Profiling A Nation 257
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, Australia's biggest media company and allied to Microsoft, has teamed with IT services company, Acxiom, to create that country's biggest private data repository, according to this story. It will hold the cross-matched details of Australia's 20 million people culled from government electoral rolls, Microsoft-related Web sites including Hotmail and Passport, credit card reports, casino records, bank statements and a variety of undisclosed other sources to provide marketing profiles of the country's entire population. The plan is then to sell these to marketers, insurers, banks and others. Naturally, consumer advocates and privacy groups are wary. A similar Government-sponsored scheme, the Australia Card, was universally rejected by citizens more than ten years ago. Australians are generally not protected by any privacy laws.
What do you think: is it ok for private enterprise to hold such detailed information on our private lives, offering these to the highest bidder? Is privacy dead?
Re:Does anyone see a pattern here? (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Stop resisting. Turn it around. Mawasite ageyoo (Score:1)
The Inconvenience of Convenience (Score:1)
For the sake of convenience, we choose to utilize stores, utilities, etc. which give out our information to all takers.
So that we may spend less time doing "worthless" things, we will willingly charge our purchases, use our ATM/debit cards, etc.
It's well acknowledged that, time consuming as it might be, if we did more of our purchasing in person, in cash, we'd be a lot less trackable.
But instead, we're taken with the ease of online and mail consuming, which of course hand our information right over to the waiting miners.
Interesting idea just occured to me...have you ever tried refusing to give out information to the folks at Radio Shack or Best Buy, et al., when they asked for it? What would they do? I've never seen anybody do it, I think it's assumed that you have to. But do you really? *blinks* There are so many things that we assume are beyond our control, that are just done as a matter of course...but maybe, they are actually quite within our control, and it's that assumption of lack that the sellers are depending on?
It's already here (Score:1)
Fat lot of good your guns did us....
Re:Who said MS was mentioned in the story? (Score:1)
I apologize.. that should have actually been directed one up as a comment to the original poster :) My bad.
Re:If you are not doing anything wrong ... (Score:1)
Fight Back - Opt Out! (Score:2)
There was a great three-part article [washingtonpost.com] in the Post last year about privacy in the digital age (really the lack thereof). Acxiom [acxiom.com] figured prominently into the story.
Most notably, the article said that Acxiom, in a nod to self regulation, allows consumers to opt out of the database. While I agree that opting-in is far preferrable for consumer rights, at least make the most of the current system (assuming you give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll do what they say). The company said that only 300 people had opted out prior pre-1998(!)
I actually went through the trouble to follow up on this after reading the article, and found out how to do it. Send them an email [mailto] with your name and snail mail address and they send you a pretty package with a form to fill out and send back to them. Costs a stamp, but I'm of the opinion that these mega-snoops have too much to loose by getting busted directly violating what they say they'll do - so I had them take me out.
How about a ./ effect that spills over to snail mail?
Halfway solution... (Score:2)
Also, for US based
For the truly private, a few thoughts:
-pay cash or check, only
-don't ever fill out any sort of survey.
-when registering with utility co., insurance,etc where you have to provide some degree of info, specify that you want your info to remain private
-write your govt. reps, let them know how you feel
itachi
Re:Back off on Australia Bashing... (Score:1)
Even with a repubilcan president and a republican congress they'd still have to get it past the Supreme Court (and we all know the ACLU will take every single law like this to court).
Theoretically if there were a long string of Republican Presidents and Congresses (at least 25 years worth) they could change the Supreme Court by appointing conservative justices when current members retire. Even this has it's pitfalls as there are many justices who completely change their stances after about 5 years in the Supreme Court. Justices are also in for life after they've been appointed so there's no way to get rid of them other than killing them or letting them die off from old age. Rosevelt (FDR) tried to increase the size of the court from 9 to 13 so he could stack the court with justices more open to his ideas, and the whole idea promptly got smacked down.
Re:I work for Acxiom - the gvt involvement (Score:1)
However since the Australia Card was rejected 10 years ago, there is no crossreferencing of the electoral roll with other gvt records (tax returns or social security or the heavily subsidised healthcare).
Because we have no bill of rights defining our privacy there's a lot of room for abuse here, by both private industry and government (would the department of social security be interested in buying this data from Packer? Probably). And instead of addressing the lack of a bill of rights, we had a referendum on whether to mention aboriginals in the preamble to the constitution.
*shrug*
Any rich countries out there want a web developer?
you can (Score:1)
opt out, dude [mailto]
itachi
Use of data (Score:1)
Consider that this database might contain data about purchases of medicaments. Maybe you are addicted to painkillers, this would easily deduced from the data. And you expect to get a job with that if there are other Canidates?
