5 ms·

Why should I care to keep what I buy at the grocery store private? I'm not trying to be flippant with this question. I'm just honestly perplexed why this is an

by oramit 5y ago

Why should I care to keep what I buy at the grocery store private? I'm not trying to be flippant with this question. I'm just honestly perplexed why this is an important dateset to keep private. Also, why would I want to avoid discounts? Grocery stores are one of the few places that gives me money for handing them my data. Isn't this good behavior!?

nonfamous 5y ago
What you buy at a grocery store can reveal a lot about you: - Personal care products: gender - Medications: age/health of you and family members - Magazines/media: political affiliation, social class The list goes on. [Edit: formatting]
- psychomugs 5y ago
  This always reminds me of the anecdote of Target predicting pregnant customers and "outing" them before they or their family knows [1]. Really makes one consider using cash. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
  - slg 5y ago
    >before they or their family knows To be clear, it is before their family knows and not before they know. It is extremely difficult to figure out someone is pregnant before they know. It doesn't take any complex analysis to see someone purchasing prenatal vitamins and conclude they are pregnant.
- slg 5y ago
  I guess this is an answer to the question but it doesn't answer the motivation behind the question. Why should we care about these things being public? You can tell my gender and rough age by looking at me for a second. If you want to keep those private your grocery store is the least of your concerns.
- oramit 5y ago
  Yes, you can infer a lot based on grocery store purchases. I don't deny it - but why does it matter? What bad things have happened to the average person based on grocery store purchase history? Again, i'm not trying to be flippant with my questions I'm honestly just frustrated after decades of following privacy discussions that there isn't a clear answer to this question.
  - boatsie 5y ago
    I wonder this too, but perhaps your insurance company buys this data on you and says, oh, they drink sugary drinks and eat candy and chips. They are buying Tylenol and ibuprofen for chronic pain. Maybe they will get diabetes and we should raise their premiums accordingly.
    - oramit 5y ago
      I don't mean to rag on you in particular. The answers I get around privacy problems are always conjecture. "Perhaps" the insurance company will do x, "Maybe" they will do y. It's always some scary threat that could happen in the future. The problem is though that the powers that be (government/corporate) already have more private information than ever before and yet: nothing has happened. At what point do these warnings just become crying wolf?
      - kube-system 5y ago
        The data is already being used in various ways that people would object to, it's just that nobody who is using data in objectionable ways is announcing it from their rooftops, because they know it's objectionable and want to keep doing it.
      - vineyardmike 5y ago
        Insurance companies DO buy data like this. It is not perhaps. They buy data about you that they do not use to your advantage. They have no interest in lowering your premiums and every interest in raising them. One other example is the 2016 election and cambridge analytica. Not going to make a political case on the politicians, but the political parties (and foreign govs with interest in the outcome) bought data on electors to try and persuade them to vote for one candidate or the other. Or to make them think issue X is bigger deal than they previously did. People don't like to lose autonomy in politics and data is good for targeting and persuasion. Of course, the big what-if is also worrisome. Maybe not to you, but to many. Some people are more concerned than others. If your of one minority religion, then you might worry if that religion gets targeted will gov buy data to identify individuals (eg china and Uyghurs or trump and his proposed list of muslums). Maybe your gay in a nation that isn't friendly to that. Its very easy to tell if someone is queer from mass collected data. That could be a concern if the gov starts looking for people. Another less scary but not great what-if: Many govs (including some us govs) are doing more "pro-active policing" where they try to prevent crimes, often with biased data. Right now its pretty targeted at going to minority neighborhoods, but maybe one day it'll target underage people who buy alcohol paraphernalia to see if they drink underage. Minor crime oft-committed, but probably easy to identify from only grocery store purchase data - especially if you combine that with camera data (walk in/out with someone who buys booze while they buy solo cups). While the under-age drinking is a silly example, it uses pretty easily available data. Think of all the minor crimes people knowingly commit that no one actually cares to enforce. Now imagine what we could do if a computer can just spit out a list of names. There are so many ways the data can be (ab)used and people come up with more every day.
- Panqueca_do_mar 5y ago
  - The amount of junk food that I buy: That I'm fat
JohnFen 5y ago
Purchasing history is some of the most personal and sensitive data there is about you. It can reveal nearly everything. But, ignoring that, there's a very good reason why you might want to keep as much data out of the machine as possible -- even data that, on its own, is of no importance. That reason is databases. The data you provide to any business will be combined with the data you've provided everywhere else. All of those items that on their own are of no importance become incredibly intrusive and privacy-destroying when combined with each other.
