Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet

Data Mining Amazon.com Wish Lists 183

Posted by Zonk from the i-know-what-you-read dept.
Dr. Webster writes "In his article "Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists," Tom Owad of Applefritter outlines a way in which one could build detailed personal profiles of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in a matter of hours. Reading habits, personal tastes and even political party affiliation could be inferred from the results, and through the use of Yahoo! People and Google Maps, one could even map out geographically where people with certain interests or affiliations live, down to their address. Most surprisingly, the process of doing this is completely legal, and doesn't even violate Amazon's Conditions of Use."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Mining Amazon.com Wish Lists More

Data Mining Amazon.com Wish Lists

Comments Filter:

  • Mining voluntary information on a public website? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @11:46PM (#14415071)
    Mining voluntary information on a public website? Come back and tell us when you can mine the info as easily from say real amazon sales records of what I actually did buy not what I might want the public to think I am buying.

  • 3 Dead Trolls in a Baggie (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Obligatory music whenever data mining is mentioned... Privacy Song...

    Lie,Lie,lie... Lie about your age, your gender and your race. ... Throw a monkey wrench right up their database.
  • Breaking news! People conducting surveys report other people freely giving away personal information! That could be an article from http://www.theonion.com/ [theonion.com]. Shocking. Call it a "wishlist" not a "voluntary survey about what you like" and it's an amazing invasion of privacy.

  • I see (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2006 @11:55PM (#14415119)
    So THAT'S why I'm on the no-fly list

  • Point of the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by terradyn ( 242947 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @12:06AM (#14415162)
    Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of: "What use is it to mine wishlists?" You're missing the point of the article. His main idea is from this section of the article:
    This is what's possible with publicly available information, but imagine if one had access to Amazon's entire database - which still contains every sale dating back to 1999 by the way. Under Section 251 of the Patriot Act, the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause, for an "authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Amazon is forbidden to disclose that they have turned over any records, so that you would never know that the government is keeping records of your book purchases. And obviously it is quite simple to crossreference this info with data available in other databases. On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did.
    • And obviously it is quite simple to crossreference this info with data available in other databases. On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did.

      And this speculation from yet another Mac Rumour Site should be taken with how many grains of salt too?

      This thread should prove interesting [applefritter.com]
    • I still don't get it.

      The FBI can find out where I live without Amazon or Google.

      If they want to know what I want as a present, well, I want everyone to know.

      If I wanted "Making WMD for Dummies" I would just buy it, not ask for it as a gift.

      • Re:Point of the article (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zCyl ( 14362 )
        I still don't get it.

        The FBI can find out where I live without Amazon or Google.

        Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant." The point being, it becomes quite dangerous if the government is allowed to keep tabs on what you read, because the political freedom which comes from freedom of speech requires that ideas can be exchanged and learned without fear of consequences.
        • Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."

          But "sleepers" usually try everything not to stick out. Including not going to meetings of radicals or reading radical books (or at least buying them on the Internet). Wouldn't this just be helpful with stupid terrorists?

          Just like that whole e-mail interception thing. Do terrorists really communicate using unencrypted e-mail?
          • Obviously no terrorist is going to but "How to build WMD" on a public wishlist. However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism? This isn't about terroism, it is about population control. That is why it is a civil rights concern.
            • >However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism?

              But I put it on a public list. I made it public on purpose. This is not a private information, I made it public for all to use. Good or bad. If I didn't want the public (strangers, FBI, my local newspaper) to know, I shouldn't have made it public.

              I made it public, so I don't get what people are complaining about.
              • Yes, *you* made it public. However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware. This is not unlike saying, "hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."
                • >However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware.

                  I say I would like a particular book for a gift. Exactly how does that impact you and your privacy?

                  >"hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."

                  I really don't see how this applies.
                  Do you find my wish list offensive?
                  How does a group of people publishing their wish list cause you a problem? (If Amazon removes the wish-lists feature, how does this im
              • The moment you think "I'd better not put this title on my public wishlist because if I do, there's a non-zero chance I'll end up on the no-fly list", you're not a free citizen in your country. It's that simple.
          • No-one is born a terrorist, though. And I bet few of them suddenly wake up one morning and think "Right! Now I'm going to be a terrorist" without having had thoughts about the issues before. Maybe read some books that are 'subversive', maybe attended some non-mainstream rallies or religious meetings, maybe happened to know people who knew some people who had slight links to terrorism. Maybe they use encryption on their computers, use 'illegal' software. That sort of thing. And all before they get roun
        • >Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."