But the worst (IMO) missuse is the possibility of both, corporations, political entities (legal and illegal) and even individuals (providing they have enough $$) to weed through this material and isolate people that match certain patterns.
Radical racist organisations will _love_ to find out the adresses of their enemies, its going to make live a lot easier to them. And that is just _one_ example.
Ciao, Peter (Who's
I'm a victim... (Score:1)
All the company had to do was make a report and leave it on my record until I really needed credit. They are not required to do anything and I'm guilty until proven innocent. The large database owners have become a center of power that rivals the US government. They can unilaterally punish without recourse (unless your independantly wealthy, denial of credit equals punishment in the US since there is no way an average American can by a car or house without it). These databases must be controlled by the government (eg, the power structure controlled by the people).
On the flip side, if Traveler's Insurance tells the world that they paid for me to have herpes treatment, what's to stop them (as long as they actually paid for it). I may not like them for it, but don't they have a right to tell others what they paid for (barring a privacy clause in our contract)? Would it be OK for me to publicize that Traveler's tries to avoid paying claims? Is it OK for Joe Bartender at the local pub to tell his girlfriend that I like gin? Is it OK for the mop boy at the local pub to tell the police that I like gin? Why would it be OK for me to tell my drinking buddies that Joe Bartender's gin sucks? Is it OK for my ISP to tell the NSA my IP address? If not, then why is it OK for me to tell you that the ISP's service sucks? At what point does it become illegal for business people to pass on information that they are party to?
What I'm trying to get at is that when you make a law you are drawing a line. That line must be clear so that everyone can understand and obey it, or you end up with silly lawsuit and rich lawyers. Where is the clear line between protecting peoples right from unlawful searches and the companies rights to compile and publish factual information? (OK, I agree that corporations don't necessarily have rights, but a database company could easily be run by a single person and a fast computer -- theoretically at least.)
Re:fear the rain (Score:1)
The Death Bells are Tolling for Privacy. (Score:1)
Me and MegaCorp Inc.: the Movie (Score:2)
Now where's my quill?
I think "personal knowledge" is a perfect term, one who's definition could take 200 years to fathom.
because the Chinese government figured out how to numb their population: they're getting them hooked on the same drug as Americans, materialism.
An interesting way to put it. And accurate, something that you work hard far, spend money on, and provides intense yet fleeting feelings of pleasure, quickly replaced by a longing for more. Yup that's cra^H^H^Hmaterialism. I still wanna new PC though, maybe I should see somebody..:)
Privacy... (Score:2)
Opt out (Score:1)
This is true. Lots of annoying DBs and snailmail spam, etc have opt-out procedures. They either have 800 numbers, webpages, etc, someone (hint, hint) should get a listing together, and post it somewhere. If you know an opt-out, post it.
Re:Where is Microsoft mentioned in this story? (Score:1)
Oh, so they have a joint portal partnership in NineMSN? That proves it, then! They're allied with a hideous blood pact, and they're going to destroy privacy as we know it.
(It would take an anthropologist to understand Slashdot.)
this is mad! (Score:3)
Hello Big Brother (Score:1)
fear the day (Score:1)
I work for Acxiom (Score:2)
at least as far as I know...I'm just a lowly IT intern...but they're so hyped about security it's not even funny (the door to the snack room has a card reader)
I don't think this is the end of privacy.
dunkman
----------------------------------------
Privately funded privacy infringement? (Score:1)
Of course, we'll won't need to be so concerned with Australia's privacy problems should Echelon prove to be real.
Just a thought (Score:1)
Who says that the information is actually staying within companies and business? Maybe anyone with an agenda could just as easily purchase a profile on someone...What kind of security is being used to protect the information? These are the questions we should be asking, not just why and how. I don't advocate this, but find it hard to prevent. Things like this most likely can't be prevented, and if not, personal protection is always an option.
Start your own Country (Score:1)
I just need to win the lottery, or inherit from a heretofore unknown rich uncle to be able to afford this.
Any takers, other ideas?
maybe this is a good thing (Score:1)
Maybe this is a good thing. Imagine getting advertisements that you WANT for a change. Like one person above stated, how many AOL disks can ya get? These companies are trying to cut down on your annoyance factor.
The problem is that they now, essentially, know more about you than you know about yourself becasue they can take Asmimovian psycho-historical, sociological data and absract it into a 'personality'. The problem here is not privacy, it is that we feel like we are being grouped and categorized, and we geeks and techno-philes don't like that.
