Wow! You and the person you replied to are idiots. I can tell your parents wanted you guys to STFU all there time.
Your rude, pointless, single shotgun posts are getting very tiresome, if you have an opinion then state it, but with substance and a little respectect towards the person you disagree with. Especially with members like Benjamin Frost who have been here so long and put the time in to make this board one of the most enjoyable around. One more post, calling people idiots or telling them to STFU and I will request to have you removed.
Your rude, pointless, single shotgun posts are getting very tiresome, if you have an opinion then state it, but with substance and a little respectect towards the person you disagree with. Especially with members like Benjamin Frost who have been here so long and put the time in to make this board one of the most enjoyable around. One more post, calling people idiots or telling them to STFU and I will request to have you removed.
whatever. your lame opinions about everything is very tiresome. Go try to sell your linux-android crap elsewhere. And BTW-you can STFU too.
And I can tell you were one of those children whose parents let him be heard; we all have to suffer the consequences now.
I can tell you haven't got a creative bone in your body. Maybe it's because your parents silenced you in a closet or with duct tape. Whatever the case may be, children being treated the way you asserted is good enough reason to hope you never have any children you can subdue or stifle.
I love all the "let your child become accustomed to uncomfortable environments, it will benefit them in the future...I'm a badass no nonsense parent" comments. That's silly. Look, a baby cries for two reasons: to communicate something it can't in words and just because. If one of those reasons happens to be that it gets hot in there around 11pm and you had no idea precious to this device then great! It may have saved you having to check on them dozens of nights. No harm in trying it. Stop trying to read too much into it. Your baby's sleeping habits are not being sent to the NSA nor does this make you a helicopter parent. From a scientific perspective, I think it's pretty cool.
And I can tell you were one of those children whose parents let him be heard; we all have to suffer the consequences now.
Whatever...
You made an idiotic statement that children should be squelched. People with that sort of attitude usually haven't had children, or they have a superiority complex. My guess towards you is just that. Maybe you won't try to be such a bully or dictator if you ever do have children. Regardless, their well being, their ability to grow and communicate will be in question knowing what a domineering parent you would probably be.
In the early 60's punishment was usually swift and straight to the point if you interrupted people/parents in conversation. Though my parents where never the dictator or domineering type as you seem to be. We all knew when to speak, but were also encouraged to participate. Maybe you feel powerful and invigorated by bullying children. There has to be someone somewhere you can be above... It isn't near me - I assure you of that.
If you make an idiotic statement and I feel like reminding you what an idiotic statement it is, then I will do just that.
If mods want to delete my posts reminding you of you of the idiotic statement you made then so be it.
Are you feeling tough and domineering now? Any of you? If so -if you have the guts- and you are within a few hours drive of Notre Dame, let me know. PM is fine. I will gladly come see you and personally explain all this to you. Just remember, I am not a little child that you can bully. Alternately, I am what it is in your nightmares relentlessly chasing you down.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181737/preorders-kick-off-for-sproutling-a-nest-for-your-childs-nursery/40#post_2575792" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>mstone</strong> <a href="/t/181737/preorders-kick-off-for-sproutling-a-nest-for-your-childs-nursery/40#post_2575792"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p>I can see your point, it may be unethical, but it is not illegal, unlike selling your personal information is, as was alleged by the OP.</p><p>But let's put the blame where it really belongs, on the advertisers and the websites that host them. If the website owner does not put scripts in the page to allow tracking and the display of dynamic ads, Google would not have any way to track you or send you ads. Of course the funding for the websites comes from ads, so without them, the website might not exist.</p><p>Anyone who is concerned with what information Google is collecting about them is perfectly capable of preventing it with some simple steps such as never logging into Google services and using ad blockers like Ghostery. Unfortunately iOS devices do not permit ad blockers.</p></div></div>
Blah, just wanted to put a perspective on your posts. You nearly always mention Google as a privacy offender tho rarely mention others by name. Kudos to you for mentioning Acxiom prominently this time. Now for the perspective.
What is Google's business model and what do they use profiles of you and me for? As far as I know the business model depends on ad revenue to support it's widely-used and extensive search products, and your anonymized "profile" serves to make Google a more valuable resource to advertisers, increasing returns to Google investors and allowing business expansion and research. I don't think directly selling personal information to third parties is any part of their business. It's almost entirely on-line ad placement. Selling what they know as a Google product would cause harm to their primary business would it not? Therefor it's likely treated like the crown jewels and never leaves their control.
What is the business model for Acxiom who you mentioned, and what purpose is served by the highly identifiable and personal information they collect? Is the sale of personal information including name, address, occupation, sexual preferences, relationship status, income, family dynamics, social interactions, and leisure activities a part of their business? If so why do you believe Google to be the most dangerous to your privacy, more so than big data-brokers such as Acxiom and the 100''s/1000's of companies like them flying under the radar?
Personally I don't really see anything fearsome about Google so far. The only thing they do with what they think they know about us personally is sell ad placement and views to the best of your knowledge and mine. Correct me if I'm wrong. (PS: Google gets several things wrong in my profile including even my age-range) So perhaps you're giving more weight to something that could potentially happen someday maybe, than to real and happening today privacy dangers? I would agree that there's a potential for misuse of information someday if things were to change really significantly at Google , but MY concerns today are with the real rather than imagined possible future.