          If you don't want the FBI to know what you want or bought, don't put it on a public wish-list.

          Am I missing something here?

          Suppose you posted something about yourself on USENET. Do you have a reasonable expectation that this information would be impossible, through currently legal means, for the FBI to find out about it?
          • Yes you are missing something. A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list. The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.

            This is for all the folks who typically respond with "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?
            • >A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list.

              If you have problems with putting things on a public wish list, how do you even do anything in public without fear?

              How do you have a credit-card? Drivers license driving a car with a license plate? Do anything in any place with security camera? Sign books from a library? Leave finger-prints at a resturant? Use cash with its security-strip and unique serial number? Have a
      • Did you read the comment? Wish lists are public. Amazon has access to all of your activity. So your in both scenarios in your comment, "If I wanted "Making WMD for Dummies" I would just buy it, not ask for it as a gift," the FBI can find out what you did without a warrant.
    • the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause
      This needs to be repeated loudly and often.
    • Naturally, this has immediately turned into a discussion on government surveillance... so...

      Let's see if I understand this...

      A bunch of people in America, all from a peace loving and gentle religious background, flew airplanes into skyscrapers, attempting to kill tens of thousands of people and succeeding in murdering more than the Japanese killed in Pearl Harbor. This was 8 years after another group, from the same peace loving and gentle religious background, used a large bomb in an attempt to achieve the
      • I believe that what most of us find irritating about the Patriot Act is that many of the powers Bush asked for after 9/11 were not used to pursue terrorists, but rather political groups that the president disliked. For example, the airport no-fly list was mostly not used to prevent terrorists from flying (they all had false ID anyway) but rather, to prevent hippies and other malcontents from attending protests.

        Now, I believe you and I both completely agree that asshole fundamentalists with bombs should be r
        • I await your evidence that any of what you describe is true. It sounds like pure paranoia to me!

          Which hippies were *prevented* from flying (which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act, or for that matter, privacy invasions other than right at entry to the airport)?

          I have yet to read of even one abuse of the Patriot Act. I have yet to read of any action taken by the Federal Government against innocents based on any of the expanded war powers, other than random searches (which included catching
          • I'm going to assume you actually aren't aware of what's going on, and that you're not deliberately trying to pretend, and supply you with some reading material. Please consider the following articles in support of my statements:

            Let's start with the no-fly list:

            http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/no_fl y/index_np.html [salon.com]
            http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/ 09/27/MNNOFLY.TMP&nl=top [sfgate.com]
            http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/reports/prot estersdetained.htm [free-online.co.uk]
            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-n [freerepublic.com]
            • I still don't know about a no-fly list. Your numerous links don't describe one. They describe a list of names which trigger special scrutiny.

              And that is a very different thing. The demonstrators weren't prevented from flying to their demonstration. They were subject to extra scrutiny, and sine they obviously cut their time before departure too short, some missed the flight.

              This just breaks my heart. I mean really, I'm sobbing as I type this. You see, I'm on the same list. And I understand perhaps a bit abou
              • Yeah, yeah, typical republican rant. Let's get a couple of things straight, shall we:

                1. if the government REALLY wanted to make air travel straight, it'd mandate a solid cockpit door and allow pilots to carry firearms, plus make sure the door stays locked throughout the entire flight. INSTEAD, it does all this bullshit with the TSA and the NO-FLY-LIST (stop pretending it doesn't exist, you're embarassing yourself) because it gives them a little bit of extra power over us citizens and gets us used to diminis
                • Uh huh.

                  Sorry, dude, but Republicanism has nothing to do with it and being concerned about the future of my country has a heck of a lot to do with it. If 9-11 had happened in the Hillary administration, I would still be in favor of the government trying to stop the terrorists, even though I trust Bush far more than the Clintons to not abuse the system (based on the history of both administrations).