But lets TAKE the privacy issue. So what if someone knows what i do? If you are doing something you don't want someone to know about, do it under a guise/anonymously/etc. Its kinda like Neo in THE MATRIX. He does all his normal stuff as Mr. Anderson (pays his taxes, helps with his neighbors groceries....), but then does stuff he WANTS to do as Neo. You want to protect your privacy? create a 'new you' a Neo-persona, and let that persona go wild. Just make sure that the persona is not assocaited with your 'real' persona (if there is such a thing).
On a meta scale, we don't need to stop companies from gathering data, we simply need a way to abstract ourselves FROM that data. We need to make it easy for the average person to make a persona that cannot be traced. Really, it is that simple. Anybody got ideas about that???
In the Onion? (Score:1)
--
Re:Editting ~/.netscape/cookies (Score:2)
Or, heck, just turn cookies off.
I, personally, need to have several cookies, one for Slashdot, one for Yahoo, and some others. These I wouldn't like to be mangled but all others can. I tried making cookies read only, but that didn't work. Would changing the owner of the cookies file do this?
Re:this is mad! (Score:1)
So back to privacy, If anyone in Oz is serious about privacy, then try this... Fill out the Australia Post survey you got in the mail with creative answers to make their data bad. Once the price of the data goes down (since its useless) buy a selected list of "targets for your product" and provide that list to one of the news papers as real examples of what you can do with the data. Some of the questions asked on the survey could lead to a query that would shock people into the "we must protect the children". Looking at the thing now... They ask the birthday and sex of children. They ask what kind of tampons does your daughter use. They ask if you have an alarm system in your house. They ask about what kind of insurance you have on your stuff. They ask how much you make and how much you spend on the electricity. I know I could come up with a few select request that could be merged into a list that could get people screaming.
Aussies do accept just about anything and they will continue to accept the privacy loss until it goes too far and they will fight back and I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that fight. In the US, it will just get worse and worse because someone will always be making a buck on other peoples info.
As I finished a speech on the growing use of private data way back in high school:
"Information has always been power"
New privacy law to cover this (Score:2)
For all the
Let me tell you a little story... (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong--I use computers for work, all day, every day. I use them for play as well. But there is much more out there than the internet, and much more to you than your .sig file.
However, the power of computers lies in this: There is very little effective electronic legislation in place in the world today (example: cryptography is governed by munitions laws of all things). Most legislation aimed at the electronic world is a badly rehashed attempt to apply existing policy to new ideas--generally by politicos who don't understand the first thing about it.
This is where you, the internet user, come into the picture. Take advantage of the fact that electronic law has not yet coalesced into any strong set of guidelines. Take it upon yourself to protect yourself and show others how to protect themselves. If people become accustomed to preserving their online privacy, they will be a lot less willing to give it up when the time comes.
ps: give carmack a break. some of you petty little fuckers need to wake up and smell the coffee if you think that's a threat.
What about a strike back ? (Score:1)
But, I, too, am interested in the private life of companies and the people who run them.
So, what about a database of private informations about theses privacy-invaders companies and their top-workers ?
Re:The Death Bells are Tolling for Privacy. (Score:1)
How do you moderate down an article (Score:1)
It would be ironic because, for the next two days, I have a few moderation points to dispense and I think the lead story could be down-rated with a "-1 Flamebait" or two. I mean come on:
"is it ok for private enterprise to hold such detailed information on our private lives, offering these to the highest bidder? Is privacy dead?"
You've got to know half of the Slashdot community is libertarian and the other half is conservative. What purpose could that rhetorical question hold except that of fanning the flames?
Everything in moderation - including moderation.
Re:Halfway solution... (Score:1)
This should help reduce the amount of junk mail and telemarketing calls you receive although I still receive telemarketing calls for local charities.
Unfortunately, I'm probably going to have to do this again since I'm planning on moving to a smaller apartment closer to downtown in a few months.
Here's an alternative viewpoint (Score:2)
Which brings me the problem of having my private information online, or in a database sold by the Australian government to Macy's. Sure, I hate getting mailers and catalogs. They drive me nuts, and since we have a trash can by our mail kiosk, they go straight from the mailbox into the garbage 99% of the time. This isn't an invasion of my privacy, but of my time. (There are ways you can legally force egregious catalog-senders to stop sending, btw, but that's another topic altogether.)
So what about this database? Has any human being ever read my personal information? Well, except for phone solicitors, no. (There are techno-fixes for that particular problem though; for example, you can put blocks on all numbers or specific types of callers.) Will anyone see it after it gets sold by the Australian Gov't? (I'm not an Aussie, but if I were...) No. Does anyone have access to it that might peep in my bedroom window to get his jollies or attack my wife and I at our door? No - no-one who wouldn't already know where I live. It's computers talking to computers, folks.
