4 ms·

This case can be used to test how binding a privacy statement can be. If Radio Shack is allowed to sell the data to a third party over AT&T & Apple's objection

This case can be used to test how binding a privacy statement can be. If Radio Shack is allowed to sell the data to a third party over AT&T & Apple's objections, basically every privacy policy is worthless. There are always increasing amounts of data collected with increasingly invasive means, but this can make bulk data collection less intrinsically valuable.

dm2 11y ago
It's harming other businesses too because people are much more likely to put in false data in order to avoid this situation.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Other than violating social norms, would there be any problem with purposefully making the data socially poisonous (not Bobby Tables, more like saying your name is Mao or Stalin and you on 101 Legalize Murder Avenue... and this is a tame example compared to what the internet could come up with)?
  - jbigelow76 11y ago
    Since it would be nearly impossible to universally "poison" your footprint the most like scenario would end up being that Lawton Fogle is tied to an alias of Hitler Manson that lives on Sodomy Lane and has a fake social security number with strangle biblical references. Not a good way to stay off somebody's radar.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Yeah, getting on those happy happy fun fun lists would be one concern.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Imagine that appearing on your credit report one day.
    - jpindar 11y ago
      Only if you choose that. Who's to say I'm not Sunshine McBunny who lives on Unicorn Lane in Hobbiton?
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    Typically it's hard to do that when companies check against registered billing addresses for cards, or indeed card holder names, etc etc. In general I've started just saying "No". I mean, I went to get my eyes tested and three different people tried to get my email/mobile for their records. I'm not even that bothered about surveillance it's just i'm sick to death of twats phoning me at work to claim compensation/buy something/ give feedback.
    - slayed0 11y ago
      I've adopted the same method of dealing with this. Let me provide another anecdote: I went to a new dentist a few weeks ago and greatly confused the staff when I requested they didn't take a picture of me to attach to a personal file. They were equally confused when I told them I didn't want to watch anything on the TV during my appointment and would prefer instead that they turned it off. I wasn't trying to be difficult or prove a point, I just really didn't want/feel comfortable with either of those things. As they did not impact the office's ability to perform their dentistry, it seemed perfectly reasonable for me to opt-out of them. The strangest part was, based on their confused reactions, it seems I may have been one of the first to deny one or both of those options.
  - dm2 11y ago
    It depends on who you ask. For the consumer, it's a pain to have to manage several identities just to have a shred of privacy when using the internet. For the company, they always want the most accurate data, so that it can be cross-referenced and properly analyzed (specific aged males like X product better than Y). I assume that most customer data is accurate, at some companies I've done some verification of customer databases just to identify the "95% accurate" verses the "mostly inaccurate or unverifiable" data, so that it can be excluded in certain instances. Me personally, I have a wide variety of methods of obscuring data and confusing LexisNexis type companies, I'm not sure how fruitful it is, but it would be foolish to not at least try. Many places required a verifiable address, which can be difficult to obscure (UPS store works for many things). If you see a random form online, don't enter your real info dummy. If you see a website offering to lookup someones information, don't give that site your information and credit-card info (I've seen it happen many times). You also don't want to make it obvious that you are using false data. Using an alternative version of your name and slightly different numbers will do more to confuse data-correlation efforts. Just for the record, US national security is a completely different issue and I do not support attempting to provide misleading data to those relevant organizations. I've always been on the fence about the data-privacy topic. Humans can do bad things, 7+ billion humans with increasing influence and power slightly worries me. If you order lots of a uncoated fertilizer and do not have a garden or any land, then yes, in my opinion it is acceptable to build a system that raises a red flag on that person to be subject to an unbiased and transparent investigation.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  Haven't people already been doing that for years? Am I just unusually paranoid? I always lie to companies I'm buying from when I can find some way to pollute their database.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Those policies are already worthless. Trust is dead to anyone paying attention. The entire notion of contracts between large corporations and individuals leaves me feeling dirty because I was raised being taught that consent is meaningless in a vast power difference, where a vast power difference is magnitudes smaller than the difference in these cases. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but when the only recourse is through lawsuits that most can't afford, and even that has been taken away by biased arbitration, we are at a point where most keep their eyes down and hope they don't become a victim of the system.
joshstrange 11y ago
Agreed, if they allow the sale then they are pretty much saying that you can put in all the protections you want in a PP and then turn around and sell your company making all previous agreements near-null-and-void.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
To be fair, contractual obligations are pretty worthless in bankruptcy. That's the whole point.

