4 ms·

The myth of "partially anonymize" data is infuriating. As an academic exercise I've begun to pore over Privacy Policies for web new services I find, specificall

The myth of "partially anonymize" data is infuriating. As an academic exercise I've begun to pore over Privacy Policies for web new services I find, specifically how my account info will be used with third parties. No new consumer oriented web product in their right mind would advertise "we monetize your data with third parties", but they all include language in their Privacy Policies about sharing "partially anonymize" data. It might make you feel safe and sound when it comes to Company X protecting your identity, but marketers and other organizations don't look at data points in a vacuum, everything is in aggregate, and your aggregate profile represents you to the highest degree of certainty.

dasboth 12y ago
"As an academic exercise I've begun to pour over Privacy Policies for web new services" This is something I've been thinking of doing. I don't suppose you've shared these anywhere online by any chance? I always thought that would make a good site - somewhere where you can look up certain services' privacy policies in layman's terms. I suspect a good one already exists.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/
  - tnhh 12y ago
    http://www.docracy.com/tos/changes http://www.docracy.com/tos/changes is also good for tracking changes. And today I saw a talk about http://commonterms.org/ http://commonterms.org/ which could be useful if widely implemented.
    - dasboth 12y ago
      Common Terms looks like an interesting idea, I'd like to think I actually would read a summary of terms like what they're suggesting
  - dasboth 12y ago
    Exactly what I was after - thanks!
nine_k 12y ago
/* spelling/autocorrect: it's 'pore over', not 'pour over' */
- dmschulman 12y ago
  Fixed, cheers
- falcor84 12y ago
  I upvoted you, but I also enjoy seeing these kinds of mistakes which either get me to imagine new metaphors, and/or (like in this case) get me to learn about real-world things. Turns out that pour-over is a coffee brewing method: http://coffee.wikia.com/wiki/Pour-Over_Filtration_Brewing http://coffee.wikia.com/wiki/Pour-Over_Filtration_Brewing
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Exactly. There is no such thing as "anonymized data", there is only "not enough context" and "I need more computing power!". It's important to understand what one is up against when fighting for privacy. Incidentally, that's part of the reason why I'm having this feeling, that the future is a choice - "privacy or progress, pick one". Because if you really, really care about privacy and anonymity, the sheer amount of otherwise very useful data you'd have to forbid processing and sharing of is staggering. Take for instance shopping. Should we prevent retailers from collecting transactions data? Should we prevent them from installing CCTVs to deter theft? If neither, then how we're going to prevent them from correlating those two sets to keep a profile on you? (yes, I know retailers now use credit card data and club cards for that - but say one or both data sets will become unavailable - then they'll start looking for alternatives) It's a serious question. I don't see reducing data collection as a viable strategy, and I'm not sure if we can present entities from sharing data sets with each other. I'd like to know what could be the long-term privacy perserving strategy that doesn't require us to roll back the computer age.
- dmschulman 12y ago
  Yeah it's tricky because online consumer tracking is just the evolution of a methodology which has been in place for a long time (like supermarket club cards you mentioned). Working in marketing gives you a sense of just how pervasive it is, what tricks are at one's disposal, and I think an individual company should be allowed to know how consumers use and value a their products, but being able to sell that information to a third-party is where the line needs to be drawn. I don't know if Congress is the solution (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215457-big-data-lobbyist-congress-doesnt-want-online-privacy-law http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215457-big-data-lobbyis...), I don't believe any branch of the US government has enough of an understanding with tech issues to pass effective regulation. I hope to be proven wrong though. The most realistic way, in my opinion, to achieve some degree of reform is by encouraging businesses at a grassroots level to just simply not engage in these kinds of practices. That's an even tougher sell to many businesses than getting Congress to pass a law, but I'm heartened by companies like DuckDuckGo who build a product around the idea of "user privacy above all else". I think if that idea becomes popular enough and new businesses become noble enough to stick to their principals on issues of privacy (vs selling out to make $$) we might have an effective solution.

dasboth 12y ago

"As an academic exercise I've begun to pour over Privacy Policies for web new services" This is something I've been thinking of doing. I don't suppose you've shared these anywhere online by any chance? I always thought that would make a good site - somewhere where you can look up certain services' privacy policies in layman's terms. I suspect a good one already exists.

drdaeman 12y ago
https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/
- tnhh 12y ago
  http://www.docracy.com/tos/changes http://www.docracy.com/tos/changes is also good for tracking changes. And today I saw a talk about http://commonterms.org/ http://commonterms.org/ which could be useful if widely implemented.
  - dasboth 12y ago
    Common Terms looks like an interesting idea, I'd like to think I actually would read a summary of terms like what they're suggesting
- dasboth 12y ago
  Exactly what I was after - thanks!

nine_k 12y ago

/* spelling/autocorrect: it's 'pore over', not 'pour over' */

dmschulman 12y ago
Fixed, cheers
falcor84 12y ago
I upvoted you, but I also enjoy seeing these kinds of mistakes which either get me to imagine new metaphors, and/or (like in this case) get me to learn about real-world things. Turns out that pour-over is a coffee brewing method: http://coffee.wikia.com/wiki/Pour-Over_Filtration_Brewing http://coffee.wikia.com/wiki/Pour-Over_Filtration_Brewing

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Exactly. There is no such thing as "anonymized data", there is only "not enough context" and "I need more computing power!". It's important to understand what one is up against when fighting for privacy. Incidentally, that's part of the reason why I'm having this feeling, that the future is a choice - "privacy or progress, pick one". Because if you really, really care about privacy and anonymity, the sheer amount of otherwise very useful data you'd have to forbid processing and sharing of is staggering. Take for instance shopping. Should we prevent retailers from collecting transactions data? Should we prevent them from installing CCTVs to deter theft? If neither, then how we're going to prevent them from correlating those two sets to keep a profile on you? (yes, I know retailers now use credit card data and club cards for that - but say one or both data sets will become unavailable - then they'll start looking for alternatives) It's a serious question. I don't see reducing data collection as a viable strategy, and I'm not sure if we can present entities from sharing data sets with each other. I'd like to know what could be the long-term privacy perserving strategy that doesn't require us to roll back the computer age.

dmschulman 12y ago
Yeah it's tricky because online consumer tracking is just the evolution of a methodology which has been in place for a long time (like supermarket club cards you mentioned). Working in marketing gives you a sense of just how pervasive it is, what tricks are at one's disposal, and I think an individual company should be allowed to know how consumers use and value a their products, but being able to sell that information to a third-party is where the line needs to be drawn. I don't know if Congress is the solution (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215457-big-data-lobbyist-congress-doesnt-want-online-privacy-law http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215457-big-data-lobbyis...), I don't believe any branch of the US government has enough of an understanding with tech issues to pass effective regulation. I hope to be proven wrong though. The most realistic way, in my opinion, to achieve some degree of reform is by encouraging businesses at a grassroots level to just simply not engage in these kinds of practices. That's an even tougher sell to many businesses than getting Congress to pass a law, but I'm heartened by companies like DuckDuckGo who build a product around the idea of "user privacy above all else". I think if that idea becomes popular enough and new businesses become noble enough to stick to their principals on issues of privacy (vs selling out to make $$) we might have an effective solution.