- oramit 5y ago
  Yes, all these disparate databases can be merged together and you can get a pretty darn accurate picture of me. But so what, what is the end game here?
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > But so what, what is the end game here? Police obviously love this data, and when its being traded in open market it is sold without a warrant. Laws change, if your a minority or in an oppressive country, data is scary. In real terms for most white americans who don't break laws, the "slippery slope" (or shifting baseline) is already getting bad for end users. .. I interviewed for a job at an insurance company. They said they offer a car plug in that tracks your car (to know if you're risky driver) to "offer discounts on good driving". They said in interview (not publicly) about 4% of people get discounts and the rest stay the same or go up. They gets tons of data on how people drive to tune their models. They also said that some neighborhoods are now considered more dangerous because they saw other drivers in their data being dangerous. Basically you now pay more because they know you live near other bad drivers, or bad drivers go to the grocery store near you, or whatever. They also said (in 2018) they are working on an app to show you an id card (and track you in your car if you don't want their dongle). They're very interested in data on where you go and how you use your car, for obvious reasons. I don't know if they do this, but they could easily buy data on where you shop to determine if the path from your home to the store has dangerous intersections that might raise your premiums. That is an easy use for grocery store data that will have clear downsides to most people.
ifyoubuildit 5y ago
Others have mentioned specific reasons, but another aspect to consider is that once you've given up any kind of data, it's out of your hands. Maybe you can't think of a reason why that's bad today, but will that be true tomorrow, or next year? By making the decision that it's fine today, you're also deciding that it's always going to be fine in the future.
- oramit 5y ago
  This doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. If i'm understanding correctly: I shouldn't share that I do X because in the future X might come under scrutiny. This sort of argument can be deployed to stop you from doing anything. It's also very apocalyptic because you are only assuming downsides. What happens if sharing X actually helps me in the future?
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    Maybe it's not a slam dunk, but it's something that should at least pass through your mind when making these decisions, and I don't think that's the case for a lot of people. Does being able to deploy this argument in more situations suggest that it's a bad argument? As for what happens if sharing X actually helps you in the future, you always have that option. Not sharing initially doesn't stop you from sharing later. Sharing initially does stop you from not-sharing later, if that makes sense.
rebeccaskinner 5y ago
In many ways it’s a prisoners dilemma problem. We can contrive many particular cases where your individual data might put you at risk, but the fundamental problem is that broadly having access to many people’s data allows the people who hold that data to do analysis on it and to have enormous levels of control over the population because they can carefully tune their actions and messaging based on that data. Ultimately your individual data is far less important than the aggregate data for making these decisions- and you are impacted regardless of whether your personal data is available or not. The question is whether or not we could get people to collectively act in their own self interest and push back against data collection. Based on what we’ve seen over the last 2 years with the pandemic I have absolutely no hope for humanity ever being able to collectively act in its self interest and the road to hell will be paved with people asking “how does it hurt me, personally, right now”.
6510 5y ago
People will judge you using anything they can get their hands on. Looking at your nutritional choices I might think you are not investment material, worth hiring, worth giving a lone to. But then I can also use it to judge your friends, relatives and your great great great grandchildren. You might have friends over every weekend but those 4 crates of beer also put you on the alcoholics list. +1 alcoholics for your contact list. And you purchased helium for that kids party. A pack of smokes for the gardener per week. You look 62% like a person on the crack cocaine list and 59% like a regular weed customer. Those are over 50% are they not? Seems good enough to use. Eventually you get to the "people who are not racists but are unsure if their clients are - so you are not hired" kind of situation. How many alcoholics who suck helium, do crack and smoke pot can you "seriously" have in your network? These are most likely stupid examples but that makes them good. We have no idea how the data will be used when combined with other data. Someone will think of something way more stupid.
tomc1985 5y ago
I want full control of data being collected on me, period. I don't care if someone patronizingly thinks it will "help" me. That is not their decision, it is mine. If someone's making money off my back they better give me a cut, and a big one. 50c off a bag of grapes doesn't cut it.

