That aside, there's several problems with this. First: what kind of stupid sleazy retailer values money so much that they would make suggestive articles like bikinis for kids? Second: what parent in their right mind would buy this stuff?
And you wonder why I'm a proponet of industry regulation…
When we think about our personal data, what bothers us most is generally not the initial collection and use, but the secondary uses. I personally appreciate it when Amazon.com suggests books that might interest me, based on books I have already bought. I like it that my airline knows what type of seat and meal I prefer, and my hotel chain keeps records of my room preferences. I don't mind that my automatic road-toll collection tag is tied to my credit card, and that I get billed automatically. I even like the detailed summary of my purchases that my credit card company sends me at the end of every year. What I don't want, though, is any of these companies selling that data to brokers, or for law enforcement to be allowed to paw through those records without a warrant.
He goes on to say that the two dangers of data rape (a.k.a data mining or data brokering) are that when people aren't certain that their data is private, they become less willing to provide it or give false information. The second is the risk of errors in the data which can cause different kinds of headaches alltogether (think of the no-fly list snafus).
Most of us who complain about the systems and laws that are changing for the worse over time (and especially during the regime of emperor Bush and our flacid Congress) are those who can clearly see how they can be used for more than intended. But you don't have to be a visionary to see what can happen. Look into history instead.
In the latest news, Facebook is actively seeking buyers advertising the data they hold as being the "most valuable data in the history of the media world".
Now let's look at the data they hold again: tons and tons of vital information on teenagers and young college students. It's sick, but yeah, big business would salivate to have all that data in their clutches.
The Lesson
Remember that even if the site you signed up for promises to protect your data, that doesn't mean it always will. Privacy policies can change without notice.
The e-voting company in question (Sequoia Voting Systems), isn't too happy either:
A spokeswoman for Sequoia Voting Systems, which uses some of Microsoft's development technology in its devices, defended her company's lobbying. "We also vigorously protect our intellectual property and trade secrets as well as the overall security of our voting system," she said. Sequoia currently complies with all current state and federal review and escrow laws, she noted.
Over the past year, she said Sequoia has worked with the Elections Board to satisfy its requirements without disclosing any third-party proprietary source code such as Microsoft's. After the legislature's session closed, she expressed frustration, claiming the issue remains unresolved. "We would ideally like to work with the board to reach a solution that works for all parties involved," she said Friday.
How about an e-voting system that works? That would be nice for a change.
I almost hesitated to get involved in promoting this kind of story since cults can be very scary, but I think cowardice only encourages villains. In any case, I think that masquerading as a religion for monetary reasons is about the lowest you can get and that's exactly what scientology is (and fortunately, the German government knows it).
Cruise, also one of the film's producers, is a member of the Church of Scientology which the German government does not recognise as a church. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.
Of course they do.
Anyway, it would simplify things a lot if the American government automatically rejected all claims for religion status for groups that have secrecy as one of their core beliefs. No true religion has secrets. Only scams where they know there's no way you'll swallow the whole enchilada until you've been properly "conditioned" at the lower levels.
The new laws should significantly ease the triple-digit interest rates charged by payday lenders and their cousins, auto title lenders. Indeed, payday lenders say the new laws will drive them out of the state altogether. Whether that is so remains to be seen, but the laws still allow payday lenders, through a combination of interest rates and "origination fees," to charge effective annual interest rates of well over 150% on one-month loans.
I like this line too:
If that's so, however, the demise of the industry might not be a bad thing at all. Any industry whose best argument is that it can only make money by exploiting the worst of its credit risks, and keeping them in a never-ending cycle of renewals and interest payments, doesn't seem to have much going for it.
President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.
Question: Is it just me or is something really wrong here? What is it that I don't understand about this equation? He breaks the law, he get's put in jail. That obviously hasn't happened so what's wrong? Why won't congress or the media actually say it like it is? Why do they dance around it?
Is it cowardice? Is it impotence? Is it pure politics? Why is a president like the one we have now allowed to not only stay out of prison, but to keep his job as the leader of our country?
Only the minimum personal data needed should be collected, and it should be retained for the minimum time necessary.
…
The subject has the right to know whom is keeping and accessing their personal data, and the right to examine the data and to have the data removed or changed.