                  As to your "how to fix it" - did it ever occur to you that they might, just might not use airplanes next time? T
                  • Oh my god, you can't POSSIBLY be this big a sucker. Oh, you poor man. I bet you live in a "red state" and have a little metal trailer with a GTO up on blocks out front. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

                    Redneck moron.

      • "When there is a gigantic gorilla in the room, worrying obsessively about the faint possibility that an ant might get in is beyond reason!

        It's especialy unconfortable when the gorilla wears red white and blue and is the one doing the worrying. OTOH: Nobody wants ants to eat their foundations, if someone gives their info freely, don't they also forefiet their right to control what it is used for?
        • "if someone gives their info freely", then perhaps a corporation should be required to have written permission to keep that information for more than 10 days? the written permission could have a federaly mandated expiration, so that a verified signature would be required every 30 days to keep continue holding the data? lets limit the ability of amazon to sell information to microsoft or nike or whoever, too...

          Just because our system isn't designed to protect privacy doesn't mean we shouldn't be consideri
          • That would be fine but I doubt if it would be practical. I think it is inevitable that corporations and governments will gather as much demographics as they can because it is extremely usefull to themselves and society as a whole (ie: a tool is neither good or bad, it is at best usefull).

            The only practicable response the public has is to ensure we have the right to watch those who are watching us. I think the kind of beauracracy you propose would simply make the tool too expensive for anyone other than a
        • So you really think that our government, with *its current set of laws and activities* is more of a threat to your privacy than the terrorists? That the government is the gorilla and the terrorists are the ants?

          That's exactly the problem I was referring to.

          Just wait. When the terrorists do something *really* bad - something that a large number of Americans can see happening to themselves if the government doesn't stop it.

          Then you'll perhaps see the ant grow to the size of, perhaps, a watchdog, and perhaps a
          • Oddly enough, how many of the previous attacks on our children in our schools have been made by these tens of thousands of trained Islamofascist terrorists or those who support them? It usually seems to be done by a fellow American that has no ties to Islam.
            The problem I and many others have is that we are pretty sure that even if the government had all the data mining capabilities in the world, a large terrorist organization will still find a flaw in the system and abuse it. The issue is not that we do
            • When fighting any war, and especially one so dependent on intelligence and counter-intelligence, nothing is absolute; nothing is guaranteed; and government will always make enormous screw-ups (you should read about the incredible messes in World War II). We can't prevent all attacks (unless, perhaps, we reincarnate Pol Pot and let him run things). However, it is absolutist to oppose sensible measures, even though they will have some percentage of abuse and some percentage of failure.

              In other words, you can

              • I don't think anyone doubts there are groups of many colours who seek to unreasonably control others through violent means. I am sure in the muslim world I could find an echo of your sentiments who would say something like... "There are 300 million well armed Americans and a large percentage of them want to kill us".

                I disagree with the assertion that "the war on terror" is a war. It is a series of police actions against disparate groups with a variety of causes. The brits did not treat the IRA as a war a
                • I'm afraid that a complete relativism, and a retreat to history, fails to convince, and although popular these days, is a complete cop-out and disgustingly cynical. Anyway...

                  I will lay out the fundamentals of the argument here in its most simple form.

                  The new and UNIQUE threat is;

                  1) A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us. We last encountered that in World War II with the Japanese - remember them? But the Japanese never were able to kill as many Americans in America as
                  • "The new and UNIQUE threat is;"

                    (1) - Not new or unique, there have always been a "A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us."

                    (2) - ...and small groups willing to use WMD...think Guy Falks or the "suitcase nukes" Rummy has been banging on about since the seventies.

                    "The latter means..." everyone has the potential to use WMD, simply because they exist. There is no "new threat" since 9/11, the new threat arrived in 1945. Since then it has been theoretically possibl

    • Well 99% of the people here don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:06AM (#14415950) Journal
      Even comments to your posts don't get it. All this guy did was prove just how easy it is to use a seemingly harmless database to prove your a commie. Oh wait, get my mind out of the 50's, a terrorist. Or did the boogyman change name again? Pedo's are an eternal favorite and you can't really defend the rights of pedo's unless you wanna be lynched.