One further question. There's no shortage of advice on how to avoid feeding Google. Perhaps you can offer advice on how to avoid feeding Acxiom, or companies like them.
Blah, just wanted to put a perspective on your posts. You nearly always mention Google as a privacy offender tho rarely mention others by name. Kudos to you for mentioning Acxiom prominently this time. Now for the perspective.
What is Google's business model and what do they use profiles of you and me for? As far as I know the business model depends on ad revenue to support it's widely-used and extensive search products, and your anonymized "profile" serves to make Google a more valuable resource to advertisers, increasing returns to Google investors and allowing business expansion and research. I don't think directly selling personal information to third parties is any part of their business. It's almost entirely on-line ad placement. Selling what they know as a Google product would cause harm to their primary business would it not? Therefor it's likely treated like the crown jewels and never leaves their control.
What is the business model for Acxiom who you mentioned, and what purpose is served by the highly identifiable and personal information they collect? Is the sale of personal information including name, address, occupation, sexual preferences, relationship status, income, family dynamics, social interactions, and leisure activities a part of their business? If so why do you believe Google to be the most dangerous to your privacy, more so than big data-brokers such as Acxiom and the 100''s/1000's of companies like them flying under the radar?
Personally I don't really see anything fearsome about Google so far. The only thing they do with what they think they know about us personally is sell ad placement and views to the best of your knowledge and mine. Correct me if I'm wrong. (PS: Google gets several things wrong in my profile including even my age-range) So perhaps you're giving more weight to something that could potentially happen someday maybe, than to real and happening today privacy dangers? I would agree that there's a potential for misuse of information someday if things were to change really significantly at Google , but MY concerns today are with the real rather than imagined possible future.
One further question. There's no shortage of advice on how to avoid feeding Google. Perhaps you can offer advice on how to avoid feeding Acxiom, or companies like them.
I'm not really sure why I'm replying, but here goes...
I usually try to mention other companies or do like above, with "google and their ilk", because it's absolutely more than just google doing this crap. Acxiom is probably the worst of the non-online service providing data miners and google is probably the worst of the online service providing data miners (though facebook isn't far behind - they're just easier to avoid). Six vs a half dozen, no one gets a pass.
Just because other companies are attempting to do the same thing as google (though in almost all cases, far less effectively), doesn't excuse what they're doing. Full stop, read that sentence again until you can reply without the "everyone does it" nonsense. I don't feel bad about using google as a proxy for what's wrong across the world in terms of data mining, because they (and maybe facebook) are not only the most prominent, but the most prolific and effective at what they do.
Many years ago I had great respect for Google. During their early years the founders believed in providing great search results without tracking individual users. Larry and Sergey had a well-publicized argument about it at one point, and Sergey finally caved. That was one of a handful of key turning points in their history.
The company is no longer trustworthy for trustworthiness' sake. Look at the Safari fiasco as just one example. Look at the StreetView/WiFi fiasco as another. Google is a large multinational corporation, made up of tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom are flawed human beings. It's unavoidable. They are stewards of what is likely the biggest trove of personal tracking data in human history. There is no way on Earth to keep that safe indefinitely, and in fact we've seen several instances in recent years of security problems, even with the incredible resources they throw at security.
Your argument that you don't see anything fearsome about google SO FAR doesn't hold up, because the lifetime of that data is forever. It's not a matter of if google (management, workers, encryption technology, policies, legal issues, etc.) will change, it's only a matter of when. They're not as bad as facebook about changing policies every week, but remember, originally they didn't even want to use cookies to track users. Seems almost quaint now, no?
Advice on how to avoid Acxiom? It's difficult, though in some ways easier than google. Don't use plastic to make everyday purchases. Don't use (incredibly obnoxious) "loyalty cards". Don't ever, ever! give retailers your phone number when they ask, or even your zip code. Don't use facebook or other public social networking companies, etc. Yes, they have access to public records, so there are a few things you cannot avoid, like property ownership, but remember, google has access to that data as well.
I don't believe you're really interested in learning about why this kind of tracking is bad, but if you are, and for others reading this, I highly recommend reading "Dragnet Nation", by Julia Angwin. Great research, great information, though even she doesn't understand the deeper stuff because she doesn't understand the underlying technologies.
I don't believe you're really interested in learning about why this kind of tracking is bad, but if you are, and for others reading this, I highly recommend reading "Dragnet Nation", by Julia Angwin. Great research, great information, though even she doesn't understand the deeper stuff because she doesn't understand the underlying technologies.
I'm very interested in the subject of privacy and not just on-line either. A recent event helped frame the importance of it as a matter of fact.
