Have We Lost Our Privacy To the Internet? 222
An anonymous reader writes "An article in the Guardian, penned by Joss Wright and Tom Chatfield, discusses whether we — as in Internet users in general — are, or indeed are not, giving away way too much information about ourselves to large Corporations that profit handsomely from mining the info. The article talks about how contemporary internet companies — perhaps predictably — are run with a 'privacy is dead' motto. It considers what implications having all your private data out on the internet — where it can be seen, searched, shared, retransmitted, perhaps archived forever without your consent — has for the 'future of our society' (by which the authors presumably mean the society of the UK). The (rather long) article ends by mentioning that Gmail scans your email, that Facebook apps frequently send your private data right to the app developer, that iPhones are known to log your geographic location, and that some smartphone apps read your address book and messages, then dial home to transmit this info to the company that developed the app."
I believe so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. And indeed, with people accepting the Patriot Act (in the US) and adopting the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality, I think things will only get worse.
Some places are installing cameras everywhere in public places due to a criminal paranoia. Even if you don't technically have privacy in most public places, the cameras just make this even worse. They're not comparable at all to normal humans spotting you because these cameras are everywhere at once and can (and do) record everything they see (unlike a human's faulty memory, the cameras won't forget anything).
Then there's the whole problem of people willingly giving up all of their information to websites like Facebook. I personally have no doubt that there will come a time when privacy violations and spying are seen as normal and acceptable. In fact, that might already be largely true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever. The idea that we ever had some fanciful idea called "personal privacy" is largely a myth. Even with regard to government monitoring. I don't have to remind anyone about our various national histories.
But yes, now data collection, correlation and general connectivity have gone through the roof. So we make laws about, bargain over, even make and sell various products and services, all surrounding personal privacy.
Things ebb and flow.
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Insightful)
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
Thankfully, we realized (and have forgotten, apparently) that privacy is not only preferable, but is important to keep the government in check. A government that can break into anyone's house, spy on anyone, and look for the slightest infraction is one that is most prone to abuse.
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Interesting)
You see... when corporations own the government, there is no stopping them to endeavor to make you their slave.
Even monetary systems can be manipulated into slavery. For example, Communism. But instead of the government controlling everything, companies do.
And well... since companies are people... it turns into the one thing everyone has hated and feared since the 1920s.
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Insightful)
the state and private enterprise routinely pass data back and forth between the barrier to get around the regs.. it's a hybrid situation so blaming just one of them is pointless..
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I believe so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy died over a decade ago. Only the magnitude of the damage to loss of privacy has been amplified.
Cookies, Banner Ads, JavaScript, Java Applets, DejaNews (yes, they were the first ones to archive Usenet posts for an indefinite period of time, before they got bought by Google), site redirects by an advertiser. Remember the Sun CEO quote--you have no privacy, get over it (or very close similar words). More recently, using scripts to submit an invisible form on the user's behalf, to knowingly and deliberately browser security to force tracking cookies (not just Google, folks, other advertisers too are still doing this even if Google fixed their issue).
Only now, more than ever before, is it profitable to hold a user's data hostage, demanding a court order to remove that which the user still owns the copyright over.
But it isn't new--it's just a much higher severity than ever before when it causes someone embarassment, or the loss of a potential or current job, or when something someone says has been dealt with--it still lives on longer than it should.
And, most importantly, building up massive user profile for the stupid fucking dream that a user will not only intentionally click on an ad (as opposed to accidentally when the ad interfered with where they intended to click) and even more ludicrous, that the same user will actually buy something just because the ad stalked them from page to page and targeted them.
Re:I believe so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea: I am 100% against companies gathering (and holding indefinitely) personal data of people who did not give it up freely, knowing what they are getting themselves into. But I am also cynical enough to believe that a large percentage of Facebook, smartphone app, etc users would just shrug if you told them, and say they don't really care. Frankly, I myself don't much care if the corporate world knows I want to buy an inflatable pool, a bulk amount of whipped cream, and a used industrial vacuum cleaner. Let them make of that what they will. I do, however, draw the line at personal information I did not give to them. I do not want to receive mail/phone calls/creepy ads that state my (alleged) location/names of my close friends/etc, unless I gave that information to you personally.
