a) I'm not aware of any websites that announce to visitors that their site is using Google Analytics and that their privacy may be compromised by visiting, and give them a chance to leave before they are tracked.
And this is one point, I might agree with privacy advocates. Visitors should be made aware that they are being tracked and given the option to leave a site if they don't want to be tracked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
b) Most people aren't familiar with how to block this stuff or comfortable attempting to do so, or even aware that it's possible.
That calls for a public awareness effort, not an industry killing campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
There's no indication that Apple will be maintaining databases of information on people, or revealing any information used for ad placement with third parties. However, if that is their intent, they should be prevented from doing so.
We'll see. Till now, Apple wasn't an advertiser. Now they are. And if the iAds anti-trust case shows anything, it's that they clearly have the intention to collect data and pass it on to potential clients. What and how much they collect and pass on is debatable of course. But if anybody thinks that Apple the advertiser will somehow be more innocent than Google the advertiser, they are sorely mistaken.
Should they be stopped? Hard to say. Ultimately, you are choosing to use Apple's hardware and software. Shouldn't they be allowed to do with it as they please? Don't like an OS with advertising software baked in? There are other alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I agree, these companies and programs should not be allowed to collect information besides the absolute minimum required for the purpose. For example, a credit card company doesn't need to know anything about what you bought, only the charge amount and the merchant id.
Double edged sword. A lot of that information is also used to prevent identity theft and fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Stores ought not be able to store information regarding purchasing habits beyond the amounts applicable within the loyalty program. The difference with these at least is that most people do actually have some notion of what is being tracked and it is a real choice whether to participate.
Actually, I doubt most people know that Air Miles or their Sears Card tracks their purchases. Most people think that you get the points simply for shopping there. Hence the term "loyalty card". Very few people are probably aware that part and parcel with those loyalty rewards is a loss of privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
First, there's a very big difference between specific tracking of persons "on the street" and systematic tracking of everyone on the Internet. So, I reject your analogy outright as fundamentally flawed. Second, it is an intrusion into my home if they track what websites I am visiting and what I am doing on them when I do that from my home.
Fair enough on the first point. But on the second point...again...you don't own the website you visit. Somebody else does. And they are entitled to track who comes and goes. I do agree that you should be made aware that you are being tracked (just like signs in a mall that say you are being monitored via CCTV). But I fail to see how a website tracking visitors is any more intrusive than the security cameras in a mall filming your every step. You are on their premises. It's their right. Ditto for when you visit somebody else's site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Systematic collection of data regarding peoples personal habits on the internet is so fundamentally different from the examples you give, and represents a possibility of abuses of that data so great, that it does justify stricter regulation. I understand that you think it's all fine, but my opinion is that you just aren't a person who tends to fully and carefully think things through to their full implications.
Actually, I just don't think the implications are as severe you and some other folks on here make the out to be. I feel there are reasonable options for people sincerely concerned about privacy (adblockers for example). I believe people who care deeply about privacy should take personal responsibility for their privacy. They should make sure their privacy settings are on, the appropriate software is installed and that they avoid sites which they know track them. But I fail to see why legislation is required across the board because a very, very tiny minority of people thinks everybody should wear a tin foil hat and be equally up in arms about the issue. That people aren't should tell you something.
And I strongly suspect that if such stringent privacy legislation were to come in, that it effectively killed off a huge chunk of revenue for web-based service providers, the public would be far more upset about losing or suffering from degraded services than they would be about privacy issues. I'll be money on that.
Finally, if there's public demand why has it not materialized. For example, MobileMe is a great service. Apple could easily advertise the privacy aspect of MobileMe. And if there's enough public demand for privacy, the customer base for MobileMe would grow exponentially. The fact that Apple doesn't care to even push the privacy angle on MobileMe shows you how concerned the public really is.
If you are emailing your doctor about some medical condition or treatment, then there is no difference at all. If you are visiting medical websites to research something you may have, there is very little difference.
The two are different scenarios.
1) Emailing your doctor. Nobody says you have to use Hotmail or GMail to do it. You are welcome to use any sort of e-mail service that does not track user information. But if you use Hotmail or GMail, why should you not have to accept the terms they come with? And we really aren't talking about Microsoft publishing your email in a public forum. We're talking about Viagara ads if you email your doctor about ED.