The computer you're staring at right now has tons of personal information stored on you. For most of us, our computers contain information that could get us fired or divorced or publicly embarrassed, if taken in the wrong context. These databases don't. Unless you went to prison (in which case it's public record anyway, and you're already required to divulge it to most of the people who would care), no corporate database is going to contain embarrassing or incriminating information about you. No human will ever see it, just another computer, printing another automatic mailer, writing your address on it and sending it in the mail, to be deposited straight into the trash.
I feel sorry for the pulp trees, but I have a hard time mustering any rage against the machine for these corporate databases.
Re:Maybe they are doing the right thing for once (Score:1)
I think this is all part of Howards payback to Packer for all the pro-liberal propeganda that Channel nine spews out.
This is offtopic when compared to the story, but not when in reply to the above post. (IMO
Something you can do to help. (Score:2)
As an Australian, I think I have some right to request this.
Please, please, please write articles that portray us as idiots, not only on this issue, but especially on the who internet censorship thing.
Usually, Austrlians like to think of ourselves as pretty practical people, who don't put up with bullshit, and are honest enough with ourselves to admit we listen to what others have to say.
If people start writing stories saying how dumb some of our recent technical decisions have been, the media here will pick up on it.
Please help.. if you need ideas, email me.
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com [thehungersite.com]
Re:What about a strike back ? (Score:1)
BTW, anyone who doesn't work for a company that keeps information on its customers probably doesn't work at all (a few self-employed people excepted). And since they don't work at all, they don't buy, and therefore they aren't in the database.
Maybe they are doing the right thing for once (Score:2)
I've always supported the Labor part becuase I've never thought the Librals had what it takes to govern in the second half of the 20th century, let alone the next. As for the Nationals!! Wow!! Lets ride our way out of this on the sheep's back again.
ANYWAY....
Having said that, apparently the government is putting a bill foward that will give us opt out rights for databases like this.
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com [thehungersite.com]
Re:there's nothing wrong with it (Score:1)
Re:Stop resisting. Turn it around. Mawasite ageyoo (Score:1)
handle the problem.
There are widly separate views on whether punishing a child is the correct way or not. In fact, there are widly different opinions if either the "psycological approach" (trying to explain to a child why something is wrong at an age when they can't even comprehend half the words you say) or the "best friend" approach (trying to be your childs best friend instead of an authority figure when it comes to correcting abnormal destructive behavior) contributes to the situation we in the USA are facing right now where the severity of crimes committed by young people not yet legal adults had excalated drastically, or possibly a combination of these two "new" methods is to blame. Anyway, your use of the term "smacking an errant child" clearly shows your stance on the topic and gives the impression, at least to me, that you believe you are 100% right with no possibility of a better way in any circumstance. Besides, other than the "fringe" parenting groups who I personally think border on the criminal and sometimes cross it, the vast majority of people who do use "physical" punishment to correct abnormal behavior mean a smack on the but or hand used to get the childs attention and know that you are upset with them for thier actions, not laying the child across your lap and beating them for 5 minutes to cause physical damage.
I do believe gathering data on the personal financing of corporate officers who make the decisions (or hey, what about the corporate lawyers?) would be an effective means of stoping this. I think you fail to get the point entirely. The point is that we will put presure on corporations to stop gathering "personal" information by gathering "personal" information about the corporation ourselves. As I think it would be fair to estimate that most if not all corporations of the size that would be involved in these actions have a few skeletons in their closet they wouldn't necessarily want the "public" to know about, it may be the only way, other than new laws, to stop them.
If you think it's more realistic to believe that we can effectively "lobby" our representatives and have them pass the appropriate laws before we could gather sufficient information about the companies that do this I believe you are living in a fantasy world.
Re:there's nothing wrong with it (Score:1)
Re:Privacy... (Score:1)
Re:Hi my name is Adolf, you may board the train no (Score:1)
-r
Re:this is mad! (Score:1)
First thing to do: Get Off Your Ass! (Score:1)
Every person should be PAID for access to their personal details. It's unjust that companies can collate individuals' details and sell them for millions of dollars to other companies. Your free info = money in their pockets.
This isn't new either. Insurance companies have been paying banks for a long time for access to their customers' details in order to market products to them and give them leads for business insurance markets. And mail-order catalogs constant;y buy or swap each others' lists of customer details.
The only difference now is that entire online companies' stock is valued by the sophistication of customer detail they can deliver to the highest bidder.
Do you really think Amazon and AOL valuations are about their "product"? Hell, no...it's because they can spit up detailed demographic lists of who is buying what, when, how, and by what form of payment.