Re: (Score:3)
That's so cute, you think the corporations aren't the government :)
To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is a commodity - a private commodity
Each of us has our own privacy, and each of us interpret "Privacy" a little bit differently
As to whether we have given away our privacy to the corporations, I think it's too much of a blanket statement
You see, privacy is ours to begin with. The decision of whether not our privacy is handed over to the corporation largely falls into our own hand
If you decide to value your own privacy, then you won't reveal your own real identity online - and there are many ways to keep your real earth identity separate from your online identity
Plus, if you are so afraid that huge corporations like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook may be gathering your privacy, then you should take step to ensure that whatever they gather from your activities online would not reflect who you are, in real life
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
And one more very important thing - Your privacy is not only in danger on the Internet
There are other areas that your privacy might be revealed to others - like your medical history, your driving licence, your voting records, the secret files the government (governments ?) keeps on you, et cetera
Do not think that just because your online privacy is threatened that your off-line privacy is not
Re: (Score:2)
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search.
Re: (Score:3)
Do not blame the corporations if you reveal everything yourself
As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search
When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
After all, the word "Privacy" came from "Private", and the most "Private" thing there is yourself - yes, your very own self
Re: (Score:2)
OH wait....
One other thing, these "other ways to protect your privacy" cost money. So, either way companies are still making money off of you.
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, living in a bubble is awesome! Steve Jobs did!
It's not "living in a bubble"
It's merely living your own life without having to tell the world everything about yourself
I've friends who are loud mouths and they will tell everything about everybody, including everything about themselves to the world
Hey, to those people, they are willingly revealing where they work, how much they earn, who their doctors are, what type of disease they have, what political inclination they belong to, and so on ...
For people like that, don't blame the corporations if one day they can't purchase health insurance no more because everyone know that they gonna have cancer to the liver/lung/whatever in the future
One other thing, these "other ways to protect your privacy" cost money. So, either way companies are still making money off of you.
Who says that you need to pay to protect your privacy?
All you need to do is to zip your mouth shut and to be extra careful of what you do online and off-line
If I do not want people to know where I shop, when I shop, how much I pay for milk a month, I don't shop in ONE store and I don't use my credit card when I do my shopping
If I do not want people to know the frequency of my travelling from Detroit to Chicago, then I change my mode of transportation often - fly some times, drive some other times
It all boils down to what you do with your own live
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Your approach is way too randian.
For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address.
I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems. That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous.
The only alternative then is to live in a bubble of isolation, refusing to interact with anyone using modern means for fear of disclosing information to the wrong people.
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to
I'm not sure why it's chilling either. Spidering the link immediately delivers "relevant" ads to your Gmail window right away. That is how Gmail is meant to be.
Chilling would be if your robots.txt is set to turn down spiders and they do it anyway. Chilling is when they don't play by their own rules, not the rules themselves.
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Your approach is way too randian
No, it's not randian, but instead, it's the most practical way to live one's own life in the world we are living in
It's the you-are-responsible-for-your-own-wellbeing way of living
In this world where everything could be archived somewhere, if you reveal things about yourselves, like the water that has splashed out of a cup, there's no way to get the genie back into the bottle
For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address.
I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems
This world we live in is indeed very different from the world our forefathers lived
And the way we live in this world should also be very different from the way our forefathers lived in their world
We must change faster than the pace the world is changing, or we will be consumed by it all
That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous
If you think that it's ridiculous, think of the world our offspring will inhibit
Their every-day-lives will be recoded somewhere
Their presence in every place will be noted, what they said and do will be archived, everything including their shoe-size will be known to people who wants to know
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can find a VPS with enough resources to handle email for $2 or less per month.