by oramit 5y ago

nonfamous 5y ago

What you buy at a grocery store can reveal a lot about you: - Personal care products: gender - Medications: age/health of you and family members - Magazines/media: political affiliation, social class The list goes on. [Edit: formatting]

psychomugs 5y ago
This always reminds me of the anecdote of Target predicting pregnant customers and "outing" them before they or their family knows [1]. Really makes one consider using cash. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....
- slg 5y ago
  >before they or their family knows To be clear, it is before their family knows and not before they know. It is extremely difficult to figure out someone is pregnant before they know. It doesn't take any complex analysis to see someone purchasing prenatal vitamins and conclude they are pregnant.
slg 5y ago
I guess this is an answer to the question but it doesn't answer the motivation behind the question. Why should we care about these things being public? You can tell my gender and rough age by looking at me for a second. If you want to keep those private your grocery store is the least of your concerns.
oramit 5y ago
Yes, you can infer a lot based on grocery store purchases. I don't deny it - but why does it matter? What bad things have happened to the average person based on grocery store purchase history? Again, i'm not trying to be flippant with my questions I'm honestly just frustrated after decades of following privacy discussions that there isn't a clear answer to this question.
- boatsie 5y ago
  I wonder this too, but perhaps your insurance company buys this data on you and says, oh, they drink sugary drinks and eat candy and chips. They are buying Tylenol and ibuprofen for chronic pain. Maybe they will get diabetes and we should raise their premiums accordingly.
  - oramit 5y ago
    I don't mean to rag on you in particular. The answers I get around privacy problems are always conjecture. "Perhaps" the insurance company will do x, "Maybe" they will do y. It's always some scary threat that could happen in the future. The problem is though that the powers that be (government/corporate) already have more private information than ever before and yet: nothing has happened. At what point do these warnings just become crying wolf?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The data is already being used in various ways that people would object to, it's just that nobody who is using data in objectionable ways is announcing it from their rooftops, because they know it's objectionable and want to keep doing it.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      Insurance companies DO buy data like this. It is not perhaps. They buy data about you that they do not use to your advantage. They have no interest in lowering your premiums and every interest in raising them. One other example is the 2016 election and cambridge analytica. Not going to make a political case on the politicians, but the political parties (and foreign govs with interest in the outcome) bought data on electors to try and persuade them to vote for one candidate or the other. Or to make them think issue X is bigger deal than they previously did. People don't like to lose autonomy in politics and data is good for targeting and persuasion. Of course, the big what-if is also worrisome. Maybe not to you, but to many. Some people are more concerned than others. If your of one minority religion, then you might worry if that religion gets targeted will gov buy data to identify individuals (eg china and Uyghurs or trump and his proposed list of muslums). Maybe your gay in a nation that isn't friendly to that. Its very easy to tell if someone is queer from mass collected data. That could be a concern if the gov starts looking for people. Another less scary but not great what-if: Many govs (including some us govs) are doing more "pro-active policing" where they try to prevent crimes, often with biased data. Right now its pretty targeted at going to minority neighborhoods, but maybe one day it'll target underage people who buy alcohol paraphernalia to see if they drink underage. Minor crime oft-committed, but probably easy to identify from only grocery store purchase data - especially if you combine that with camera data (walk in/out with someone who buys booze while they buy solo cups). While the under-age drinking is a silly example, it uses pretty easily available data. Think of all the minor crimes people knowingly commit that no one actually cares to enforce. Now imagine what we could do if a computer can just spit out a list of names. There are so many ways the data can be (ab)used and people come up with more every day.
Panqueca_do_mar 5y ago
- The amount of junk food that I buy: That I'm fat

JohnFen 5y ago

Purchasing history is some of the most personal and sensitive data there is about you. It can reveal nearly everything. But, ignoring that, there's a very good reason why you might want to keep as much data out of the machine as possible -- even data that, on its own, is of no importance. That reason is databases. The data you provide to any business will be combined with the data you've provided everywhere else. All of those items that on their own are of no importance become incredibly intrusive and privacy-destroying when combined with each other.