dm2 11y ago

It's harming other businesses too because people are much more likely to put in false data in order to avoid this situation.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Other than violating social norms, would there be any problem with purposefully making the data socially poisonous (not Bobby Tables, more like saying your name is Mao or Stalin and you on 101 Legalize Murder Avenue... and this is a tame example compared to what the internet could come up with)?
- jbigelow76 11y ago
  Since it would be nearly impossible to universally "poison" your footprint the most like scenario would end up being that Lawton Fogle is tied to an alias of Hitler Manson that lives on Sodomy Lane and has a fake social security number with strangle biblical references. Not a good way to stay off somebody's radar.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Yeah, getting on those happy happy fun fun lists would be one concern.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Imagine that appearing on your credit report one day.
  - jpindar 11y ago
    Only if you choose that. Who's to say I'm not Sunshine McBunny who lives on Unicorn Lane in Hobbiton?
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Typically it's hard to do that when companies check against registered billing addresses for cards, or indeed card holder names, etc etc. In general I've started just saying "No". I mean, I went to get my eyes tested and three different people tried to get my email/mobile for their records. I'm not even that bothered about surveillance it's just i'm sick to death of twats phoning me at work to claim compensation/buy something/ give feedback.
  - slayed0 11y ago
    I've adopted the same method of dealing with this. Let me provide another anecdote: I went to a new dentist a few weeks ago and greatly confused the staff when I requested they didn't take a picture of me to attach to a personal file. They were equally confused when I told them I didn't want to watch anything on the TV during my appointment and would prefer instead that they turned it off. I wasn't trying to be difficult or prove a point, I just really didn't want/feel comfortable with either of those things. As they did not impact the office's ability to perform their dentistry, it seemed perfectly reasonable for me to opt-out of them. The strangest part was, based on their confused reactions, it seems I may have been one of the first to deny one or both of those options.
- dm2 11y ago
  It depends on who you ask. For the consumer, it's a pain to have to manage several identities just to have a shred of privacy when using the internet. For the company, they always want the most accurate data, so that it can be cross-referenced and properly analyzed (specific aged males like X product better than Y). I assume that most customer data is accurate, at some companies I've done some verification of customer databases just to identify the "95% accurate" verses the "mostly inaccurate or unverifiable" data, so that it can be excluded in certain instances. Me personally, I have a wide variety of methods of obscuring data and confusing LexisNexis type companies, I'm not sure how fruitful it is, but it would be foolish to not at least try. Many places required a verifiable address, which can be difficult to obscure (UPS store works for many things). If you see a random form online, don't enter your real info dummy. If you see a website offering to lookup someones information, don't give that site your information and credit-card info (I've seen it happen many times). You also don't want to make it obvious that you are using false data. Using an alternative version of your name and slightly different numbers will do more to confuse data-correlation efforts. Just for the record, US national security is a completely different issue and I do not support attempting to provide misleading data to those relevant organizations. I've always been on the fence about the data-privacy topic. Humans can do bad things, 7+ billion humans with increasing influence and power slightly worries me. If you order lots of a uncoated fertilizer and do not have a garden or any land, then yes, in my opinion it is acceptable to build a system that raises a red flag on that person to be subject to an unbiased and transparent investigation.
marssaxman 11y ago
Haven't people already been doing that for years? Am I just unusually paranoid? I always lie to companies I'm buying from when I can find some way to pollute their database.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Those policies are already worthless. Trust is dead to anyone paying attention. The entire notion of contracts between large corporations and individuals leaves me feeling dirty because I was raised being taught that consent is meaningless in a vast power difference, where a vast power difference is magnitudes smaller than the difference in these cases. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but when the only recourse is through lawsuits that most can't afford, and even that has been taken away by biased arbitration, we are at a point where most keep their eyes down and hope they don't become a victim of the system.

joshstrange 11y ago

Agreed, if they allow the sale then they are pretty much saying that you can put in all the protections you want in a PP and then turn around and sell your company making all previous agreements near-null-and-void.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

To be fair, contractual obligations are pretty worthless in bankruptcy. That's the whole point.