Just about every company out there is killing themselves to get more and more user info so they can increase what they charge advertisers.
Which is EXACTLY what Andover has done with the purchase of Slashdot and Freshmeat and Animation Factory, whether they admit it or not.
Now, maybe right this minute it's not SO ominous as all it takes for advertisers to throw money at you is by simply saying you have millions of page views BUT the time is already upon us where advertisers will pay sites MORE whose info on their users is not just the number of them but other details as well. This will then cause sites to fall all over each other trying to build the most sophisticated back-ends in order to cough up more of YOUR info so that they can continue to increase their "value" in the eyes of institutional investors and advertisers.
I am not making this up. NewsTrolls has been approached by several parties who have been boldly upfront about what they want. More info on your site's users = more money for you.
It's disgusting and I'm fighting it in my own small way but it's going to take all of us around the world fighting against it, demanding payment for our details.
The question is: Do people really give a damn or are they more interested in Quake and Buffy?
Wake up, people!
--diva
What will the EU do about this? (Score:1)
The EU has almost as strict regulations - some EU countries such as Sweden even stricted.
In fact, due to this the EU almost made it illegal for companies in the EU to export information about persons to the US because of the lack of privacy protection in the US...
If something like what is suggested in the article happens in Australia, it will likely mean even harsher responses. EU regulations explicitly disallow a company from exporting personal information to a country with less stringent privacy regulations...
YA problem for the libertarian dogma (Score:1)
Boycott products of any International company that buys this information, or any company profitting from this
Libertarian myth: no law is needed, since customer can 'vote with their feet' and boycott products that they oppose.
The reality: it's IMPOSSIBLE to know everything a company is doing. How do you plan on figuring WHO buys this data? What if this data is bought by a marketing consulting agency, which then in turn works for some ad agency, which then in turn works for <insert big consumer product company>? How do you know?
It is impossible!!!
The free market economy is based on the principles that the consumer is intelligent and knowledgeable.
--
Naive (Score:2)
I think this is fair if a consumer has the right to see everything in the database under his name and delete it if he so wishes
Two problems with this:
If you're lucky.
Naturally you won't be able to remove that little incident with the dope at college (where you didn't inhale), or your heroic stint in the school crossing patrol during Vietnam (or whatever else your presidentials have been up to lately).
Last year I bought a house; a mortgage debt repossession. I still receive interesting mail related to the previous owner, I still have an amusing time with my business bankers (I also work from home) and I (rarely) get big guys in long coats turn up on the doorstep. Fortunately I have a lot of sympathy for the previous owner and the sense of humour that finds debt collectors on the doorstep funny (so long as they're not really after me). Yes, I have taken the appropriate measures to correct the UK's centralised databases on all this, yes, I still get the fallout.
The poor will have none of this. They'll collect whatever petty judgements against them (maybe a trivial fine, maybe missed payments on over-priced credit), and they'll be blacklisted from future credit or employment as a consequence. This is a fundamentally divisive measure for society as a whole. We already have a big problem in Western society where kids from large "sink" estates are blacklisted as proto-criminals before they've even left school. This measure will extend such lifelong marks of Cain from the housing ghetto to the information ghetto.
Re:If you are not doing anything wrong ... (Score:1)
//rdj
People do die (Score:1)
Re:Editting ~/.netscape/cookies (Score:2)
But some places over-use cookies, forcing you to turn them on for that site. Not just slashdot and the New York Times -- I am not sure how they could avoid using them. But try to go to mapquest or cars.com and refine a search several times with cookies turned off. cars.com doesn't work at all; it keeps the zip code in a cookie (and also uses java, unfortunately).
Right now I turned off junkbuster filtering for slashdot and nytimes.com. It works ok -- I remove the junkbuster proxie when I have to use mapquest or cars.com. But a more general solution might drive a more societal change, and stop these people from feeling so free about tracking you in the first place.
Thanks For Showing Capitalism's Greatest Faults... (Score:1)
Oh my... couldn't have put it better myself - Are you saying that Capitalism is willing to convert all values and basic rights into solid money (two examples were shown here: Privacy and Ecology)?!
Would you give up your Freedom of Speech (or any other Constitutional Right, for that matter) if you knew it would result in incresing your income? can everything be displayed in fiscal values and then converted??
I believe not. I believe there are some basic human qualities that simply can not be exchanged into physical entities, and are given to us for the very fact that we are Human...
The act of giving up your right for Privacy is like giving up your right for Freedom of Speech, and that is one thing im not giving up so easily.
Re:you can (Score:1)
What does sending e-mail to this address accomplish? Opt out of what?