You’ll almost never have to hear, “Yaw dawg whazzap!!” plop out of their mouths. Unless it’s in jest. They spell properly, use correct punctuation, and are able to tell the difference between the toilet and the floor. They almost never get “wasted”, so you won’t have to worry about coming home to find him and his friends passed out on the floor amidst a pile of beer bottles. Mt. Dew cans, perhaps…
The TSA is about the worst example of a security agency that there is. Nearly everything they do is pure theater and doesn't actually help us at all and yet they continue merrily on their way abusing us and making airports a living nightmare for all with no apparent improvement to security.
At this point, I was detained against my will by the police officer and threatened to be arrested for endangering other passengers with the spilled 3 to 4 ounces of water. I was ordered to clean the water, so I got on my hands and knees while my son sat in his stroller with no shoes on since they were also screened and I had no time to put them back on his feet. I asked to call back my fiancé, who I could still see from afar, waiting for us to clear security, to watch my son while I was being detained, and the officer threatened to arrest me if I moved.
Freaking idiots.
I wonder how long this kind of crap will continue. I hope someone files a lawsuit against the TSA and soon. The judicial branch appears to be the only one that's working right now anyway.
A scandal with the FBI showed that they had been abusing their power, breaking rules, and now are being accused of breaking the law (which is totally inline with all government agencies in the Bush regime).
Fortunately, there's no chance this will work for long. First there's the SET technology for filesharing that uses generic chunks from files unrelated to copyrighted material to speed up sharing. If this gets implemented, not only will it improve filesharing speeds and allow people to finish files that have lost their seeders/sources, but it will prevent AT&T from filtering copyrighted material without blocking legitimate shares as well.
Secondly, it won't be long until filesharing networks introduce a quick encryption to packets that scramble them randomly using an IP address so the chunks of data won't be recognized by AT&T filters. I'm sure there are plenty of other techniques as well, but one thing's for certain: even honest non-hackers and non-sharers are still rooting against the copyright holders and AT&T.
I mean, come on! The article says the copyright companies lost billions of dollars due to filesharing? All they're doing is talking about the value of the files they know have been shared without taking into account that many of the people who are downloading these files would never have bought them in the first place! They're not losing money they would have had, they're losing money they never would have had.
As the article itself says, the RIAA and MPAA should just focus their money and resources in finding ways to turn downloaders into honest customers (perhaps cutting prices? Offering slick downloadable options? Removing all DRM so people can do what they want with it?)
Because of the recent events with Google and their privacy protections (or lack thereof), I've begun to wonder why the company who's dedicated to "do no evil" would data-rape their customers at all. Why do they need to have user searches that can be tied back to individuals? Why can't they anonymize it from the beginning and still be able to fine tune their search engine.
In order to answer this question that no one seems to be asking (and Google certainly hasn't provided), I am calling out Google. Here is the e-mail I am sending to them:
Dear Google,
As a company who is dedicated to "do no evil", you are no doubt aware of what a problem data rape (i.e., data mining) is to consumers. Vast profiles of data that is shared with others to make even bigger profiles harms people like no other technology that exists today.
However, you have stated in your defense that you need this data to improve your services which, obviously, is at least partially true. You certainly can't improve your search engine if you don't have heaps of data to study after all.
What I and others like me want to know is what does personally identifiable information have to do with sevice enhancement? Is it to "provide a better user experience" like the other companies (which we all know means, "study you so we can exploit you where you're weak or sell your data to someone else who can")?
What can your services possibly do for us that can't be done the exact same way without creating profiles of us?
Please note that your answer (or lack thereof) will be posted at http://www.jeremyduffy.com/blog. We all eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Duffy
Consumer Advocate
P.S. I am a big fan of the Google search engine and have used it every since I discovered it many years ago. I recommend it to everyone and still do because of the clean/simple interface, the lack of annoying ads, and the quality of results. I will continue to do so for as long as I'm convinced that you are not descending to the same profiling practices as the other companies I hate (Amazon comes to mind).
Let's see what happens.
Update: 7/6/07
It's been a while now and there's been no response of any kind. I even posted a similar message in their brand new public policy blog where they specifically ask for any issues that they should cover. Nothing.
Lacking any information to the contrary (and because I seem to have been purposefully ignored), I am hereby declaring that Google has no justification for data raping their users. Like most companies, they're actions appear to be purely for profit and all that talk of needing it for "optimization" is marketing spin intentionally used to confuse the issue.
I would have expected far better from a company like Google, but then again, maybe that was too much to hope for.