I completely agree with Angwin's conclusion. Burner phones, fake credit cards, anonymous e-mail and the like can't hide you. The only way to wrest back some semblance of control over our private lives is serious political action. It wouldn't even harm a company like Google if personal data-gathering were limited by strict law. Everyone would be on the same playing field if it was properly and fairly enacted, and advertisers ain't gonna stop advertising. Google would still get more than their fir share and their revenue stream would stay intact, just not as "personal". AI and other blog sites would still have an income source to support the costs and administration so the services could continue. On the surface it seems like it would be a no-brainer to do so wouldn't it? Pass international laws (not just US or EU) to restrict and limit the collection of personal data and ban on-line tracking entirely. Simple right?
You and I both know it won't happen, and it's not the Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's that would make it impossible. You seem to surprisingly focus on the little picture as tho companies like Google are the bad-guys and are the ones to make it all better if only they would. They "and their ilk" are the source of all anti-privacy evil so to speak. So take away their ability to track and data-mine users along with everyone else's legal right to do so too, (Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, ATT and everyone else), and they still survive just fine IMHO. But start treading on government agencies turf, or financial institutions, or even university researchers with the best of intentions and any efforts to rein in the data-mongers are dead before they start. That's where the REAL stonewall is.
There was a recent story about a European effort to make researchers more effective in their work. Using sensors and tech that allows a person's physical status and state-of-mind to be determined they think learning opportunities could be more effectively designed, targeted and delivered for you specifically. If you aren't emotionally and/or physically prepared to understand a data-set as presented it gets modified so as to be more useful to you individually. Sounds like a noble goal doesn't it and one that could see parts transition to public education if proven effective. Do you see any dangers in admirable programs like this, or a likelihood that the same EU funding the project would put legal limits on it?
Much as you want to stare at Google, or Facebook or Acxiom that's not where the source of the problem lies nor where it can be corrected, and the ones that can fix it have no interest in really doing so IMO. They may not even recognize where the problem really resides.
It matters not if Google collects personal data to deliver ads. It's entirely fixable and Google can still go on offering an incredible search engine if our government representatives really made a fair honest and comprehensive effort to give us back privacy rights. But Google themselves can't fix it no matter what they do. So what do you suggest and how would you proceed if you were king? Honest question.
Wow, so justification for the likes of google is, 'Welcome to the 21st century'?!?!? Very sad. So, just roll over and take it, since it's the 21st century?!?!? Unbelievable. Reminds me of when Coach Bobby Knight got into trouble telling a reporter that when you are being raped and there is nothing you can do about it, you may as well relax and enjoy it. Don't be a sheep. Fight against it!! Do what is right to fight unethical behavior.
Thank you! Both for being a fighter and for pointing out the Bobby Knight quote. I'd long forgotten about that, but I think it illustrates perfectly what so many people are doing now. What's happening is vile and reprehensible, and most people are still just laying back and taking it even though they feel violated (social media firms are near the very bottom in "trustability" surveys, so people DO know better, they're just not rebelling in big numbers yet).
Knight's exact quote was: "I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it". Sick man. Just like McNealy.
Please keep spreading the word, and I see myself using this quote a lot in the future to illustrate the point. Thanks.
Sorry for my delayed response. You're very welcome, Blah64. I agree with you - the Knight quote IS the perfect illustration for this. We definitely think a lot a like. And mstone, you made very good points as well, and I don't want to minimize them. But if we don't get angry about what is happening, our children and our children's children will suffer for it. I truly hate how google's stock continues to rise based on unethical behavior, not to mention the fact that they blow money and completely idiotic purchased and are rewarded with increased stock price as well. Unbelievable, and definitely a problem that needs to be solved.
Sorry for my delayed response. You're very welcome, Blah64. I agree with you - the Knight quote IS the perfect illustration for this. We definitely think a lot a like. And mstone, you made very good points as well, and I don't want to minimize them. But if we don't get angry about what is happening, our children and our children's children will suffer for it. I truly hate how google's stock continues to rise based on unethical behavior, not to mention the fact that they blow money and completely idiotic purchased and are rewarded with increased stock price as well. Unbelievable, and definitely a problem that needs to be solved.
While dislike of Google is absolutely OK, and they've invited much of the criticism, how does Google's stock price cause our children to suffer and why does something need to be done about it? If instead you really meant something should be done about on-line data-mining I'll absolutely agree with you. Don't stop with Google either (because you couldn't legally anyway) but make sure it applies to everyone whether Apple, or Facebook or ATT. Not just US either, make it International Law. Put everyone on the same playing field. For an expanded take see my previous post #65.
If done fairly and comprehensively it won't hurt companies like Google or Yahoo or websites like AI or ArsTechnica at all and we still get to use their excellent services without worries over what might happen with our data in the future. Problem solved right?
I'm very interested in the subject of privacy and not just on-line either. A recent event helped frame the importance of it as a matter of fact.
I completely agree with Angwin's conclusion. Burner phones, fake credit cards, anonymous e-mail and the like can't hide you. The only way to wrest back some semblance of control over our private lives is serious political action. It wouldn't even harm a company like Google if personal data-gathering were limited by strict law. Everyone would be on the same playing field if it was properly and fairly enacted, and advertisers ain't gonna stop advertising. Google would still get more than their fir share and their revenue stream would stay intact, just not as "personal". AI and other blog sites would still have an income source to support the costs and administration so the services could continue. On the surface it seems like it would be a no-brainer to do so wouldn't it? Pass international laws (not just US or EU) to restrict and limit the collection of personal data and ban on-line tracking entirely. Simple right?