Re:Back off on Australia Bashing... (Score:2)
Well, no. At least, not based on the current evidence.
The dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans is more complex (and less extreme) than this snippet implies
Al Gore is one of the chief backers of national ID cards. He's not a Republican! In fact, a Republican Congress would probably help retard moves in that direction should he become President; they've rejected already movies for centralized government repositories of medical information which were essentially the same thing. (In fact, the silly
There are both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this issue, I'm sure, but often with different motivations. Both of the not-so-different mainstream political parties in the US claim to be for the American Way, the Constitution, blah blah blah, but they do not agree (evidently!) on what this means. Republicans tend more toward conservativism in their interpretation of laws, including the Constitution (hence their designation as conservatives, though they tend to be conservative in money matters as well for the same reasons); Democrats tend more toward liberal interpretation of the rightful powers of government, hence their designation as Liberals and their spending patterns.
In both of these, I say 'tend' because neither side has a good, prudent spending record, and William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards, which publicize terrible spending projects, show that there are exceptions to both patterns.
I'm in neither one of those Parties, since (my opinion, natch) they're both basically composed of powerlusting estasblishmentarianists who spout off about trigger-issues fervently in public, but have in fact similar attitudes toward the public. There are smart people in or aligned with both of them, but that's no reason to join up as far as I can see.
Anyhow, my point is that I think if you are going to generalize one US political party as being in favor of national(ized) ID / information, it's *not* the Republicans, who tend to be more biased in the favor of individuals on issues like this. (Or at least no less biased -- there are data points all over the place and lots of interesting exceptions
timothy
We don't have guns in Europe (Score:1)
Now, the problem is, the CNIL's power has kept diminishing over the years. Still, they're getting some press lately that might help publicize the issues
--
Re:marketing makes the market more effective? (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:IMHO (Score:1)
Just like AOL, but your privacy preferences expire after 1 year. SO you must opt-out on a yearly basis.
Multiiply that by the number of ISP's, credit cards, and other services you have and companies you do business with, and that's a whole lotta opting-out you have to be responsible for. Especially if the policy changes to expire monthly, or if it's engineered to have a pain-in-the-ass user-interface (how do I find the damn opt-out page on your damn web site?), or if there's no way to VERIFY that your personal data wasn't sold off by this company regarless of your opt-out status, or if even you VERIFY that they did violate your wishes, there was an enforceable law with teeth that could be used by the consumer to recover damages, or deter corporations from doing this.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Future without any privacy a good thing (Score:1)
More rights, less taxes to pay, and hey, power power power!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Does anyone see a pattern here? (Score:3)
As thongs stand, parliametary democracies as in the UK, US and Australia allow governments with a strong majority (achieved through electoral processes which favour the powerful) and individual lobby groups to ride roughshod over our rights and freedoms.
It's high time that we got ourselves some government that serves the interests of the people.
We need to establish a new kind of democracy that removes the ability of corporations to buy political favours, that forces governments to listen to their electorate and to act in the way we tell them to.
In my opinion we have in the internet a very useful tool via which to organise ourselves politically. But our governments want to control that too by censorship, by outlawing the private use of encryption, and by continually snooping on our conversations with the likes of Echelon and upcoming advances in AI-directed intelligent listening.
The window of opportunity is closing rapidly. If we don't get our act together soon, it will no longer be possible to change anything.
If you want your children to be free, then we must all campaign, demonstrate, orchestrate petitions, write to our MPs or Congressmen, boycott goods produced by corporations, make our voices heard.
Ranting about it on slashdot is just preaching to the converted.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Editting ~/.netscape/cookies (Score:2)
Some proxies will let you define rules that can mask out or mask in certain addresses, so for instance, you could deny *.*.*.* but allow slashdot's IP and whatever other sites you visit.
Netscape has 3 cookie settings, but unfortunately they don't allow one to make deny/allow rules, so the settings effect
Acxiom's policy... (Score:2)
Find out Where Acxiom gets its Data [acxiom.com], and how to opt out (or try, anyway -- good luck):
Re:Hello Big Brother (Score:2)
And we have no one to blame but OURSELVES! (Score:2)
In a sense, this says just as much about the vast abyss of unethical corporate behavior, as it does about how much we really care about it. We're so wrapped up in our immediate, consumeristic, material greed that we're literally selling our souls to the devil in order to get our fix.
It privacy really means anything, we *can* get it back - but it will take something that few people are willing to exercise these days: DISCIPLINE. Find out which companies are using the services of companies like Axciom - and DO NOT BUY FROM THEM. PERIOD. Will it mean inconvience? Probably. Will it mean foregoing some of life's immediate "pleasures"? Probably. The bottom line is this: what does ANY of this mean if you can't live with any sense of dignity, knowing that to someone on the other end of the phone, you're nothing but a summary, a profile, a collection of life-events that is really none of their damned business?