      No the FBI or anyone else would never bother with amazon wish list. They would simply get the sales records. This guy does not have access to those so he uses what he can to prove his point.

      Yes it is scary. Especially for those of us who have family (or more to the point do not have family) killed for expressing the wrong ideas.

      I however don't think we should blame the FBI or similar agencies, they are the instruments of us the people. It is we who have voted the current goverments into power. Corruption you say? Well then it is you and me that have allowed that to happen. I do not believe in the mythical innocent citizen. Others have died for freedom. No reason we should be allowed to sit on our backsides and complain our freedoms are taken away. FIGHT

      Not that I will of course. I know deepdown that what is happening is wrong and also know that I am one of the cattle. Perhaps it will make it easier when I am put in a cattle wagon to be gassed.

      The problem with fighting for your freedom is that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist.

      I ain't got an answer or a solution except to suggest "PAY CASH". Even if your part of the herd there is no reason to make it any easier for them to send you off to the slaughterhouse.

      Will it happen? It has happened countless times before. Check the McCarty trials. The treatment of Japanse americans vs German americans. The gunning down of american citizens by police during peace protests. The way england handled the RIA and labor strikes. All of them pretty recent.

      Something scary might happen in our lifetimes. Or not. This is one tiny example to prove that it won't be hard on the technical side. Now all we need to is to elect leaders crazy enough to do it. /me looks at the current leaders of the "free" west. Too late.

      • Obviously the Feds don't need this. But what about that next job interview you go to? Or loan application? Your credit rating is used by insurance companies as a (usually) better indicator of your insurance risk than your driving record, so why shouldn't your insurance company also want to know what sorts of books and movies and video games you like?
      • Okay, I'm counting for the last 60 years - long enough for you?

        Number of Americans killed in the last 50 years by *the federal government* for expressing the wrong views: 0. This leads me to wonder who in your family you are referring to.

        Number of Americans killed by government for expressing the wrong views:0
        Number of Americans killed by government accidently during protests 4 that I know of, at Kent State.

        Number of Americans by or on behalf of Joe McCarthy: 0 (but Joe McCarthy was certainly a person who
        • What about counting all Air Force bombing missions during every war of the 20th century alone. The United States Government has financed the killing of millions of people on this planet if you count them too. They may not have been citizens of U.S.A., but they were human beings, and shouldn't that matter more than someone's location at birth? I would argue that most victims of all these bombings were not "enemy combatants," they were innocent people living in the wrong country at the wrong time. Which sugge

  • Most subversive anarchists... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @12:08AM (#14415170)
    ...that I know freely subscribe to Amazon.com wish lists. They are like "lets overthrow the government that wants to jail us" but they are also all over "Lets let everyone know how we feel about corparations and the government by making wish lists that not only incriminate us but play into the hands of the very corporate droogs we hate... makes sense right." Anyone thinking they will get useful information about truly dangerous groups from Google Maps or Amazon Wish Lists needs to take a breather and sit down for a minute.

    • Anyone thinking they will get useful information about truly dangerous groups from Google Maps or Amazon Wish Lists needs to take a breather and sit down for a minute.

      You think stoners and crack heads are that smart?

      The first match for "Bible," ironically, was a wishlist containing The Cannabis Grow Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing Marijuana for Recreational and Medical Use [amazon.com].

      I imagine that there are people who have various other titles in their wishlists that are blatantly suggestive of mostly illegal

    • It always amazes me how many people assume that because some harmless idiots use the internet, the truly harmful idiots don't use the internet. There is no shortage of moronic subversives and terrorists in the world, and they use the internet just like everyone else. The reason that the governments of the world have thousands of analysts poking around chat rooms and message forums is that stupid people do stupid things, assuming that their special forum is a secret, or that their special codes are secret, o
      • Well you have elucidated one of the cetral faults of all law enforcement. Timothy McVeigh was "caught" because he didn't keep enough operational security!? The man was completely successful in achieving his twisted goal. If you are willing to kill yourself for your worthless cause then there is not much that anyone can do... even if they "catch you."

        We have "caught" many of the hijackers from 9/11 but they still achieved their goal. Say we find 1,000 people that buy books about jihad against the US...