You and I both know it won't happen, and it's not the Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's that would make it impossible. You seem to surprisingly focus on the little picture as tho companies like Google are the bad-guys and are the ones to make it all better if only they would. They "and their ilk" are the source of all anti-privacy evil so to speak. So take away their ability to track and data-mine users along with everyone else's legal right to do so too, (Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, ATT and everyone else), and they still survive just fine IMHO. But start treading on government agencies turf, or financial institutions, or even university researchers with the best of intentions and any efforts to rein in the data-mongers are dead before they start. That's where the REAL stonewall is.
There was a recent story about a European effort to make researchers more effective in their work. Using sensors and tech that allows a person's physical status and state-of-mind to be determined they think learning opportunities could be more effectively designed, targeted and delivered for you specifically. If you aren't emotionally and/or physically prepared to understand a data-set as presented it gets modified so as to be more useful to you individually. Sounds like a noble goal doesn't it and one that could see parts transition to public education if proven effective. Do you see any dangers in admirable programs like this, or a likelihood that the same EU funding the project would put legal limits on it?
Much as you want to stare at Google, or Facebook or Acxiom that's not where the source of the problem lies nor where it can be corrected, and the ones that can fix it have no interest in really doing so IMO. They may not even recognize where the problem really resides.
It matters not if Google collects personal data to deliver ads. It's entirely fixable and Google can still go on offering an incredible search engine if our government representatives really made a fair honest and comprehensive effort to give us back privacy rights. But Google themselves can't fix it no matter what they do. So what do you suggest and how would you proceed if you were king? Honest question.
I agree with some bits of this, though not all of it. You are right that without legal restrictions, google and all the other data miners simply will not change their behavior. However, this does not justify their behavior! The problems with simply taking that tack alone are (at least) twofold:
1) These companies, and there are many of them, have HUGE $ behind them, with huge lobbying efforts. Extremely difficult to overcome.
2) Who wants this data just as much as the commercial organizations? Oh yeah, various govt organizations. And they have their own inside pathways to lobby against restrictive legislation.
Europe is a different situation, and I believe that we will continue to see leadership in these matters from overseas, at least for the foreseeable future. Hopefully those changes will slowly migrate here to the US. (Although the "right to be forgotten" notion is so unworkable as to be borderline stupidity -- as much as I appreciate the overall goals)
So how does the "problem" get fixed? Education. People -- everyday people -- need to understand that everything they do online, given the current laws, policies and behaviors, is tracked. They need to understand that there is a dark and non-beneficial side to said tracking.
Right now, most people have become addicted to services that are wedded to tracking, be it behavioral, location, purchases, whatever -- online or offline (paying with plastic, RFID tags in cars, etc.). There are few alternatives, in most people's minds, to facebook, even though according to most surveys, their user base doesn't trust or even like the company. That's a fragile system, and I definitely wouldn't be a long-term investor in facebook stock, even though it may have a few more upswings remaining.
The only way this changes is if or when the average Joes around the world become educated about the depth of tracking that's happening, care enough to change, and have alternatives that work well enough for them without 3rd party tracking. When enough people care, that will be the catalyst that forces legislative changes, which, as you suggest, is the only hope for real, meaningful changes to companies like google. They simply have too much riding on being able to track their users. And as was mentioned earlier, 3rd world nations are barely entering the pathways that we have been on for the past few years. US companies will be able to take advantage of less-sophisticated markets long after we have made changes here.
It matters not if Google collects personal data to deliver ads. It's entirely fixable and Google can still go on offering an incredible search engine if our government representatives really made a fair honest and comprehensive effort to give us back privacy rights.
It really does matter -- to them. Sure, they can continue to offer the same outstanding search engine, but they cannot generate the same level of revenue without tracking, and the more detailed, the more revenue, so they are hugely vested in getting deeper and deeper inside people's minds and behavior patterns.
If I was king? Ha. I would enact laws that completely disallow storing or analyzing any data on individuals that they did not publicly post themselves in their own name (i.e. public blogs). I would look to create and entrench standards (like Levison is attempting with Dime) that makes it impossible for centralized services to have access to data that is not intended for them, but to pass through to others. There would likely be no such thing as "free" email, because as we all know, there is no such thing, and if you took away the ability for google/yahoo/microsoft and the rest of the gang to analyze every email, there's a good chance they would no longer offer those kinds of services without fees. Or they would change radically.
At the very, very least, I would make it illegal to create profiles of users who did not actively and intentionally sign up for services (shadow profiles). This is the most egregious of all the tracking crap. I would make the penalties for this particular practice so painful that companies would tremble with fear. If you're caught with this kind of data, anyone that authorized it goes to jail for many years.
