5 ms·
And if pigs were ducks would they quack? In other words, your question is moronic since netflix didn't attach cc or ssn info. Also, you're a retard for compar
by earl 17y ago
And if pigs were ducks would they quack? In other words, your question is moronic since netflix didn't attach cc or ssn info.
Also, you're a retard for comparing movie predictions, and the possibility of matching a person to their movie viewing history, as even remotely comparable to human test subjects. Please.
As for invasion of privacy, I'm unsure -- I'm not sure of the probability of matching, the quantity of information necessary to get a good, for various values of good, match, etc. What is clear is the authors had a major hand in stifling a nontrivial nonacademic dataset and damaging the community around it. They further have aided the lawyers suing netflix, and have helped poison the well for any company in the future that decides they might want to do something like this. So I say congratulations! For the author to pretend this didn't happen as a result of his actions is disingenuous.
As for your questions, well, they're just stupid. We live in a world where the fbi/police get access to your PHYSICAL LOCATION 24x7 without a warrant just by asking, where your emails and telephone calls are scanned by the nsa with plans to open this data set to the police at large, where google/yahoo/et al see turning your emails and access patterns over to the police as a revenue opportunity, etc. If you care about privacy, this is such small potatoes as to be a waste of time. BTW, anyone can still spend roughly $100 to access your phone call history. G has, in subpoenable form, your entire search history -- and don't think that clearing cookies prevents stapling that history together.
- pyre 17y ago> We live in a world where the fbi/police get access to your PHYSICAL LOCATION 24x7 without a warrant just by asking, where your emails and telephone calls are scanned by the nsa with plans to open this data set to the police at large, where google/yahoo/et al see turning your emails and access patterns over to the police as a revenue opportunity, etc. So you're saying that since government agencies have access to a lot of my private information, I shouldn't care about any of my private information remaining private? Sounds like you're creating a false dichotomy. You're presenting things as if you can only care about all of your private data or none of your private data; since the government has access to large portions of your private data and you don't have much (or any) control over that, you should therefore care about none of your private data. Isn't it possible for me to care about all of my private data, but to choose the battles that I fight?