The "Hidden" Cost Of Privacy 217
Schneier points out an article from a while back in Forbes about the "hidden" cost of privacy and how expensive it can be to comply with all the various overlapping privacy laws that don't necessarily improve anyone's privacy. "What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies, and that basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem. Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions. So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?"
Re:Here's how: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's how: (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that "the State" is merely an abstract concept for certain actions of individuals, not some concrete thing that exists independently of any individuals.
Re:Privacy cost beyond market efficiency (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, not all of us live in a Democracy. We Americans, for example, live an a Plutocratic Republic that pretends to be a Democracy.
Go ahead, Ferengi, mod me down for expressing an honest opinion that happens to be true. When the Corporation can "donate" a thousand bucks to the Republican and another grand to the Democrat, it doesn't matter which candidate loses, the corporation wins.
Privacy Costs the Consumer Directly Too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You are wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
but but but!... If public servants' privacy off-hours is strictly defended (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be), how does the public keep politicians from using their 'private' time to cut back-room deals on public legislation? Just trust their say-so on the matter?
Easy answer (Score:1, Interesting)
From teh OP-
How about by setting your privacy policies to exceed what is strictly required by law?
Oh Noes, it can't be that- conservatives don't believe in a right to privacy, so our information has to be held hostage by people who view it as their property.
What a joke! Privacy? What privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as we allow the financial ( including Federal Taxes ) and medical industries to store and or retrieve our information at off-shore facilities ( like India and others ) we can not have any privacy. In fact, we are opening ourselves up to a greater risk of identity theft.
The rate of security breaches have not slowed down, we are just not hearing about them in the headlines. You have to search for them.
Re:Schneier the capitalist (Score:5, Interesting)
So American's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan years
American's WHAT were brainwashed? Oh, I see, you simply don't understand how to use an apostrophe. Understandable since English is probably not your first language.
Not all of us are Reaganites. His slashing the capital gains tax hurt a LOT of ordinary, non-rich workers when it unleashed a flurry of corporate buyouts and sellouts, which resulted in workers being laid off or hours cut.
And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up. The programmer, bricklayer, songwriter, carpenter, laboror creates wealth. His employer simply aggregates and controls it. Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class helps the economy, cutting taxes on the upper class hurts it.
Re:Here's how: (Score:4, Interesting)
And to help simplify things, rather than this hodge-podge of laws. Just make one. Without expressed permission of the individual, none of their personally identifiable information can be transmitted/transferred between companies.
The information about an individual should be the property of the individual, not the company (or govt. agency) that holds and collects it.
Re:Begging the proposition. (Score:2, Interesting)
You are right that most people don't care about their privacy, but then again, if you ask people if they want to pay 20% less for a car if it had no airbags or seatbelts or anti-lock brakes, they may have no problem with it. However, the cost to society in the form of radically more serious injuries makes sense for the market to have these rules in the long run.
The costs and benefits of privacy regulation can certainly be debated. But without regulations, markets don't function well, since they are not self-aware or interested in self-preservation. For reference, move to Somalia.
You can make the argument whether regulations should extend beyond standardization, but it's a relatively simple choice as far as I'm concerned. The market solution for salmonella poisoning would be that a bunch of people would die, and people would avoid buying products from the same company, until the next round of deaths occur. The scary communist solution is to demand outside inspections from a third party - the best option being the government.
Now, why is the government a good idea? Because people without money can compel it to be transparent. If you had a private party doing the inspections, you could not review their actions. All of the criticism of the FDA is possibly only because as a state entity, it must be transparent.
Pure bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives. 90% of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary. It is none of my phone company's business how many people live in the house, or might use the phone. It is none of my ISP's business how many computers I own, or how many of them might connect through the gateway, or even HOW they might connect. The government's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints, DNA samples, and more. I once ordered a pizza, in person, with cash in hand, and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address!! The stupid broad doesn't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill!
In the article, a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients. HOW FREAKING BOGUS!! To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information, or any other personal details.
Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings. And, it's WRONG.
No government agency, and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand. Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner. It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information, it isn't some "expense", or an "option", it shouldn't be considered a "burden". If and when safeguarding information becomes an "expense", then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.