It might not have enough memory for clamspam, but Thunderbird's junk mail feature suffices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I make comments on digg and soulpancake. I recently did a google search on my user name. I discovered that all of my comments on digg and soulpancake were listed there and they were on the first page. Not only was my username there but also my real name and a picture and my hometown. I did notice that slashdot was not listed so I am grateful for that. I do not know how they associated my real name with my user name. Even though it is possible to know my real name from this I doubt that anyone has taken the time to do so
It's not hard to associate one person's real name with his online name if that person reveals too much too often regarding his/her own real lives to the world
Do you know that it's possible to get the social security numbers of many people?
Many associations (plural) routinely put their membership list online, and yes, with their member's social-security-number listed as well
Re: (Score:3)
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone else said, your relatives/friends could mindlessly give away your information on Facebook or something such as that. Even just a name may be enough for someone to learn something revealing about you with a quick search
When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
After all, the word "Privacy" came from "Private", and the most "Private" thing there is yourself - yes, your very own self
I saw someone on TV on the weekend quoting figures that 30% of US companies said they would not hire a job applicant if they saw a picture of them holding a glass of wine on a social media web site. So all it takes is some dickhead labelling a picture of you at a party on THEIR Facebook page, and they may have damaged your reputation for years.
No action from you required
Re: (Score:3)
When you do not reveal everything to your friends, colleagues, and even to your own family members, how much do you think they can reveal to the world about you?
I really don't think I can keep my friends/relatives from knowing my name...
True, but do they all know your social security card number?
Do they know your credit card number?
That's the gist of it
There are things that we simply can NOT keep to ourselves, like our names
But there are _still_ many other things that we can keep under wrap
I know, it takes efforts, and sometimes it seems like it's unnecessarily troublesome to be so extraordinarily careful with our own lives
But that's the cost of living in this modern society, where we are no longer a "Human Being", we are merely a "Number"
Re:To give away or not to give away our privacy (Score:4, Informative)
This is the difference between the US and the EU. In the US privacy is perhaps a commodity. In the EU it's a fundamental human right protected by the constution.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the difference between the US and the EU. In the US privacy is perhaps a commodity. In the EU it's a fundamental human right protected by the constution
In this world where data-mining is practised by almost everybody and their great-grand-mother, it does not matter if your privacy is protected by whatever "constitution", if you keep on revealing who you are to the world, then the world will know about you, and they will know something about you that you yourself haven't yet realized
Re: (Score:2)
hahahahah.. riiight.. until your government lackies hand over your data to the US government (or its corporations) like the lapdogs they are..
Re: (Score:2)
that's not true. we had a lot more privacy because ubiquitous surveillance was expensive so it could only be applied to a few people at a time.. of course, we made up for that by spreading paranoia about the capabilities of 'dear leaders' to compensate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point he's trying to convey is that in a small town, everyone knows everyone's business. There was no privacy.
Sure, the data didn't get to the corporate overlords as they didn't exist, and the feudal overlords didn't care they just wanted their due. No one farther than two towns over even cares so the information doesn't spread, but there was no real privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Privacy used to be an absolute. You could quite easily prove you were alone. Go in the middle of a field with a companion and simply look around. Have your conversation. It would go unnoticed and unrecorded. It was private because it couldn't have been anything else.
Now, I can't walk down the street without various buildings' cameras watching my every coming and going. Middle of a field? Assuming I can get to one without scrutiny, my companion could be recording the conversation. My own cl
Re: (Score:3)
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever.
INCORRECT. We've spent thousands of years in relative obscurity, one had to make a monumental effort to be noticed; fame has always gone hand-in-hand with wealth, as one of those rare, difficult acheivables. Well, the price of fame has plummeted like a rock.
We've never needed to be really concerned with privacy, getting information up to now has been realtively expensive, so privacy was easy. We now live in a different age, and privacy is the commodity. Your looking at the situation with an inverse lens.
If
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Insightful)
We spent thousands of years with no privacy whatsoever. The idea that we ever had some fanciful idea called "personal privacy" is largely a myth.
I've seen this chestnut trotted out before, but it's not as pertinent as a lot of people would like to think.
I live in the developing world in a locale where personal privacy is largely as it was 3000 years ago when these islands were first settled. I can assure you that a digital society that records your every action with perfect accuracy is not at all like village life.