Help, one australian who gives a shit! (Score:3)
This makes day to day living kinda cool, but the flip side being that when something important comes along, we do little to stop it. Just a few weeks ago we had a national refferendum to see if we wanted to become a republic. The history of past refferenda guided the outcome of this one, a 'No' vote -- a sad day for me personally. What im trying to say is that there is a general apathy here which is amplified when it comes to 'technical' issues, look at the work of Richard Alston (a federal senator) who is passing all that crap trying to ban porn on the internet..
At this stage i would like to thank
Here i go, i make a call to ppl to do something. I dont know what, but do something. Help us.
Evil (Score:2)
Egads a
What do laws say about this? (Score:2)
But please think about user profiling for a bit: It isn't inherently evil. Most people don't want all their personal data floating from corporation to corporation. But unless this information is being used against you in some way, why do you care? In fact, it might be beneficial to you. How many times, guys, do you sit through some feminine hygeine commercial on TV, wishing they would realize they're missing their target? It is pretty much a fact of life, especially on this still-free network of ours, that advertising will be pretty much everywhere. If you're going to be subjected to all sorts of inane advertising, wouldn't you rather it be about something which you might be interested in? Just some thoughts to chew on.
demographics gone mad (Score:2)
I see that there is already a similar database for the US.
Coperations should be allowed to compile and use demographics. I am not a big fan of them as they tend to produce bland, for-almost-everyone, overmarketed products. But I don't really care. However when a company can access a database with lots of detailed information on a specific individuals or familys that is going too far. The company probably needs some information to conduct bussiness with me, but they don't need to know everything.
Stuff like this just pisses me off. I put some effort into trying to protect my privacy. I put effort into protecting my privacy and not doing something that could be seen as fraud and breaking the law. However, if companies no longer wish to honour my request for privacy, why should I honour their request for correct personal information?
Anyone know where I can get a good set of fake IDs?
IMHO (Score:4)
Lord knows I would.
Imagine life in the future where there is a single huge repository of all marketing information on every single person in the entire world. Imagine what a different life experience people would have if they opted out of that particular database compared to those who choose to stay in? The person in the database would have every single piece of advertising directed specifically to him (remember this is the future) whereas the person who opted out would get the very basic stuff, maybe nothing if such a thing was a rarity (one can dream). Imagine the social implications! Would people in the "advertising club" look down apon those who are not because they are not part of "society"? Weird thoughts I just had.
I think the worse thing would be if people were not given the opportunity to opt-out of databases such as these. I don't like people being able to find out what type of ice cream I like or the last time I bought a newspaper. I have an inherent distrust of all marketing people and car salesmen.
Coming soon to a state near you.... (Score:2)
How long do you think it will be before they decide to implement this here? (Not to mention, they'll probably patent this "great, new technology" =-P )
Now, when you receive spam from some fly-by-night company, they already have an order form enclosed with your home address, credit card number, and favorite color filled in for you. The question is, when do they start signing your charges for you?
Visa Operator: What do you mean you didn't order a $500 Hawaiian print shirt, Mr. Johnson? It is in exactly your size.
--Too lazy to log in
S"Q"K
Two worries (Score:2)
If this turns out to be a single source for all information, what determines its correctness?
What if companies use that information to restrict my freedom?
I don't think that either of these issues will be addressed as long as the company's (and government's) senior executives feel that they still have their privacy. So the solution I suggest is to collect and publish as much information about all of them as possible. If we open-source their lives, I'm sure they'll come out as better people for it.
Re:I work for Acxiom (Score:4)
It is so easy to create a system that stores the data of which rooms you are in, and for how long, based on the info given by your little card, that the big companies could do it just for the heck of doing it.
Think of how easy it is to set a cookie on someones machine when they enter your site and track their progress around your website, just for the heck of it.
Now comes some big people trying to do this on a national scale, and trying to make money at it as well. The information is disturbingly lacking in privacy, but has no individuality. The information is just numbers that relate to a specific person, there is no space or time for little hand-written notes on each person.
They may be taking the privacy, but there are only two main downfalls because of this:
The first is that mass amounts of spam this will generate. If anyone can buy a list of an entire country's buying habits, instant junk mail mania.
Second is the ethical blow. Why is the government willing to set this up? Are they that desperate for money? Who is the tard who passed this all the way through so that it has gotten this far? This is the start of a bad trend.
Bah.