2) Researching a medical issue. Let's say you go to Chapters or Barnes and Noble and get a book on a certain disease. Or you go to the library and do the same. They now have information on you visiting their premises and being interested in a certain topic. They also have information on what time and where you accessed the information. How is visiting a website different? Why should that medical site not be allowed to see who visited their site from where and when, while your public library could easily pull up the same information on you?
That's the problem. It's nearly impossible for a user to know that they're being tracked. Nor does the typical user know how to protect their privacy.
Since when is ignorance an excuse for anything? Should we have laws to protect people from every little thing that they can do to themselves? Personally, I'm not a nanny-state kinda guy so maybe we have philosophical differences on this point. I don't need the government to protect me from myself. I believe people should take personal responsibility for their privacy.
And if ignorance is the issue, then let's have a public education campaign that informs people about the issue and what they can do about it.
I believe people who care deeply about privacy should take personal responsibility for their privacy. They should make sure their privacy settings are on, the appropriate software is installed and that they avoid sites which they know track them. But I fail to see why legislation is required across the board because a very, very tiny minority of people thinks everybody should wear a tin foil hat and be equally up in arms about the issue. That people aren't should tell you something.
Well, the "tin foil hat" comment indicates that you know your argument is a losing one. When all else fails, portray the opposition as nut jobs, eh?
In fact, the whole "personal responsibility" argument is, to use a word I don't often, bullshit. This simply boils down to allowing privacy abuses to continue. Like the battle against malware, this essentially give the upper hand to those who would abuse privacy, because, by the nature of the struggle, they will always be able to remain a step ahead of those trying to protect theirs. This is what I mean when I say -- and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but simply to point out to others the weakness of your position -- that you are not a person who thinks things through to their consequences.
It is the job of government, at least in the US, to, among other things, ".. provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ..." While, one could argue that by defense is meant military defense, I would maintain that the founders meant more generally defense against the enemies of liberty.
It is very much the job of government, the obligation of government, to protect it's citizens against individuals, groups, and organizations that threaten our liberty, and liberty and privacy, and a healthy democracy, go hand in hand.
Quote:
And I strongly suspect that if such stringent privacy legislation were to come in, that it effectively killed off a huge chunk of revenue for web-based service providers, the public would be far more upset about losing or suffering from degraded services than they would be about privacy issues. I'll be money on that.
And I strongly suspect, in fact I am certain, that this is utter nonsense.
Advertising would continue as it does, it's just that ad agencies would no longer be allowed to collect and maintain information that they don't really need to advertise effectively.
1) Emailing your doctor. Nobody says you have to use Hotmail or GMail to do it. You are welcome to use any sort of e-mail service that does not track user information. But if you use Hotmail or GMail, why should you not have to accept the terms they come with? And we really aren't talking about Microsoft publishing your email in a public forum. We're talking about Viagara ads if you email your doctor about ED.
2) Researching a medical issue. Let's say you go to Chapters or Barnes and Noble and get a book on a certain disease. Or you go to the library and do the same. They now have information on you visiting their premises and being interested in a certain topic. They also have information on what time and where you accessed the information. How is visiting a website different? Why should that medical site not be allowed to see who visited their site from where and when, while your public library could easily pull up the same information on you?
1. Are you really this naive? Do you really believe that this information can only be used for the purposes expressed by the collector? Even if we assume that the organization collecting this information has none but the most pure intentions, there are still any number of ways the information can be abused: by individual employees, by hackers, ...
The danger isn't entirely what the company that compiles the database intends to do with it. The danger is also in the myriad of ways it can be exploited by others. The danger is in the very existence of the database itself. What folly is it for Congress to kill the Pentagon's TIA (Total Information Awareness) program, yet allow private companies to essentially do the same thing. It makes a mockery of the idea of privacy and liberty.
2. You make a point regarding libraries that undermines your own position. We've seen well enough that the government is often more than willing to violate your privacy to surreptitiously (using national security letters) go after borrower data from libraries. Do you really think they'd be any less willing and eager to go after data at Google or elsewhere? Data which it would be illegal for the government to collect itself.