Update: 7/10/07
It looks like I'm not the only one being ignored. A member of Public Citizen also contacted Google to see if they would let him know what specific information they stored on him. Dead silence.
This is pretty funny. First it was going to be 24 months and now they've changed it to 18. However, they want to "firmly reject any suggestions that we could meet our legitimate interests in security, innovation and anti-fraud efforts with any retention period shorter than 18 months".
Google, not surprisingly, has challenged stating that Privacy International's report was based on misunderstandings of their services and policies. I'm not convinced.
So they "firmly reject" the idea that they could meet their interests with data less than 18 months? What interests could they possibly have with all your personal information tied to your search history other than selling your data? I'd like to hear that answer.
I went to their blog site and read their post on the topic. They state that they need search history data to refine their services (duh), but what does that have to do with linking it to individuals?
I was hoping their blog allowed comments, but since that doesn't seem to be the case, I try sending them and e-mail and see what happens.
Some people still get on my case for being such a strong proponent of business regulation. They think that because of that, I don't put enough of the blame on the consumer (who is obviously at fault for the trouble the get themselves into). However, it's clear that the playing field is not level, the businesses use tricks and manipulations that no normal person has a chance against.
"Even more startling, debt buyers have learned to work the system to win judgments and coerce payments even when they have the wrong person or lack any evidence that the consumer owes the debt,” NCLC and NACA wrote in a filing with the Federal Trade Commission.
…
“Debts that may be a decade or more old are now sold in bundles to debt buyers for pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers then file cases by the thousands in overworked courts. The courts typically enter default judgments even if the collector has no proof that the consumer owed the debt, that the amount owed is legal and correct, or even that the debtor being sued is the right person,”
"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians . . . would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the majority.
Let me say this again, no one cares about terrorists and whether they're held forever, tortured or whatever to protect innocent people. The problem is that Bush has declared that he alone gets to decide who the terrorists are and what laws to follow and which to ignore.
Fortunately, even though congress won't stand up to him, the courts are little by little. Thank the founders for coming up with three branches instead of just two.
1. When buying any product, expect the salesmen to tell you that after around 13 months, a certain part or battery will need replacing. The common manufacturers warranty only covers 12 months parts and labor, so the customer is pushed to buy the extended warranty under the impression it will fail later…
20. If you don't get the accidental coverage on the item you just purchased that's coming from the warehouse, it may be "accidentally" dropped a few times. It's believed that when the customer comes back in with the messed up computer, that they will then opt for the coverage.
And this one is what literally happened in the store I worked in (and that was back in 2001):
25. Circuit City has laid off over 4 thousand employees recently to hire cheaper workers. They fired associates who were highly ranked in sales and service, and paid well for that reason.
Except that they didn't fire people specifically, they just brought in a new manager to make everyone so miserable they quit.
Most notable is the dirty tactics that salespeople will resort to even when they're "not on commission":
4. Every salesman is ranked by the number of protection plans (or extended warranties) that they sell. At my store all the time we would throw on scratch protection plans to CD's, since they're only a buck, most people don't notice. During the $9.99 CD special days, customers who weren't aware of the sale were easy prey.
13. When looking at computers, make sure that the tag you're looking at matches the floor model you're testing. We often would only put the faster computers on display that looked the same, so the customer would think that they're getting this fast computer when in reality, it's for the tag 3 feet away, and it's twice the price.
18. I've seen in the past of people hiding the less expensive speaker wires for car or home theater, or other such cables in the back warehouse. This makes customers buy the more expensive cables, assuming it's all there is.
26. Stores will keep great coupons such as "$10 off when you spend $100" up at customer service next to our ads that we give out. Sometimes they're only for the next week, encouraging that you come back Also almost everyday we were given a 10% off coupon to keep in our pocket in case we needed to give a discount to close a sale, making it look like we're making some special deal for them when really, it's just a plain old coupon that they could have brought.
The thing that Circuit City knows that most people might not is that you don't have to have a commissioned salesforce to make them into ruthless salespeople. Just threaten their job and keep applying more and more pressure to management to get the right "numbers" and it will trickle down.
From the, "funny, but so appropriate" department, McDonald's is freaking out because "McJob" has been officially added to the Webster's Dictionary as "a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, especially one created by the expansion of the service sector".
McDonald's is lobbying to change the definition to: "reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding … and offers skills that last a lifetime"
I know it's not moral, but is asking the Oxford dictionary to lie illegal? I don't know…