TFA is bogus rationalization, and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws. Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Interesting)
What a load of clap-trap...read this and ignored the rest of the article as it's obvious they don't understand economics
I don't think economists understand economics. If they did, why did they let the world's economy melt down?
I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon from last month, "the MBA vs the crazy old witch. MBA and COW are in PHB's office, and PHB says "well, spreadsheets don't lie... but neither does bat excrement. Tell me again, who ruined the economy? Was it witches?"
Re:Here's how: (Score:3, Interesting)
So no person can mention personally identifiable information about another person to any third person without express consent of the identified person? So a victim of crime who knows their attacker can't give the name to the police without the attacker's consent?
Re:Begging the proposition. (Score:3, Interesting)
Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact fact that people who are powerful enough can, will, and even do lie, cheat, and steal.
And how does the government change that? You trade a prince of a corporation for a despot of the government. I could choose to not shop at Acme but I am a US Citizen always.
Re:Schneier the capitalist (Score:3, Interesting)
It is sufficient that a free market is at least as efficient as any other system, given the same issues of limited rationality and imperfect information. These issues are a part of every system made up of human actors, and do not unique affect market economies.
In any event, the need for rationality is often overstated. It is enough that most participants practice rational self-interest given subjective--essentially arbitrary--goals. The goals themselves can be perfectly irrational. Failing at rational self-interest itself requires one to deliberately act in a way known to be contrary to one's own goals. Naturally, this is a very rare occurrence. Similarly, free individuals acting via an open market is the only efficient way to answer the question you posed regarding the value of good information relative to the cost of acquiring it.
Re:Begging the proposition. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me list your extraordinary claims, and then you can provide the citations:
1) Safety devices have doubled the price of cars
2) Driver education is more effective at saving lives than seatbelts and airbags
3) The government never does it's job
4) Government is less transparent than a corporation
5) Government is somehow not accountable
For instance, the FDA issues rules on food safety for restaurants, available here [fda.gov]. You know when you to go a restaurant, and they have those little papers that allow you to see how the restaurant is rated for food safety? Do you think any restaurant would ever post that information on it's own?
The real fact is that protecting profits are far more important than protecting consumers for any business. The only agency that can compel a powerful organization to be honest is a policing authority, which is typically provided by the government. If you have a better idea that isn't based entirely on your own hallucinations and imaginary data, please let me know.
Re:Schneier the capitalist (Score:3, Interesting)
And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.
Yeah, contrary to the term "trickle down economics", I think the real intent was always to help wealth flow up. However, I don't think it was *purely* for the nefarious reasons that people assume, but rather from an economic philosophy that "Rich people are rich because they know how to manage and spend money well. If we want our economy to be run as well as possible, we should give as much money as we can to rich people." You can see it if you listen carefully to some people's rhetoric.
You see it in their complaints about any funding to help poor people, to provide health care, or anything else. The idea is, all poor people are poor simply because they've made bad choices, done the wrong thing, and are providing no value to society. Inversely, they believe that rich people deserve all their rewards because they are only rich because of their good judgement and contributions to society.
However, it is true that wealth has a habit of naturally trickling up. Like all forms of power, having economic power gives you the ability to draw more economic power to yourself. It's easier to get loans and investments if you already have lots of money, you can hire competent people to manage your money for you, and you have the upper hand in any conflicts you get into with those less powerful than you (even if you're in the wrong). It's just easier to go from having $100 million to $101 million than it is to go from $0 to $1 million.
Re:Here's how: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is an evil bit problem.
There are greedy assholes that will exploit the situation no matter what the trade off point is.
Re:Begging the proposition. (Score:3, Interesting)
Boy uh, that's a stretch.
Sadly, it's not even close to a stretch at all (aside from the silliness of receiving a punch). I just got a check last week from the FTC claiming that waaaaay back in 1998 a bank apparently sold a list of 3 million credit card numbers for the purpose of "scrubbing" internet transactions. They sold the numbers of other banks' members [bankrate.com], so "not doing business with them" would not have gotten you off the list.
Needless to say, some porn company purchased the list and used it to fraudulently charge a lot of people a lot of money. [cnet.com] What a punch in the face!