    • Hey, just to let you know, "droogs" means "friends" not dogs.

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Perseid ( 660451 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @12:12AM (#14415189)
    From the article:
    On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did:

    "Currently, the FBI is strengthening systems engineering in order to tie new systems together architecturally and ensure that standards for custom and packaged applications are enforced, and it needs engineers to accomplish this goal, the agency said.

    (etc...)

    Where does he read data mining into this? I read that the FBI wants to update their computers to make their databases better. Their databases.

    This article strikes me as scare mongering, and until I hear that the government plans on breaking the knuckles of people who read Aldous Huxley, I don't care about what's merely possible.

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

      by surprise_audit ( 575743 )
      the FBI wants to update their computers to make their databases better. Their databases.

      These days, it wouldn't even take an Act of Congress for Amazon's databases to become FBI databases...

    • Well, what I heard was that the FBI tried to update all their internal systems to make them interoperate better, but the contractor they selected to do the work didn't work out. Now, they're still looking for a contractor who can handle the scale of the project, and they're looking for people they can hire internally as well.

      My understanding of it is that it's basically just a big modernization project, with no sinister elements whatsoever. Apparently there's also a big problem with lots of information bein

  • Just to point out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @12:17AM (#14415208) Journal
    It is one thing to 'mine' information from Amazon, it is another thing entirely, to mine useful information.

    Even his crude filtering techniques can yield worthwhile leads for police/FBI. He says that the first result for bible is "The Cannabis Grow Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing Marijuana for Recreational and Medical Use".

    Is it so hard to imagine that a certain fraction of people with that book on their wishlist may either be growing weed, or have it in their possesion? Or that a percentage of people 'wishing' for the Improvised Munitions Handbook (printed by our favorite Uncle Sam @ the DoD) aren't chemists or demolitionists?

    /doesn't have an Amazon wishlist and never will

    • Is it so hard to imagine that a certain fraction of people with that book on their wishlist may either be growing weed, or have it in their possesion?

      So what? It doesn't add up to probable cause.

      I have all kinds of books that aren't popular. I've never used the information in them to break the law. Sure, I have the recipies for RDX, Composition C1 and Semtex, I know how to construct shaped charges too but I'm not going to make them. I also know how to convert a firearm to full auto. I'd never do it, but I k
      • the police don't need probable cause to sniff around your place or maybe talk to your neighbors if they're outside.

        My general point is that some enterprising police officer might decide to do this, put whatever information he gets together with what they know about their local druggies and start making people's lives difficult.

        Anyways, it is one thing to have knowledge, it's another to be using it. Those are the people the police are interested in.
        • The only thing I worry about in terms of police making people's lives difficult is that not all cops are all that bright.

          What if the cop who decides YOU are a freak deserving of "special treatment" just happens to be an idiot who barely passed his coursework? What if he's a big, stupid goon and he just didn't like your face (so now he's going to pick on you)?

          That DOES happen, you know. Practically every town in the U.S. has at least one cop whose neighbors consider him a "live one". Maybe he's the guy weari
          • What if the cop who decides YOU are a freak deserving of "special treatment" just happens to be an idiot who barely passed his coursework? What if he's a big, stupid goon and he just didn't like your face (so now he's going to pick on you)?

            Or even worse that you're now dating his ex-girlfriend or ex-wife.

            Cops in general may be very professional, smart, and trustworthy -- but it only takes one knucklehead to make your life a living hell.

            I don't share your positive opinion of Cops. I think that they tend to
            • Well... Ok, I was trying to be charitable. Of course, you're right, there are plenty of cops who are complete assholes. I agree that the field sort of self-selects for that kind of thing. I didn't want to just come out and SAY it, though... ;)

  • well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nutty_Irishman ( 729030 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @12:27AM (#14415238)
    In my county in NC, if you want a party affiliation all you need to do is look it up on the public records website:
    http://www.co.durham.nc.us/common/PublRecordsdB.cf m [durham.nc.us]

    You can also figure out how much someone's house is worth, what they paid in taxes, etc.

