3 ms·

Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy

2 points by grellas 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago
Many of the replies strangely don't seem to debunk the myths. For example, the reply to #5, people's worry that "someone will know things about them that they may want to keep secret", is that "most information is used anonymously", and "to the extent that things are 'known' about consumers, they are known by computers". That isn't a rebuttal at all, though: the fact that "most" information is used anonymously, and much information "known" is only known by computers and used as part of aggregate analytics or ad-targeting algorithms, doesn't address the core worry, that "someone will know things about them that they may want to keep secret". I mean, this is basic logic: you can't debunk a worry that someone is doing X by arguing that some people aren't doing X. For example, there are no assurances that Facebook isn't giving personally identifiable information about specific users to government agencies without warrants (they refuse to say either way). ChoicePoint's explicit purpose is to collect and sell such information (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan...). Even at a small scale, I've personally looked at information on systems I sysadmin that I suspect users would "want to keep secret", and I could have legally shared that information; it was purely my discretion and ethical sense that I shouldn't be publishing the results of sysadmin snooping that kept me from doing so. So it seems at least exceedingly likely that companies are attempting to collect and connect information about people that those people would like to keep private, are not all (contrary to this op-ed) anonymizing the data or only allowing algorithms to use it, and at least some are probably sharing and/or selling it. #7 also seems extremely dubious as a prediction. If indeed someone were given a printout of information collected on them by such firms, I think many people would be unpleasantly surprised. The reason they aren't irate is not the unfounded assertion that "there is no harm from the way it is used", but because they have never seen such a printout, have no way to get one, and have no idea how it's being used or shared/sold. Much of the rest is simply pure opinion: "so-and-so says X is bad, but in fact I like it". I mean, I can see an argument that privacy regulations will cause more harm than good, but this doesn't really seem like that argument.

2 points by grellas 16y ago

Many of the replies strangely don't seem to debunk the myths. For example, the reply to #5, people's worry that "someone will know things about them that they may want to keep secret", is that "most information is used anonymously", and "to the extent that things are 'known' about consumers, they are known by computers". That isn't a rebuttal at all, though: the fact that "most" information is used anonymously, and much information "known" is only known by computers and used as part of aggregate analytics or ad-targeting algorithms, doesn't address the core worry, that "someone will know things about them that they may want to keep secret". I mean, this is basic logic: you can't debunk a worry that someone is doing X by arguing that some people aren't doing X. For example, there are no assurances that Facebook isn't giving personally identifiable information about specific users to government agencies without warrants (they refuse to say either way). ChoicePoint's explicit purpose is to collect and sell such information (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan...). Even at a small scale, I've personally looked at information on systems I sysadmin that I suspect users would "want to keep secret", and I could have legally shared that information; it was purely my discretion and ethical sense that I shouldn't be publishing the results of sysadmin snooping that kept me from doing so. So it seems at least exceedingly likely that companies are attempting to collect and connect information about people that those people would like to keep private, are not all (contrary to this op-ed) anonymizing the data or only allowing algorithms to use it, and at least some are probably sharing and/or selling it. #7 also seems extremely dubious as a prediction. If indeed someone were given a printout of information collected on them by such firms, I think many people would be unpleasantly surprised. The reason they aren't irate is not the unfounded assertion that "there is no harm from the way it is used", but because they have never seen such a printout, have no way to get one, and have no idea how it's being used or shared/sold. Much of the rest is simply pure opinion: "so-and-so says X is bad, but in fact I like it". I mean, I can see an argument that privacy regulations will cause more harm than good, but this doesn't really seem like that argument.