For the most part, we would enter a pay-for-play world. Sure, you could argue that some of our poorest citizens can't afford to pay for things like email, but I disagree. Most ISPs provide multiple emails with their paid internet services already, and many of our poor, less-educated citizens are the ones that are preyed upon the most heavily by these companies. I'm virtually unswayed by advertising, targeted or not, but the less educated you are, the more you can be swayed. Everyone is paying one way or another, but when you pay real money for services, there is far greater transparency.
Speaking of transparency, I would be happy to allow companies that actually provide end-user services (goog/fb) to continue on with modifications to their business practices, but the pure data miners, like axciom, would be shut down outright in "my kingdom".
re: education. Studies, training, learning tools, and all that, have a complex set of issues to deal with. I need to stop typing now, but in a nutshell, the individual/personal data in most cases should not leave the local devices. Anything that does leave the local devices should be legally required to be anonymized such that it's impossible to be attached back to any individual. This is stuff I've spent a long time thinking about and working with others to change policies on, and it's really challenging stuff.
Sure, there are holes all over the above off-the-cuff stream-of-consciousness ideas, and the devil's in the details. But it would take a long time to craft real policies, and for better or worse, I have real-world work to do...
Comments
Your rude, pointless, single shotgun posts are getting very tiresome, if you have an opinion then state it, but with substance and a little respectect towards the person you disagree with. Especially with members like Benjamin Frost who have been here so long and put the time in to make this board one of the most enjoyable around. One more post, calling people idiots or telling them to STFU and I will request to have you removed.
Your rude, pointless, single shotgun posts are getting very tiresome, if you have an opinion then state it, but with substance and a little respectect towards the person you disagree with. Especially with members like Benjamin Frost who have been here so long and put the time in to make this board one of the most enjoyable around. One more post, calling people idiots or telling them to STFU and I will request to have you removed.
whatever. your lame opinions about everything is very tiresome. Go try to sell your linux-android crap elsewhere. And BTW-you can STFU too.
And I can tell you were one of those children whose parents let him be heard; we all have to suffer the consequences now.
I can tell you haven't got a creative bone in your body. Maybe it's because your parents silenced you in a closet or with duct tape. Whatever the case may be, children being treated the way you asserted is good enough reason to hope you never have any children you can subdue or stifle.
And I can tell you were one of those children whose parents let him be heard; we all have to suffer the consequences now.
Whatever...
You made an idiotic statement that children should be squelched. People with that sort of attitude usually haven't had children, or they have a superiority complex. My guess towards you is just that. Maybe you won't try to be such a bully or dictator if you ever do have children. Regardless, their well being, their ability to grow and communicate will be in question knowing what a domineering parent you would probably be.
In the early 60's punishment was usually swift and straight to the point if you interrupted people/parents in conversation. Though my parents where never the dictator or domineering type as you seem to be. We all knew when to speak, but were also encouraged to participate. Maybe you feel powerful and invigorated by bullying children. There has to be someone somewhere you can be above... It isn't near me - I assure you of that.
If you make an idiotic statement and I feel like reminding you what an idiotic statement it is, then I will do just that.
If mods want to delete my posts reminding you of you of the idiotic statement you made then so be it.
Are you feeling tough and domineering now? Any of you? If so -if you have the guts- and you are within a few hours drive of Notre Dame, let me know. PM is fine. I will gladly come see you and personally explain all this to you. Just remember, I am not a little child that you can bully. Alternately, I am what it is in your nightmares relentlessly chasing you down.
Have a nice day 8^)
Blah, just wanted to put a perspective on your posts. You nearly always mention Google as a privacy offender tho rarely mention others by name. Kudos to you for mentioning Acxiom prominently this time. Now for the perspective.
What is Google's business model and what do they use profiles of you and me for? As far as I know the business model depends on ad revenue to support it's widely-used and extensive search products, and your anonymized "profile" serves to make Google a more valuable resource to advertisers, increasing returns to Google investors and allowing business expansion and research. I don't think directly selling personal information to third parties is any part of their business. It's almost entirely on-line ad placement. Selling what they know as a Google product would cause harm to their primary business would it not? Therefor it's likely treated like the crown jewels and never leaves their control.
What is the business model for Acxiom who you mentioned, and what purpose is served by the highly identifiable and personal information they collect? Is the sale of personal information including name, address, occupation, sexual preferences, relationship status, income, family dynamics, social interactions, and leisure activities a part of their business? If so why do you believe Google to be the most dangerous to your privacy, more so than big data-brokers such as Acxiom and the 100''s/1000's of companies like them flying under the radar?
Personally I don't really see anything fearsome about Google so far. The only thing they do with what they think they know about us personally is sell ad placement and views to the best of your knowledge and mine. Correct me if I'm wrong. (PS: Google gets several things wrong in my profile including even my age-range) So perhaps you're giving more weight to something that could potentially happen someday maybe, than to real and happening today privacy dangers? I would agree that there's a potential for misuse of information someday if things were to change really significantly at Google , but MY concerns today are with the real rather than imagined possible future.
One further question. There's no shortage of advice on how to avoid feeding Google. Perhaps you can offer advice on how to avoid feeding Acxiom, or companies like them.
