4 ms·

It's interesting that records, such as library books read, that were common before the modern Internet are considered private, but if the records are related to

It's interesting that records, such as library books read, that were common before the modern Internet are considered private, but if the records are related to the Internet, such as web pages read (or every place I go, everyone I talk to, everything I say, etc.), many people say they don't understand why their privacy is important.

fraserharris 11y ago
There is a subtlety involved: - people care if other people know what they have read - people care much less if a machine knows what they have read
- noobermin 11y ago
  I think this sums up the attitude of most of those confounded young'un Millennials, myself included. I like the idea that Youtube remembers the videos I've watched so that it rec's others, it's a useful feature of the site. The fact that someone else, a person, could see that information, that is upsetting. It's probably difficult to have one without the other, however.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    This has nothing to do with the OP / what library books were read. The library certainly does know what you read. Likewise, Google and even real people at Google may know what you watched. But that's not surprising. It's to be expected. The real comparison is if Google gave that information, de-anonymized, to advertisers. Then there would be an issue.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    Difficult but not impossible. Client side encryption on such data can fix this, but can be difficult to implement in a good way that is transparent to users. You can even still submit/keep anonymized information about videos viewed. In almost every current business case it probably isn't worth it to bother.
threatofrain 11y ago
I also look at how much potential is in the environment for consensus on my issues. I feel like if I cry aloud about people snooping into library records, I can reach high consensus on this issue with others. I will be able to tap into the energy of the environment. But if I cry aloud about online / computer tracking, I believe I will get a very mixed response. Some people will stand with my issue, but too many will simply be bored with my issue. I don't think the environmental potential energy for this issue is strong enough. That people would raise a cry over one issue and not another is not sufficient to diagnose their internal wants. It may also speak to their assessment of (probability) x (magnitude) of success.
tzs 11y ago
Library records were not necessarily all that private. When I was a kid/teen, each book in the county library had a card in a pocket glued or taped to the inside front cover of the book. Your library card had a metal plate on it embossed with your library card number. To check out a book you took it to the checkout counter, they took your library card and the card from the book, and used a machine that printed your library card number and the due date on that card from the book [1]. They kept that card, and put a card in the book that told you the due date. When you returned the book, they would put that original card back in the pocket and return the book the the stacks. Note that if you could obtain my library card number, then you could find out if I had checked out a particular book by simply finding that book on the shelves and looking at the checkout card to see if my library card number was printed on it. You could even tell when I checked it out because the due date would be listed. The card had enough room to store records from a couple dozen checkouts. I think that this didn't bother people because it took some work to get the information. First, you need the target's library card number. One way you could get that would be to have someone watch me when I come out of the library and try to get a good enough look to identify a book I've checked out. Then wait until I return the book and it is back on the shelves, and you can get my number from the card. Once you've got the card number, you now have to start looking in books for it. If you are trying to see if I'm reading books on a particular subject, you might reasonably look at all books on that subject, but if you are trying to get a general picture of all my reading that is going to be a big hassle. A lot of things were like this--the data was not particularly protected or kept private, but because getting it required going to some particular place and trolling through printed records generally only people who had a really good reason to want it would go to the effort. [1] Similar to the way credit cards worked back before electronic card readers.
- kencausey 11y ago
  There was a time before library card numbers. My public library was still having you sign the card when I was young. As I recall they jumped directly from that to keeping track of lending digitally.

fraserharris 11y ago

There is a subtlety involved: - people care if other people know what they have read - people care much less if a machine knows what they have read

noobermin 11y ago
I think this sums up the attitude of most of those confounded young'un Millennials, myself included. I like the idea that Youtube remembers the videos I've watched so that it rec's others, it's a useful feature of the site. The fact that someone else, a person, could see that information, that is upsetting. It's probably difficult to have one without the other, however.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with the OP / what library books were read. The library certainly does know what you read. Likewise, Google and even real people at Google may know what you watched. But that's not surprising. It's to be expected. The real comparison is if Google gave that information, de-anonymized, to advertisers. Then there would be an issue.
- mordocai 11y ago
  Difficult but not impossible. Client side encryption on such data can fix this, but can be difficult to implement in a good way that is transparent to users. You can even still submit/keep anonymized information about videos viewed. In almost every current business case it probably isn't worth it to bother.

threatofrain 11y ago

I also look at how much potential is in the environment for consensus on my issues. I feel like if I cry aloud about people snooping into library records, I can reach high consensus on this issue with others. I will be able to tap into the energy of the environment. But if I cry aloud about online / computer tracking, I believe I will get a very mixed response. Some people will stand with my issue, but too many will simply be bored with my issue. I don't think the environmental potential energy for this issue is strong enough. That people would raise a cry over one issue and not another is not sufficient to diagnose their internal wants. It may also speak to their assessment of (probability) x (magnitude) of success.

tzs 11y ago

Library records were not necessarily all that private. When I was a kid/teen, each book in the county library had a card in a pocket glued or taped to the inside front cover of the book. Your library card had a metal plate on it embossed with your library card number. To check out a book you took it to the checkout counter, they took your library card and the card from the book, and used a machine that printed your library card number and the due date on that card from the book [1]. They kept that card, and put a card in the book that told you the due date. When you returned the book, they would put that original card back in the pocket and return the book the the stacks. Note that if you could obtain my library card number, then you could find out if I had checked out a particular book by simply finding that book on the shelves and looking at the checkout card to see if my library card number was printed on it. You could even tell when I checked it out because the due date would be listed. The card had enough room to store records from a couple dozen checkouts. I think that this didn't bother people because it took some work to get the information. First, you need the target's library card number. One way you could get that would be to have someone watch me when I come out of the library and try to get a good enough look to identify a book I've checked out. Then wait until I return the book and it is back on the shelves, and you can get my number from the card. Once you've got the card number, you now have to start looking in books for it. If you are trying to see if I'm reading books on a particular subject, you might reasonably look at all books on that subject, but if you are trying to get a general picture of all my reading that is going to be a big hassle. A lot of things were like this--the data was not particularly protected or kept private, but because getting it required going to some particular place and trolling through printed records generally only people who had a really good reason to want it would go to the effort. [1] Similar to the way credit cards worked back before electronic card readers.

kencausey 11y ago
There was a time before library card numbers. My public library was still having you sign the card when I was young. As I recall they jumped directly from that to keeping track of lending digitally.