Comments
a) I'm not aware of any websites that announce to visitors that their site is using Google Analytics and that their privacy may be compromised by visiting, and give them a chance to leave before they are tracked.
And this is one point, I might agree with privacy advocates. Visitors should be made aware that they are being tracked and given the option to leave a site if they don't want to be tracked.
b) Most people aren't familiar with how to block this stuff or comfortable attempting to do so, or even aware that it's possible.
That calls for a public awareness effort, not an industry killing campaign.
There's no indication that Apple will be maintaining databases of information on people, or revealing any information used for ad placement with third parties. However, if that is their intent, they should be prevented from doing so.
We'll see. Till now, Apple wasn't an advertiser. Now they are. And if the iAds anti-trust case shows anything, it's that they clearly have the intention to collect data and pass it on to potential clients. What and how much they collect and pass on is debatable of course. But if anybody thinks that Apple the advertiser will somehow be more innocent than Google the advertiser, they are sorely mistaken.
Should they be stopped? Hard to say. Ultimately, you are choosing to use Apple's hardware and software. Shouldn't they be allowed to do with it as they please? Don't like an OS with advertising software baked in? There are other alternatives.
I agree, these companies and programs should not be allowed to collect information besides the absolute minimum required for the purpose. For example, a credit card company doesn't need to know anything about what you bought, only the charge amount and the merchant id.
Double edged sword. A lot of that information is also used to prevent identity theft and fraud.
Stores ought not be able to store information regarding purchasing habits beyond the amounts applicable within the loyalty program. The difference with these at least is that most people do actually have some notion of what is being tracked and it is a real choice whether to participate.
Actually, I doubt most people know that Air Miles or their Sears Card tracks their purchases. Most people think that you get the points simply for shopping there. Hence the term "loyalty card". Very few people are probably aware that part and parcel with those loyalty rewards is a loss of privacy.
First, there's a very big difference between specific tracking of persons "on the street" and systematic tracking of everyone on the Internet. So, I reject your analogy outright as fundamentally flawed. Second, it is an intrusion into my home if they track what websites I am visiting and what I am doing on them when I do that from my home.
Fair enough on the first point. But on the second point...again...you don't own the website you visit. Somebody else does. And they are entitled to track who comes and goes. I do agree that you should be made aware that you are being tracked (just like signs in a mall that say you are being monitored via CCTV). But I fail to see how a website tracking visitors is any more intrusive than the security cameras in a mall filming your every step. You are on their premises. It's their right. Ditto for when you visit somebody else's site.
Systematic collection of data regarding peoples personal habits on the internet is so fundamentally different from the examples you give, and represents a possibility of abuses of that data so great, that it does justify stricter regulation. I understand that you think it's all fine, but my opinion is that you just aren't a person who tends to fully and carefully think things through to their full implications.
Actually, I just don't think the implications are as severe you and some other folks on here make the out to be. I feel there are reasonable options for people sincerely concerned about privacy (adblockers for example). I believe people who care deeply about privacy should take personal responsibility for their privacy. They should make sure their privacy settings are on, the appropriate software is installed and that they avoid sites which they know track them. But I fail to see why legislation is required across the board because a very, very tiny minority of people thinks everybody should wear a tin foil hat and be equally up in arms about the issue. That people aren't should tell you something.
And I strongly suspect that if such stringent privacy legislation were to come in, that it effectively killed off a huge chunk of revenue for web-based service providers, the public would be far more upset about losing or suffering from degraded services than they would be about privacy issues. I'll be money on that.
Finally, if there's public demand why has it not materialized. For example, MobileMe is a great service. Apple could easily advertise the privacy aspect of MobileMe. And if there's enough public demand for privacy, the customer base for MobileMe would grow exponentially. The fact that Apple doesn't care to even push the privacy angle on MobileMe shows you how concerned the public really is.
If you are emailing your doctor about some medical condition or treatment, then there is no difference at all. If you are visiting medical websites to research something you may have, there is very little difference.
The two are different scenarios.
1) Emailing your doctor. Nobody says you have to use Hotmail or GMail to do it. You are welcome to use any sort of e-mail service that does not track user information. But if you use Hotmail or GMail, why should you not have to accept the terms they come with? And we really aren't talking about Microsoft publishing your email in a public forum. We're talking about Viagara ads if you email your doctor about ED.