Blah, just wanted to put a perspective on your posts. You nearly always mention Google as a privacy offender tho rarely mention others by name. Kudos to you for mentioning Acxiom prominently this time. Now for the perspective.
What is Google's business model and what do they use profiles of you and me for? As far as I know the business model depends on ad revenue to support it's widely-used and extensive search products, and your anonymized "profile" serves to make Google a more valuable resource to advertisers, increasing returns to Google investors and allowing business expansion and research. I don't think directly selling personal information to third parties is any part of their business. It's almost entirely on-line ad placement. Selling what they know as a Google product would cause harm to their primary business would it not? Therefor it's likely treated like the crown jewels and never leaves their control.
What is the business model for Acxiom who you mentioned, and what purpose is served by the highly identifiable and personal information they collect? Is the sale of personal information including name, address, occupation, sexual preferences, relationship status, income, family dynamics, social interactions, and leisure activities a part of their business? If so why do you believe Google to be the most dangerous to your privacy, more so than big data-brokers such as Acxiom and the 100''s/1000's of companies like them flying under the radar?
Personally I don't really see anything fearsome about Google so far. The only thing they do with what they think they know about us personally is sell ad placement and views to the best of your knowledge and mine. Correct me if I'm wrong. (PS: Google gets several things wrong in my profile including even my age-range) So perhaps you're giving more weight to something that could potentially happen someday maybe, than to real and happening today privacy dangers? I would agree that there's a potential for misuse of information someday if things were to change really significantly at Google , but MY concerns today are with the real rather than imagined possible future.
One further question. There's no shortage of advice on how to avoid feeding Google. Perhaps you can offer advice on how to avoid feeding Acxiom, or companies like them.
I'm not really sure why I'm replying, but here goes...
I usually try to mention other companies or do like above, with "google and their ilk", because it's absolutely more than just google doing this crap. Acxiom is probably the worst of the non-online service providing data miners and google is probably the worst of the online service providing data miners (though facebook isn't far behind - they're just easier to avoid). Six vs a half dozen, no one gets a pass.
What's bothersome about your arguments, and why they are so weak, is that they are usually just like Daniel Mead's "all the kids do it" reply to the FCC. See: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/08/08/fcc-chairman-slams-verizons-all-the-kids-do-it-defense-to-data-throttling
Just because other companies are attempting to do the same thing as google (though in almost all cases, far less effectively), doesn't excuse what they're doing. Full stop, read that sentence again until you can reply without the "everyone does it" nonsense. I don't feel bad about using google as a proxy for what's wrong across the world in terms of data mining, because they (and maybe facebook) are not only the most prominent, but the most prolific and effective at what they do.
Many years ago I had great respect for Google. During their early years the founders believed in providing great search results without tracking individual users. Larry and Sergey had a well-publicized argument about it at one point, and Sergey finally caved. That was one of a handful of key turning points in their history.
The company is no longer trustworthy for trustworthiness' sake. Look at the Safari fiasco as just one example. Look at the StreetView/WiFi fiasco as another. Google is a large multinational corporation, made up of tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom are flawed human beings. It's unavoidable. They are stewards of what is likely the biggest trove of personal tracking data in human history. There is no way on Earth to keep that safe indefinitely, and in fact we've seen several instances in recent years of security problems, even with the incredible resources they throw at security.
Your argument that you don't see anything fearsome about google SO FAR doesn't hold up, because the lifetime of that data is forever. It's not a matter of if google (management, workers, encryption technology, policies, legal issues, etc.) will change, it's only a matter of when. They're not as bad as facebook about changing policies every week, but remember, originally they didn't even want to use cookies to track users. Seems almost quaint now, no?
Advice on how to avoid Acxiom? It's difficult, though in some ways easier than google. Don't use plastic to make everyday purchases. Don't use (incredibly obnoxious) "loyalty cards". Don't ever, ever! give retailers your phone number when they ask, or even your zip code. Don't use facebook or other public social networking companies, etc. Yes, they have access to public records, so there are a few things you cannot avoid, like property ownership, but remember, google has access to that data as well.
I don't believe you're really interested in learning about why this kind of tracking is bad, but if you are, and for others reading this, I highly recommend reading "Dragnet Nation", by Julia Angwin. Great research, great information, though even she doesn't understand the deeper stuff because she doesn't understand the underlying technologies.
I'm very interested in the subject of privacy and not just on-line either. A recent event helped frame the importance of it as a matter of fact.
I completely agree with Angwin's conclusion. Burner phones, fake credit cards, anonymous e-mail and the like can't hide you. The only way to wrest back some semblance of control over our private lives is serious political action. It wouldn't even harm a company like Google if personal data-gathering were limited by strict law. Everyone would be on the same playing field if it was properly and fairly enacted, and advertisers ain't gonna stop advertising. Google would still get more than their fir share and their revenue stream would stay intact, just not as "personal". AI and other blog sites would still have an income source to support the costs and administration so the services could continue. On the surface it seems like it would be a no-brainer to do so wouldn't it? Pass international laws (not just US or EU) to restrict and limit the collection of personal data and ban on-line tracking entirely. Simple right?