    It starts to get a little scary though when your search for public records reveals mortage applications with the individual's SS# listed on the sheet. All available online, and provided for by your very own government!
  • Most surprisingly, the process of doing this is completely legal, and doesn't even violate Amazon's Conditions of Use.

    It shouldn't be surprising, it's common sense. Why in the fuck should it be illegal or against Amazon's conditions of use to read information in someone's wish list? The whole point of a wish list is so that other people will know what books you want.

    LK
    • To me the fact that they didn't take into account someone downloading 260,000 records in chuncks of 25,000 from two computers. Most likely when Amazon wrote the conditions of use they didn't think that the average (e.g. only looking at friends and family) person would try and mass download wish lists.

    • Re:WTF is wrong with you? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by typical ( 886006 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @02:35AM (#14415615) Journal
      Very simple principle. Lots of data is individually acceptable, but when compiled or processed, is unacceptable.

      For example, say you maintain a Slashdot identity that you don't link to your real name. While no one post of yours may be sufficient to tie your identity to your name, the sum total may be sufficient.

      Or security cameras. Most people don't worry about *one* security camera, but a lot of people get concerned when they are constantly being monitored by cameras which are tied together by computer to monitor where they go each day.
      • For example, say you maintain a Slashdot identity that you don't link to your real name.

        Which I *might*.

        While no one post of yours may be sufficient to tie your identity to your name, the sum total may be sufficient.

        That is true. I make a common typo. I don't always release the shift key before the second letter at the beginning of a sentence. REsulting in the mistake that I have just intentionally made. I suppose if someone were to parse all of the Slashdot comments in history they could come up with a lis
        • Yet, If I didn't want anyone to be able to figure out who I am in the first place I'd post anonymously.

          Sure, but there's a *benefit* to having a pseudonym -- you can accure reputation, yet need not associate your ideas with your real name.

          My point is not that it is (or even should be) feasible to do this and remain anonymous -- I don't want to get stuck on the details of this particular example. I'm just pointing out that, assuming that it *is* possible to prevent people from compiling information, there a
  • Look at a dozen random wishlists and you'll find the same pattern. Customer tried wishlist on December 11, 2002. Added Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Never used wishlist function again.
  • ...when you put that inflatable nun and bottle of baby lotion on your wishlist. woops...
  • It may not be 'real news' but I don't think it should be dismissed as completely irrelevant. (Like 95% of current commentators have done).

    First, on relevance of wishlists:
    Granted that wishlists are not the most accurate estimates of your preferences, what is? My list contains over 50 books, and for the most part they are all related to each other. In fact, I would say that by looking at my list you would have a pretty accurate gauge to measure my interests. Am I an anomaly? Possibly. (Though I doubt it)

    But
  • I found it interesting that some celebrities appear to have their wish list available as well. Hard to know how much of it is real, since certainly the bigger names would go under a pseudonym, and ordinary joes may just be using the name as an alias, but looking at Steve Job's [amazon.com] wish list it appears to list his correct address and birthday, so there may be something to him having a taste for Duke Elington after all.
  • I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
    a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
    b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.

    • They have this already! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Derling Whirvish ( 636322 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @02:29AM (#14415598) Journal
      I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
      a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
      b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.

      They do! Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:" and it gives three choices: "Anyone who searches for me," "Only people I have invited with the 'Share this list' feature," or "Only me."

      • Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:"
        You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!
        • You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!

          Yes, you can name the list. And yes, you can limit who sees it. And yes, it makes the whole article nonsense. It not the first time people went all hysterical over an ant hill.

  • Amazon already catalogs bestsellers and "uniquely popular" items for thousands of U.S. cities in their Purchase Circles [amazon.com] section.

    When they first started the idea, they gave it some PR, but now it's sort of a low man on the totem pole, relegated to the backwaters. When I checked 6400+ cities, only 2800 of them were recording enough activity to warrant a bestseller or "uniquely popular" list.

    They generate the 2 types of lists for 5 classes of items: books, CDs, DVDs, toys, and consumer electronics. Now this might not be as potentially compromising as finding out a single person was ordering subversive books. Yet finding out a small town in Alabama's bestselling genre is showtunes [geostats.info] is definitely something interesting.

