What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes". It seems to me that such a system ought to be set up so that it has to get your permission before gathering information about your behavior in order to sell you back to you. Such a system should allow you to change your mind at any time. Such a system should be required to confirm your permission every year and if you refuse to give it, avoid bugging you about it for a year (at least).

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes". It seems to me that such a system ought to be set up so that it has to get your permission before gathering information about your behavior in order to sell you back to you. Such a system should allow you to change your mind at any time. Such a system should be required to confirm your permission every year and if you refuse to give it, avoid bugging you about it for a year (at least).

In Google's case, their privacy policy says that they use the collected information in "Providing [their] services, including the display of customized content and advertising". I can't remember signing up for an online service that didn't make me agree to their privacy policy before using the service.

I suppose the main problem with Google (and I believe Facebook and probably others) is that they don't really allow you to change your mind since they won't promise to get rid of your information. Part of this is a practical issue. If I wanted to back out of GameDev's policy to that extent, they'd have to remove all of my posts to any thread, any pm's, and probably other information I'm not thinking of.

Good news everyone - your credit card information is now public.

And to those who wouldn't want to share theirs - what are you hiding? Are you financing terrorists?

Anyone want a take on when health information becomes publicly available?

And an interesting comment on more practical impact of privacy to one's life.

[Edited by - Antheus on December 12, 2009 3:08:49 PM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes". It seems to me that such a system ought to be set up so that it has to get your permission before gathering information about your behavior in order to sell you back to you. Such a system should allow you to change your mind at any time. Such a system should be required to confirm your permission every year and if you refuse to give it, avoid bugging you about it for a year (at least).

Which is really besides the point, isn't it? If a company or the government is using automation to spy on me to the full extent of what is possible given the technology available, but no one will ever see any of it and I can be 100% sure of that, then I don't care. It exists for me to use as I please, or perhaps just to incriminate/exonerate me in case a crime is committed. Saying you don't want ads so surveillance of your internet habits is evil is like saying that I don't want spam snail-mail so credit cards are evil. I don't want ads either, but I recognize that a whole bunch of "free" stuff that I do like if funded by advertisement.

Quote: Good news everyone - your credit card information [www.techcrunch.com] is now public.

Well.. to play devil's advocate it -is- a voluntary service. Sure, it presents an obvious security hole, and there is such a thing as stupid people, and malicious people. But I'm not sure about how beneficial it would be to, for example, ban people in Country X from joining such a service. It's their choice, if they went to volunterily relinquish their privacy so they can further become symbiotic with the twitter borg, that's their responsibility. If they are made fully aware of the consequences of joining such a service, there is no clear harm...

... Well, I'm pretty sure an argument can be made that this will slowly eat away at our defences until we see invasion of privacy as a way of life, and then begin to accept involuntary invasions of that privacy as a norm. But that's how we work as a society.

Unless an idea is marketed well, and is widely accepted enough, it does not enter our perception. Forcing people to adopt a perception has always led to more harm than good.

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes". It seems to me that such a system ought to be set up so that it has to get your permission before gathering information about your behavior in order to sell you back to you. Such a system should allow you to change your mind at any time. Such a system should be required to confirm your permission every year and if you refuse to give it, avoid bugging you about it for a year (at least).

Which is really besides the point, isn't it? If a company or the government is using automation to spy on me to the full extent of what is possible given the technology available, but no one will ever see any of it and I can be 100% sure of that, then I don't care. It exists for me to use as I please, or perhaps just to incriminate/exonerate me in case a crime is committed. Saying you don't want ads so surveillance of your internet habits is evil is like saying that I don't want spam snail-mail so credit cards are evil. I don't want ads either, but I recognize that a whole bunch of "free" stuff that I do like if funded by advertisement.

How can you be 100% certain of that? Consider the numerous false positives documented with the terrorist watch list [1], [2], [3]. Beyond that, why have you inflated what I described as an annoyance to the level of evil?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes". It seems to me that such a system ought to be set up so that it has to get your permission before gathering information about your behavior in order to sell you back to you. Such a system should allow you to change your mind at any time. Such a system should be required to confirm your permission every year and if you refuse to give it, avoid bugging you about it for a year (at least).