You and I both know it won't happen, and it's not the Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's that would make it impossible. You seem to surprisingly focus on the little picture as tho companies like Google are the bad-guys and are the ones to make it all better if only they would. They "and their ilk" are the source of all anti-privacy evil so to speak. So take away their ability to track and data-mine users along with everyone else's legal right to do so too, (Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, ATT and everyone else), and they still survive just fine IMHO. But start treading on government agencies turf, or financial institutions, or even university researchers with the best of intentions and any efforts to rein in the data-mongers are dead before they start. That's where the REAL stonewall is.
There was a recent story about a European effort to make researchers more effective in their work. Using sensors and tech that allows a person's physical status and state-of-mind to be determined they think learning opportunities could be more effectively designed, targeted and delivered for you specifically. If you aren't emotionally and/or physically prepared to understand a data-set as presented it gets modified so as to be more useful to you individually. Sounds like a noble goal doesn't it and one that could see parts transition to public education if proven effective. Do you see any dangers in admirable programs like this, or a likelihood that the same EU funding the project would put legal limits on it?
http://ceeds-project.eu/ceeds-objectives/aboutceeds/
Much as you want to stare at Google, or Facebook or Acxiom that's not where the source of the problem lies nor where it can be corrected, and the ones that can fix it have no interest in really doing so IMO. They may not even recognize where the problem really resides.
It matters not if Google collects personal data to deliver ads. It's entirely fixable and Google can still go on offering an incredible search engine if our government representatives really made a fair honest and comprehensive effort to give us back privacy rights. But Google themselves can't fix it no matter what they do. So what do you suggest and how would you proceed if you were king? Honest question.
Wow, so justification for the likes of google is, 'Welcome to the 21st century'?!?!? Very sad. So, just roll over and take it, since it's the 21st century?!?!? Unbelievable. Reminds me of when Coach Bobby Knight got into trouble telling a reporter that when you are being raped and there is nothing you can do about it, you may as well relax and enjoy it. Don't be a sheep. Fight against it!! Do what is right to fight unethical behavior.
Thank you! Both for being a fighter and for pointing out the Bobby Knight quote. I'd long forgotten about that, but I think it illustrates perfectly what so many people are doing now. What's happening is vile and reprehensible, and most people are still just laying back and taking it even though they feel violated (social media firms are near the very bottom in "trustability" surveys, so people DO know better, they're just not rebelling in big numbers yet).
Knight's exact quote was: "I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it". Sick man. Just like McNealy.
Please keep spreading the word, and I see myself using this quote a lot in the future to illustrate the point. Thanks.
Sorry for my delayed response. You're very welcome, Blah64. I agree with you - the Knight quote IS the perfect illustration for this. We definitely think a lot a like. And mstone, you made very good points as well, and I don't want to minimize them. But if we don't get angry about what is happening, our children and our children's children will suffer for it. I truly hate how google's stock continues to rise based on unethical behavior, not to mention the fact that they blow money and completely idiotic purchased and are rewarded with increased stock price as well. Unbelievable, and definitely a problem that needs to be solved.
While dislike of Google is absolutely OK, and they've invited much of the criticism, how does Google's stock price cause our children to suffer and why does something need to be done about it? If instead you really meant something should be done about on-line data-mining I'll absolutely agree with you. Don't stop with Google either (because you couldn't legally anyway) but make sure it applies to everyone whether Apple, or Facebook or ATT. Not just US either, make it International Law. Put everyone on the same playing field. For an expanded take see my previous post #65.
If done fairly and comprehensively it won't hurt companies like Google or Yahoo or websites like AI or ArsTechnica at all and we still get to use their excellent services without worries over what might happen with our data in the future. Problem solved right?
I'm very interested in the subject of privacy and not just on-line either. A recent event helped frame the importance of it as a matter of fact.
I completely agree with Angwin's conclusion. Burner phones, fake credit cards, anonymous e-mail and the like can't hide you. The only way to wrest back some semblance of control over our private lives is serious political action. It wouldn't even harm a company like Google if personal data-gathering were limited by strict law. Everyone would be on the same playing field if it was properly and fairly enacted, and advertisers ain't gonna stop advertising. Google would still get more than their fir share and their revenue stream would stay intact, just not as "personal". AI and other blog sites would still have an income source to support the costs and administration so the services could continue. On the surface it seems like it would be a no-brainer to do so wouldn't it? Pass international laws (not just US or EU) to restrict and limit the collection of personal data and ban on-line tracking entirely. Simple right?
You and I both know it won't happen, and it's not the Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's that would make it impossible. You seem to surprisingly focus on the little picture as tho companies like Google are the bad-guys and are the ones to make it all better if only they would. They "and their ilk" are the source of all anti-privacy evil so to speak. So take away their ability to track and data-mine users along with everyone else's legal right to do so too, (Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Verizon, ATT and everyone else), and they still survive just fine IMHO. But start treading on government agencies turf, or financial institutions, or even university researchers with the best of intentions and any efforts to rein in the data-mongers are dead before they start. That's where the REAL stonewall is.