    - Greg

  • Everyone is missing the point (Score:4, Funny)

    by Twid ( 67847 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @03:46AM (#14415798) Homepage
    If this guys links Amazon Wish Lists, Google Maps, the yellow pages, and personality typing using Ruby on Rails, he can call it a Web 2.0 Mashup and make millions when Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft buys him out.

    I smell a fully monetized eyeball!

  • If you use your full name for an email address (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sl4shd0rk ( 755837 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:01AM (#14416063)
    You're a fool. And yes, the company you work for is also an idiot for using john.smith@megacorp.com as your mandatory email address. All your doing is making an index for yourself into the biggest rolodex on the planet. People argue that some names are so regular no one could possibly narrow it down, but a simple whois can help narrow things down to a particular state. Public legal records from there can make things more interesting.
    • > If you use your full name for an email address...You're a fool.

      Keep in mind that if you used that email address to register for a service that required your full name they've probably got both anyway. Or used your email address in a purchase with a visa card. Or etc.

      That's what makes data integration efforts so dangerous - data mining on its own isn't really that useful. Data mining on pre-integrated and cleansed data *is*.

  • Despite our much stronger data protection legislation [opsi.gov.uk], exactly the same trick works in the UK [amazon.co.uk]. Which just demonstrates that the whole data protection hoo hah is nonsense...

  • Data Mining vs Privacy (Score:3, Informative)

    by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @11:19AM (#14416953) Journal
    Using data mining to catch criminals is nothing new and there is nothing wrong with it. Many white-collar criminals have be caught "cooking the books" using this kind of process. Having said that, I also have to say that there is a point where this practice can go too far. It can become an invasion of privacy that could cast the shadow of suspicion on to ordinary, law-abiding people.

    Suppose you were a person who likes surfing the net to read things like "The Anarchist's Cookbook" (an entertaining read) who is also curious about Muslim Extremisim (because it is so often in the news) and is planning a car trip with your family to New York City and Washington D.C. Perhaps you have downloaded maps and driving directions to the Capital, the White House and the United Nations Building from MapQuest. Maybe you have visited EBay and bought some reloading equipment (because you are a sport-clay shooter).

    Now imagine some data mining application at fbi.gov puts all of this information together and concludes that you are an extremist who is about to embark on a trip where you plan on bombing the United Nations building in New York City and the Capitol and the White House in Washington DC!

    Seperate and disparite pieces of data aren't always able to fit nicely into a simple formula. This is where the danger of this kind of information comes in. Taken seperately and considered without an adequate foundation, these "facts" tend to support a totally erronious conclusion. Next thing you know, someone is quietly asking questions about you abd you have no idea why.

    These kinds of things have happend to innocent people before. Someone I know faced scrutiny years ago shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. There was no real reason for his being suspect and it took a long time to figure out why they looked at him. The FBI questioned his neighbors, they followed him, photographed his home, and in general made life uncomfortable for him.

    It took time to figure it out but, we finally concluded that there were reasons why he came to their attention. They were:

      - He was a gun collector
      - He bought gunpowder by the pound (he was a re-loader)
      - He worked at a facility where he may possibly have had access to amonium nitrate
      - He lived alone
      - He lived in the wrong place (outside of town in an area linked to suspects)
      - He had several 55 galon oil drums on his property
      - He was a member of the NRA

    To the FBI all this information seemed to indicate that he could possibly be linked as the third man in the Oklahoma City bombing. Nothing could have been further from the truth but for a few tense weeks, he was the focus of enough attention so that he felt like he could not visit friends, go target practicing, or do much of anything. He got paranoid and asked us to not call him because he thought he may be wiretapped. It really ate him up inside and he had done nothing wrong. The truth of the matter is that he is one of the most law-abiding people around. He had not done one illegal thing to draw this suspiscion on him. Litterally, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is just a kind of quiet guy who likes to keep to himself.

    I don't think that data mining brought this investigation on him. I think his name simply popped up on too many lists (which is in a way, a form of manual data mining). Still with computers and access to hundreds or thousands of different data sources, the possibilities have compounded themselves making this kind of process likely to impact too many poeole. Innocent people.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you are afraid of loneliness, don't marry." -- Chekhov

Close