when you press that button, tracking information isn't recorded every time you get into the car, I can't call up onstar and ask them where my friend's car was yesterday at 5:30 (and neither can he.) Besides, a private investigator can just track a person all day, most people don't know when someone is tailing them (if the PI is good at what they do) and they can still video tape the whole thing.
Jack K. Politician is another upstanding guy. He's running for his local seat against Todd R. Hardstone who's known to pull of some dirty campaign tricks. Hardstone's team decided they were going all out this time leaving no digital trick undone. Forging email headers to make it seem as if Jack was sending out racist comments, creating all sorts of digital chaos. If you think it doesn't happen in government, think again. It's actually done with ease for those in the computer security field, and for anyone who would be willing to invest a few hours time learning the ropes. Aside from that, money talks, meaning someone can hire a "lone gunman" if you will to do the deeds for you.
So what exactly does forging e-mail headers have to do with anything else you mentioned about privacy? I see no relation at all so I'm just going to ignore that and pretend it wasn't mentioned.
Pretty boring writing so far you could say, surely it is, I mean people are all good hearted they would never do such a thing. Who would want to track someone like that. Well, did you know Choicepointclaims to have about 16 billion records on American citizens? 16 billion is a hell of a lot considering there are only about 300 million citizens, so average that out for yourself and ask yourself, what do they have on me?
Ok that's 53 records on average. They would have less information on me since I don't fill out little registration cards and all that, and I never give out real information. So my number would be much lower, but lets say that is 53. That could be anything, from my level of education, my job category, my name, address, phone number, all that stuff. Now if I wanted to find out what that stuff was I'd go here [choicetrust.com] and make a request on my own personal info. Then I'd read it and go "Oh, that was very boring."
Where is the privacy you ask? You gave it away. No one else but you.
Well, not really, I'm sitting in my room right now, no one who isn't watching me knows what I am doing. No one has any idea what time I'm going to go to sleep. No one knows what I'm going to do tomorrow except for those people who will see me do it. So I have to ask you, when did I give away my privacy? Maybe you meant my sister. To let you know, she's the person who signs up for every supermarkets shoppers club cards, she fills out all those surveys o
Re:to paraphrase... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the actual quote [wikiquote.org] is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
So, if you assert that your paraphrase is accurate, you assert that privacy and liberty are the same thing, which is where I would differ. Losing privacy can mean giving up liberty; there are some things we don't do in public because we don't want people knowing/seeing it. But retaining privacy can also mean giving up liberty. For example, in order to exercise the freedom to vote, you have to fill out a form with personal information on it. In order to exercise your economic freedoms through business transactions, you often have to give out information like your address (to ship an item to your house).
Perhaps you do, but I don't consider keeping my address a secret to be "essential." There simply are some activities that cannot be carried out in anonymity. Privacy is more like your time; don't give it all away to someone, but giving it up for something you value more makes perfect sense.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure you mean this - I think you'd rather not have adverts that are entirely irrelevant, for products you can't buy and/or aren't at all interested in.
Good targeting means actually you see fewer ads, because the advertisers don't have to waste money on advertising stuff to people who have absolutely no chance of every buying it.
This is why spam is so pernicious - it doesn't target one bit. It just indiscriminately sends the same advert to everyone regardless of how interested they'd actually be in the product. Thinking of the range of spams I've been sent over the last 10 years of email, I can't think of a single one that I had any interest in the product.