Yes, it's true that everyone here knows everybody else's business. It's not at all unusual for me to meet someone in the street whom I haven't seen in months, and they'll already know what I've been up to earlier in the day. Buildings here are not designed to suppress sound (it's the tropics, don't you know), so you actually have to make an effort to ignore some of the things that happen next door.
But the local culture has long adapted to these circumstances. Privacy is actually jealously protected, not only by the individuals, but by their neighbours. They'll gossip like crazy, but they will not, for example, let a person's drunken weekend spree come into consideration when they're applying for work.
Most importantly of all, government and police are not given carte blanche access to their collective knowledge.
In short, there's a world of difference between a place without privacy and a surveillance society. Let's be clear that in this case we're talking about the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we spent thousands of years with a different sort of privacy. For most of history, a day's walk was enough to become completely anonymous. You were whoever you said you were. Nobody thought much about a right to start over because there was no way to prevent anyone from starting over at any time. If you were a peasant, even the king would just have to take your word for who you were if you weren't in your home village.
More recently, there was in theory a permanent record, but it was scattered around. Ye
Not true (Score:3)
Keeping records may sound nice, but what purpose does the record hold? If you don't really absolutely need the information, you
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Funny)
People seem confused in the differences between "I do nothing illegal" and "I have nothing to hide".
Exactly. I suggest that all those who equate wanting privacy with being criminals be forced to carry out their personal necessities like bathing, grooming and using the restroom on national television. We can call it the "but you've got nothing to hide you dumb shit" show.
Nah (Score:5, Funny)
Chill. Entropy wins every time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard for people to understand what is wrong with their browsing habits being collected automatically, especially when they don't see how it affects them. And a lot of people have no problem declaring to the world their strange fetishes [penny-arcade.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chill people, the world is a pretty good place.
Re: (Score:2)
Chill people, the world is a pretty good place.
applying your subjective experience to everyone else, in spite of differing experiences and environments, is arrogant to say the least..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:anything we can do? (Score:2)
Maybe.
We would need to have a Privacy Explosion so epic, we whisper it in the same tones as the Godwin subject. Right now it's all "leaking", and "mostly contained", but suppose absolutely everyone had the entire dataset on everyone else, through some kind of nuclear grade data blunder.
I'd see a shift in fashion to consumer "privacy suits" with faces completely hidden.
Re: (Score:3)
People tend to confuse "anonymity" with "privacy". The US government and anyone else willing to invest the time has had the ability to gather data about an individual way before the Internet was even born. It just took longer to compile the information. Some readily accessible sources of information includes public utility bills, drivers license's, property titles, vehicle titles, credit history, marriage licenses, school registrations information at all levels, and of course tax related information. None
Re: (Score:3)
"Many people just don't seem to care about privacy any more. "
It's not just that, it's that the internet was never designed with privacy in mind to begin with. The cost of maintaining privacy are huge because just the act of communication on a digital network can be de-anonymized quickly because of the nature of electronic communication. No one predicted the internet would get to be what it was. So much of it's infrastructure was never designed with privacy or security in mind. Think about how encryptio
Re:I believe so. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
The window tax was a property tax based on the number of windows in a house. It was a significant social, cultural, and architectural force in England, France and Scotland during the 18th and 19th centuries. To avoid the tax some houses from the period can be seen to have bricked-up window-spaces (ready to be glazed at a later date), as a result of the tax.
At that time, many people in Britain opposed income tax, on principle, because they believed that the disclosure of personal income represented an unacceptable governmental intrusion into private matters, and a potential threat to personal liberty.
The bigger the house, the more windows it was likely to have, and the more tax the occupants would pay. Nevertheless, the tax was unpopular, because it was seen by some as a tax on "light and air".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would make it very difficult if not impossible for evil to exist.
It would make it impossible for free will to exist.
Re: (Score:3)
It would make it very difficult if not impossible for evil to exist.
It would make it impossible for free will to exist.