oramit 5y ago
Yes, all these disparate databases can be merged together and you can get a pretty darn accurate picture of me. But so what, what is the end game here?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > But so what, what is the end game here? Police obviously love this data, and when its being traded in open market it is sold without a warrant. Laws change, if your a minority or in an oppressive country, data is scary. In real terms for most white americans who don't break laws, the "slippery slope" (or shifting baseline) is already getting bad for end users. .. I interviewed for a job at an insurance company. They said they offer a car plug in that tracks your car (to know if you're risky driver) to "offer discounts on good driving". They said in interview (not publicly) about 4% of people get discounts and the rest stay the same or go up. They gets tons of data on how people drive to tune their models. They also said that some neighborhoods are now considered more dangerous because they saw other drivers in their data being dangerous. Basically you now pay more because they know you live near other bad drivers, or bad drivers go to the grocery store near you, or whatever. They also said (in 2018) they are working on an app to show you an id card (and track you in your car if you don't want their dongle). They're very interested in data on where you go and how you use your car, for obvious reasons. I don't know if they do this, but they could easily buy data on where you shop to determine if the path from your home to the store has dangerous intersections that might raise your premiums. That is an easy use for grocery store data that will have clear downsides to most people.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago

Others have mentioned specific reasons, but another aspect to consider is that once you've given up any kind of data, it's out of your hands. Maybe you can't think of a reason why that's bad today, but will that be true tomorrow, or next year? By making the decision that it's fine today, you're also deciding that it's always going to be fine in the future.

oramit 5y ago
This doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. If i'm understanding correctly: I shouldn't share that I do X because in the future X might come under scrutiny. This sort of argument can be deployed to stop you from doing anything. It's also very apocalyptic because you are only assuming downsides. What happens if sharing X actually helps me in the future?
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  Maybe it's not a slam dunk, but it's something that should at least pass through your mind when making these decisions, and I don't think that's the case for a lot of people. Does being able to deploy this argument in more situations suggest that it's a bad argument? As for what happens if sharing X actually helps you in the future, you always have that option. Not sharing initially doesn't stop you from sharing later. Sharing initially does stop you from not-sharing later, if that makes sense.

rebeccaskinner 5y ago

In many ways it’s a prisoners dilemma problem. We can contrive many particular cases where your individual data might put you at risk, but the fundamental problem is that broadly having access to many people’s data allows the people who hold that data to do analysis on it and to have enormous levels of control over the population because they can carefully tune their actions and messaging based on that data. Ultimately your individual data is far less important than the aggregate data for making these decisions- and you are impacted regardless of whether your personal data is available or not. The question is whether or not we could get people to collectively act in their own self interest and push back against data collection. Based on what we’ve seen over the last 2 years with the pandemic I have absolutely no hope for humanity ever being able to collectively act in its self interest and the road to hell will be paved with people asking “how does it hurt me, personally, right now”.

6510 5y ago

People will judge you using anything they can get their hands on. Looking at your nutritional choices I might think you are not investment material, worth hiring, worth giving a lone to. But then I can also use it to judge your friends, relatives and your great great great grandchildren. You might have friends over every weekend but those 4 crates of beer also put you on the alcoholics list. +1 alcoholics for your contact list. And you purchased helium for that kids party. A pack of smokes for the gardener per week. You look 62% like a person on the crack cocaine list and 59% like a regular weed customer. Those are over 50% are they not? Seems good enough to use. Eventually you get to the "people who are not racists but are unsure if their clients are - so you are not hired" kind of situation. How many alcoholics who suck helium, do crack and smoke pot can you "seriously" have in your network? These are most likely stupid examples but that makes them good. We have no idea how the data will be used when combined with other data. Someone will think of something way more stupid.

tomc1985 5y ago

I want full control of data being collected on me, period. I don't care if someone patronizingly thinks it will "help" me. That is not their decision, it is mine. If someone's making money off my back they better give me a cut, and a big one. 50c off a bag of grapes doesn't cut it.