There was a recent story about a European effort to make researchers more effective in their work. Using sensors and tech that allows a person's physical status and state-of-mind to be determined they think learning opportunities could be more effectively designed, targeted and delivered for you specifically. If you aren't emotionally and/or physically prepared to understand a data-set as presented it gets modified so as to be more useful to you individually. Sounds like a noble goal doesn't it and one that could see parts transition to public education if proven effective. Do you see any dangers in admirable programs like this, or a likelihood that the same EU funding the project would put legal limits on it?
http://ceeds-project.eu/ceeds-objectives/aboutceeds/
Much as you want to stare at Google, or Facebook or Acxiom that's not where the source of the problem lies nor where it can be corrected, and the ones that can fix it have no interest in really doing so IMO. They may not even recognize where the problem really resides.
It matters not if Google collects personal data to deliver ads. It's entirely fixable and Google can still go on offering an incredible search engine if our government representatives really made a fair honest and comprehensive effort to give us back privacy rights. But Google themselves can't fix it no matter what they do. So what do you suggest and how would you proceed if you were king? Honest question.
I agree with some bits of this, though not all of it. You are right that without legal restrictions, google and all the other data miners simply will not change their behavior. However, this does not justify their behavior! The problems with simply taking that tack alone are (at least) twofold:
1) These companies, and there are many of them, have HUGE $ behind them, with huge lobbying efforts. Extremely difficult to overcome.
2) Who wants this data just as much as the commercial organizations? Oh yeah, various govt organizations. And they have their own inside pathways to lobby against restrictive legislation.
Europe is a different situation, and I believe that we will continue to see leadership in these matters from overseas, at least for the foreseeable future. Hopefully those changes will slowly migrate here to the US. (Although the "right to be forgotten" notion is so unworkable as to be borderline stupidity -- as much as I appreciate the overall goals)
So how does the "problem" get fixed? Education. People -- everyday people -- need to understand that everything they do online, given the current laws, policies and behaviors, is tracked. They need to understand that there is a dark and non-beneficial side to said tracking.
Right now, most people have become addicted to services that are wedded to tracking, be it behavioral, location, purchases, whatever -- online or offline (paying with plastic, RFID tags in cars, etc.). There are few alternatives, in most people's minds, to facebook, even though according to most surveys, their user base doesn't trust or even like the company. That's a fragile system, and I definitely wouldn't be a long-term investor in facebook stock, even though it may have a few more upswings remaining.
The only way this changes is if or when the average Joes around the world become educated about the depth of tracking that's happening, care enough to change, and have alternatives that work well enough for them without 3rd party tracking. When enough people care, that will be the catalyst that forces legislative changes, which, as you suggest, is the only hope for real, meaningful changes to companies like google. They simply have too much riding on being able to track their users. And as was mentioned earlier, 3rd world nations are barely entering the pathways that we have been on for the past few years. US companies will be able to take advantage of less-sophisticated markets long after we have made changes here.
It really does matter -- to them. Sure, they can continue to offer the same outstanding search engine, but they cannot generate the same level of revenue without tracking, and the more detailed, the more revenue, so they are hugely vested in getting deeper and deeper inside people's minds and behavior patterns.
If I was king? Ha. I would enact laws that completely disallow storing or analyzing any data on individuals that they did not publicly post themselves in their own name (i.e. public blogs). I would look to create and entrench standards (like Levison is attempting with Dime) that makes it impossible for centralized services to have access to data that is not intended for them, but to pass through to others. There would likely be no such thing as "free" email, because as we all know, there is no such thing, and if you took away the ability for google/yahoo/microsoft and the rest of the gang to analyze every email, there's a good chance they would no longer offer those kinds of services without fees. Or they would change radically.
At the very, very least, I would make it illegal to create profiles of users who did not actively and intentionally sign up for services (shadow profiles). This is the most egregious of all the tracking crap. I would make the penalties for this particular practice so painful that companies would tremble with fear. If you're caught with this kind of data, anyone that authorized it goes to jail for many years.
For the most part, we would enter a pay-for-play world. Sure, you could argue that some of our poorest citizens can't afford to pay for things like email, but I disagree. Most ISPs provide multiple emails with their paid internet services already, and many of our poor, less-educated citizens are the ones that are preyed upon the most heavily by these companies. I'm virtually unswayed by advertising, targeted or not, but the less educated you are, the more you can be swayed. Everyone is paying one way or another, but when you pay real money for services, there is far greater transparency.
Speaking of transparency, I would be happy to allow companies that actually provide end-user services (goog/fb) to continue on with modifications to their business practices, but the pure data miners, like axciom, would be shut down outright in "my kingdom".
re: education. Studies, training, learning tools, and all that, have a complex set of issues to deal with. I need to stop typing now, but in a nutshell, the individual/personal data in most cases should not leave the local devices. Anything that does leave the local devices should be legally required to be anonymized such that it's impossible to be attached back to any individual. This is stuff I've spent a long time thinking about and working with others to change policies on, and it's really challenging stuff.
Sure, there are holes all over the above off-the-cuff stream-of-consciousness ideas, and the devil's in the details. But it would take a long time to craft real policies, and for better or worse, I have real-world work to do...