I don't think knowing everyone else's thoughts excludes either evil or free will. Say for example there is a genocidal or warmongering group in power with enough popular support -- us knowing what they are thinking doesn't stop them acting. Even if we know their plans, they know we know, and the balance of power probably can't be shifted by that. Transparency may reveal evil but doesn't stop it. People in general are incredibly selective about what they believe, and psychic powers are unlikely to change
Data Protection Act (Score:3)
Not entirely sure about the reference to the UK, as we have some of the best data protection laws there are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Data Protection Act (Score:4, Informative)
They certainly do get enforced - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094253/Google-breached-UK-data-protection-laws-says-ICO [computerweekly.com]
Google also respond to Data Requests under the DPA.
Semantic Gripe, incoming! (Score:5, Interesting)
I take serious issue with anything that implies a person's problem is because of "The Internet." Like the poster above (and many more to come, I bet), people simply don't care anymore. If the Internet can be held responsible for anything, anymore, it's enabling people that are so desperate for attention, they need to inform others of every minutiae of their life.
Or I could have simply interpreted the title incorrectly; it is a silly thing.
Re: (Score:2)
people simply don't care anymore
You shouldn't mistake the apathy at something that isn't seen to directly influence them with a proper agreement when it does come to bite them personally. Most people are so intoxicated with their own importance or so sheep-like that they do not see how many laws passed to protect them can be later misused against them. I do however find that many people, once informed properly do take umbrage to what is happening.
I think that we need to stop calling people out on their apathy while showing the same toward
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I totally agree, but if we are to have any hope at all, then it is these masses that need to be aroused. Certain protests can be made by very visible means, take Gandhi walking to the sea to make salt - perfect protest. Very visible, gathered momentum, turned into a spectacle. In others protests though, it is much harder to have that sort of visibility. When teaching others in regards to online privacy or draconian laws, I try to put it as much into a "this could happen to you..." context. I have found
Just try shutting down your facebook account (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just try shutting down your facebook account (Score:5, Interesting)
You have plenty to hide. You just don't know who it needs to be hidden from yet.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe The Onion has it right [theonion.com].
Re:Just try shutting down your facebook account (Score:5, Informative)
The cat is out of the bag and no matter what I do I can't get it back in.
Well, the one thing you *can* do, is to inject so much noise into the internet about your persona, that the information that is currently on the web becomes practically useless.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?
Re:The irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?
Seems like the opposite of ironic to me. If you think leaving a permanent record of your actions on the internet is bad for you, then it stands to reason you would do as much as possible to remain anonymous in those actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I've gone the other direction by ensuring that my user name is well known and Like Dvorak, I don't care if you like me, just so long as you know my name.
Re: (Score:2)
Info about me (Score:5, Funny)
I am called Skapare. I've been called Skapare since I played text MUD games online. I do my best to annoy Slashdotters. My phone runs Android. So now I guess everyone knows everything there is to know about me.
Re: (Score:2)
Tinfoil hats aside (Score:3)
The problem as I see it is about the value (or price) of privacy. There have not been sufficient legal precedents to put a dollar value on this stuff, and that is the only thing that large corporations will respect. I suspect that many people will stop being so high and mighty about their privacy when they discover that it is only worth 47 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that many people will stop being so high and mighty about their privacy when they discover that it is only worth 47 cents.
If only that were the case. I would GLADLY pay 47 cents a week to opt out of all the tracking databases. Not the "we still collect your data but just won't show you targetted ads" opt-out, but "log everything to /dev/null" opt-out.
Personally I don't see how facebook alone can be valued at $100B if an individuals' privacy is only worth 47 cents. Even at 47cents/week with a billion users that still works out to revenue of $25B/yr - that's before any costs and the comeptition from the other 100+ or so "less
Re: (Score:2)
If only that were the case. I would GLADLY pay 47 cents a week to opt out of all the tracking databases.
Except for the database that tracks you paid your 47 cents. ;)
I wonder how much THAT data breach would be worth?
You see how this goes? This is why Do Not Call registries are so much political idiocy. Canada's was and is a joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Do_Not_Call_List [wikipedia.org]
The politicians are proposing "Don't think about elephants."
In reality it's "Best block, no be there."
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that targeted advertising can be to your detriment as well, right?