2) Researching a medical issue. Let's say you go to Chapters or Barnes and Noble and get a book on a certain disease. Or you go to the library and do the same. They now have information on you visiting their premises and being interested in a certain topic. They also have information on what time and where you accessed the information. How is visiting a website different? Why should that medical site not be allowed to see who visited their site from where and when, while your public library could easily pull up the same information on you?
That's the problem. It's nearly impossible for a user to know that they're being tracked. Nor does the typical user know how to protect their privacy.
Since when is ignorance an excuse for anything? Should we have laws to protect people from every little thing that they can do to themselves? Personally, I'm not a nanny-state kinda guy so maybe we have philosophical differences on this point. I don't need the government to protect me from myself. I believe people should take personal responsibility for their privacy.
And if ignorance is the issue, then let's have a public education campaign that informs people about the issue and what they can do about it.
I believe people who care deeply about privacy should take personal responsibility for their privacy. They should make sure their privacy settings are on, the appropriate software is installed and that they avoid sites which they know track them. But I fail to see why legislation is required across the board because a very, very tiny minority of people thinks everybody should wear a tin foil hat and be equally up in arms about the issue. That people aren't should tell you something.
Well, the "tin foil hat" comment indicates that you know your argument is a losing one. When all else fails, portray the opposition as nut jobs, eh?
In fact, the whole "personal responsibility" argument is, to use a word I don't often, bullshit. This simply boils down to allowing privacy abuses to continue. Like the battle against malware, this essentially give the upper hand to those who would abuse privacy, because, by the nature of the struggle, they will always be able to remain a step ahead of those trying to protect theirs. This is what I mean when I say -- and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but simply to point out to others the weakness of your position -- that you are not a person who thinks things through to their consequences.
It is the job of government, at least in the US, to, among other things, ".. provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ..." While, one could argue that by defense is meant military defense, I would maintain that the founders meant more generally defense against the enemies of liberty.
It is very much the job of government, the obligation of government, to protect it's citizens against individuals, groups, and organizations that threaten our liberty, and liberty and privacy, and a healthy democracy, go hand in hand.
And I strongly suspect that if such stringent privacy legislation were to come in, that it effectively killed off a huge chunk of revenue for web-based service providers, the public would be far more upset about losing or suffering from degraded services than they would be about privacy issues. I'll be money on that.
And I strongly suspect, in fact I am certain, that this is utter nonsense.
Advertising would continue as it does, it's just that ad agencies would no longer be allowed to collect and maintain information that they don't really need to advertise effectively.
The two are different scenarios.
1) Emailing your doctor. Nobody says you have to use Hotmail or GMail to do it. You are welcome to use any sort of e-mail service that does not track user information. But if you use Hotmail or GMail, why should you not have to accept the terms they come with? And we really aren't talking about Microsoft publishing your email in a public forum. We're talking about Viagara ads if you email your doctor about ED.
2) Researching a medical issue. Let's say you go to Chapters or Barnes and Noble and get a book on a certain disease. Or you go to the library and do the same. They now have information on you visiting their premises and being interested in a certain topic. They also have information on what time and where you accessed the information. How is visiting a website different? Why should that medical site not be allowed to see who visited their site from where and when, while your public library could easily pull up the same information on you?
1. Are you really this naive? Do you really believe that this information can only be used for the purposes expressed by the collector? Even if we assume that the organization collecting this information has none but the most pure intentions, there are still any number of ways the information can be abused: by individual employees, by hackers, ...
The danger isn't entirely what the company that compiles the database intends to do with it. The danger is also in the myriad of ways it can be exploited by others. The danger is in the very existence of the database itself. What folly is it for Congress to kill the Pentagon's TIA (Total Information Awareness) program, yet allow private companies to essentially do the same thing. It makes a mockery of the idea of privacy and liberty.
2. You make a point regarding libraries that undermines your own position. We've seen well enough that the government is often more than willing to violate your privacy to surreptitiously (using national security letters) go after borrower data from libraries. Do you really think they'd be any less willing and eager to go after data at Google or elsewhere? Data which it would be illegal for the government to collect itself.