Which is really besides the point, isn't it? If a company or the government is using automation to spy on me to the full extent of what is possible given the technology available, but no one will ever see any of it and I can be 100% sure of that, then I don't care. It exists for me to use as I please, or perhaps just to incriminate/exonerate me in case a crime is committed. Saying you don't want ads so surveillance of your internet habits is evil is like saying that I don't want spam snail-mail so credit cards are evil. I don't want ads either, but I recognize that a whole bunch of "free" stuff that I do like if funded by advertisement.

How can you be 100% certain of that? Consider the numerous false positives documented with the terrorist watch list [1], [2], [3]. Beyond that, why have you inflated what I described as an annoyance to the level of evil?

I didn't mean to come off quite as strong as I did there, sorry. I can't be sure that a perfect system would be implement, or is implemented. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we aren't going to get close to a "perfect" system any time soon. I think it is worth looking at the kinds of regulation that are possible for control of information once it exists, as well as the actually collection of data. Collection with no regulation is bad, but so is no collection, no?

Edit: Just to play devil's advocate, with regards to your false-positives examples, wouldn't better and more complete data collection have eliminated the possibility of a false positive in the first place? I still think perfect surveillance could be done correctly and ethically, despite what popular culture has to say on the matter.

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou
Just to play devil's advocate, with regards to your false-positives examples, wouldn't better and more complete data collection have eliminated the possibility of a false positive in the first place? I still think perfect surveillance could be done correctly and ethically, despite what popular culture has to say on the matter.

Two problems:
1) Humans make mistakes. The evidence in your favour might be overlooked before the raid on your house is ordered, thus destroying your life.

2) Surveillance is about power. Who has the power to access the surveillance?

It seems to me that the only way to solve the power problem is by making all surveillance available to everybody, but that would inevitably lead to chilling effects.

Quote: Original post by Prefect

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou
Just to play devil's advocate, with regards to your false-positives examples, wouldn't better and more complete data collection have eliminated the possibility of a false positive in the first place? I still think perfect surveillance could be done correctly and ethically, despite what popular culture has to say on the matter.

Two problems:
1) Humans make mistakes. The evidence in your favour might be overlooked before the raid on your house is ordered, thus destroying your life.

2) Surveillance is about power. Who has the power to access the surveillance?

It seems to me that the only way to solve the power problem is by making all surveillance available to everybody, but that would inevitably lead to chilling effects.

I guess that's what I'm talking about. I wasn't trying to advocate some kind of massive shift towards pervasive surveillance in the modern world, a la 1984. I'm just saying is a trend towards more traffic cams and better AI techniques looking at credit card receipts and emails really so bad? Humans make mistakes sure, but they make mistakes out of lack of information, not out of some inherent flaw in the human mind. If there is some inherent flaw in people it is the tendency to act before we know everything we need to about something. Laws preventing a company or the government from acting without enough information already exist, and should be supported, regardless of the way and amount of surveillance. Regarding #2, we are reaching the point that almost everything we normally want to do with the kind of information we can collect automatically can be analyzed by computer without a person ever coming into the equation. If it became against the law for such information about me to be viewed by anyone but me and the computers responsible for making sure I'm not breaking the law, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Admittedly, this falls under the umbrella of "stuff that would be really easy to abuse."

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou
Collection with no regulation is bad, but so is no collection, no?

I'm not sure. Is collection with regulation good? That would depend on the regulation wouldn't it?

Quote: Original post by DaedalusOwnsYou
Edit: Just to play devil's advocate, with regards to your false-positives examples, wouldn't better and more complete data collection have eliminated the possibility of a false positive in the first place? I still think perfect surveillance could be done correctly and ethically, despite what popular culture has to say on the matter.

Better, sure but that's general. More complete? I don't know. How much more information did the TSA need about Ted Kennedy to not put him on the no fly list? It would seem that surveillance can also be about hassling political opponents.