Because if a company knows more about you, they can also find out how much you are willing to pay for their goods and services, and tailor their prices to your profile. Which could also mean they raise the price they show to you, if you have a good income. It's called dynamic pricing, and you can be sure that central database will feed into the algorithms.
But really what are they collecting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem is that the information that these companies accumulate can be captured by the government, and that the logs may go back years (or forever)...
Straw man (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we so stupid that we do not see Microsoft and Apple spread rubbish like this to attack Google?
They like the old order where they were kings.
If you are concerned and worried about your privacy, start at home with your government.
No, you gave it away (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't "lost" nor was it "taken" .. you traded it for better prizes (free search, free storage, whatever).
Since by far most people don't even realize that a trade is being made, or if they do, they have only a cursory understanding of the exchange, I'd say "swindled" is the appropriate term here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google makes a fairly low amount of revenue per user, almost everyone on the internet would have no trouble paying it, if the micropayment and subscriber infrastructure were in place for that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Have We Lost Our Privacy To the Internet? (Score:2)
Yes.
Next?
yours, not mine (Score:2)
my e-mail is my own. I don't use google, nor facebook and that's why. in fact, the only place I give anything to is right here like this. oh, and my browser agent string is also generic -- not that I'm proxied or anything.
so my privacy, and my expectation of privacy, remains in tact, just as it did before the internet, when I was 8. though I can't say how many others have chosen to publish my information against my wishes, but I'm not legally responsible for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that doesn't make me legally responsible for it. so my "expectation of privacy" remains legally intact, and I'm not in breech of any NDAs. my actualy privacy matters much less than my legal expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
my legal expectation of privacy matters way more. for example, running a business, there are tonnes of confidential information and NDAs and such. if you send something through gmail, you are in breech of just about every NDA you've ever signed. that means that any confidential information that you've sent to me (that you also sent via gmail to anybody) is mine to sell publicly, and is no longer confidential because you put it into the public domain.
it's not my "privacy" that matters, it's my "confidence
Usual Grauniad hypocrisy... (Score:2)
This article brought to you by the newspaper that condemns rich people avoiding tax, and hedge funds -- whilst being almost entirely funded by an hedge fund operating from the Caymans.
Name changes will become the new norm at 18. (Score:4, Interesting)
Internet? (Score:2)
How? (Score:2)
We didn't lose it (Score:2)
We didn't lose it, we gave it away.*
We need to stop being the product (Score:2)
The paywalled model is utterly ridiculous for the internet and the ad/privacy supported model is utterly destructive. What we need is a honors system like paying for deadtree newspapers (except with user selectable amounts). It does not eliminate ads, but generates enough revenue to act as a counterweight, that makes it easier for the business owner to care abo
The young generation (Score:2)
I am a bit worried about the generation of kids in high school and younger now.
In particular kids need an education about Facebook and Twitter, which feel personal but are really public, before they start using it.
Alternate payment (Score:2)
In the case of many services, you are getting something free (Gmail) in exchange for a certain amount of data about yourself. I'm not quite sure what all the FUD about lost privacy is.
If you want privacy, you are free within the market to pay the going price for a secure POP3, IMAP, or Exchange e-mail account and the various rates are reasonable dependent on your need for the service.
I would agree that people give up a lot of privacy, voluntarily and stupidly, namely on Facebook. This is not because of th
privacy isn't the problem, users are (Score:2)
Privacy is [finally] becoming more important... (Score:3)
5 years ago, you were considered a little nutty if you ranted about the loss of privacy on the internet. Now, in 2012, people are finally starting to realize that 1) loss of privacy on the internet has big consequences and 2) loss of privacy is not mandatory or required to use the internet. Those 'free' email addresses on gmail or hotmail are not really free but are paid for with your personal information and...that price is high.
Re: (Score:2)
UK is not in the EU?
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the European Union is a political construct, saying the UK is not in the EU would be like saying Hawaii is not in the USA.
Re:I live in the EU (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as you like to poke fun at us Americans(often rightfully so), we're all in this together.
Re: (Score:2)
And you have no friends with any of those accounts?