Where is Microsoft mentioned in this story? (Score:3)
Microsoft is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the story. Where is the MS connection, or is this a standard
You, Me and MegaCorp Inc. all do it for profit. (Score:4)
Privacy has been dead for a long long time. We don't really care, though many of us still spout off about the degredation of privary. Any discussion or demands for privacy in this country are purely academic. The issue as killed and buried by Corporate America long ago. All America cares about is making a buck. This is not limited to Corporations. We are a capitalist nation, everything we do is, almost by definition, for profit. The US economy is raging right now. One indicator I use of the the US economy is the cars we drive. In the 90's, especially the late 90's, the car have gotten bigger and bigger, and they eat more and more gas. The same thing happened in the swinging post WWII economy. We don't care about privary either. Telemarketing companies buy and sell personal information between themselves and others. All in the name of profit. I use a piece of plastic for almost every purchase I make; allowing my bank to know what I spend and where. Grocery stores offer club cards; in exchange for good deals, you give up some privacy. They can keep track of your purchase history. Why do we trade our privacy for a buck? Because Americans, for the most part, do not value privacy. The economy is good, our personal profits are high, so we really don't give a damn as long as we can keep filling up the 42 gallon tank of your suburbans with $1.50 gasoline that craps up the air we breath.
If we really care about privacy, there needs to be cultural change in our view of the value of privacy. This won't happen until after our privacy is exploited to the point of hurting people. When the sale of personal information prevents people from getting jobs, inssurance, food, etc. we may start to value it more. But because our privacy was sold at aution years ago, it's going to be an uphill battle to get it back.
Frankly, I don't want it back now. I'm the first the admit that I'm a raging capitalist. I'm willing to sell my privacy for profit, I carry a grocery store club card. I don't care if online bookstore know what I purchase and read. It makes my life a little more comfortable.
Andrew
--
One Martini, Shaken not Stirred (Score:2)
007: "You can't do this... you... you... you monster! Ok ok I'll talk"
Evil Bill: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"
Re:Where is Microsoft mentioned in this story? (Score:2)
And yes... the MSN in Ninemsn stands for "Microsoft Network"
So M$ is very much involved.
M@T
Re:Where is Microsoft mentioned in this story? (Score:3)
The Microsoft connection is NineMSN [ninemsn.com.au]. Nine Network is owned by PBL.
Re:The Death Bells are Tolling for Privacy. (Score:3)
If privacy isn't dead now, it will be very shortly.
I used to work for a company that developed medical records software, and we were approached by the Ministry of Health for Ontario, Canada. They were looking for software to put a system in place whereby all doctors in Ontario would store their patient's incredibly private information in a central location. (Our software was not designed for this purpose, but they were interested in it because of its great front-end.)
I was part of the team that trained the civil servants on the use of the software, so that they could judge its quality. After several days working together, our two groups were getting kind of chummy, so I ventured a thought towards the government's project leader. I made the suggestion that a double-blind system could be set-up, so that aggregate information about efficacy of treatments, etc., could be compiled without anyone being able to pinpoint exactly which citizen had AIDS, etc. In response, all I got was a cold, blank stare. It was obvious to me that what this government project was after was the ability to track individuals. All noble talk about creating an incredible research tool was just to make the project more palatable.
In Canada, any bank transaction valued over $1000 is tracked by the Mounties. I believe a similar law is in place in the U.S. for the FBI. These things are both pre-internet.
I'm afraid that there are no death bells tolling, since privacy died a long time ago. I'm also afraid that there is no technological solution--even PGP cannot help. The only good solution would be to have privacy solidly entrenched in law. That's definitely a long-shot, because here in Canada, with Trudeau's iteration of our constitution, the right to private property was removed. (It was a suggestion of the socialist leader of the time, Ed Broadbent, who feared a constitutional challenge to our extortionately high income taxes, which could probably be proven to be un-constitutional.)
And I don't think any Americans should believe that they have it much better, since in many states Driver's Licences can be revoked for things having nothing to do with driving, such as failing to pay child-support. I understand that in the Netherlands, according to Pulp Fiction, policeman cannot insist on searching your person. Now that's privacy law with balls! And something to strive for.
I'd even be willing to eat fries with mayo!
95% can quickly go to 0% (Score:3)
The above is a joke for the FBI afflicted!
I live roughly 10 miles away from their HQ in Conway...
The only difference between the one in
Side note:
Kinda strange to think my mom might have been one of their Database Administrators. Only problem was that she would be on call 24/7, and she would have been required to travel when asked (hmm....).
Future without any privacy a good thing (Score:5)
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle; we cannot reverse technological and social trends and restore privacy to all citizens everywhere. But we can deny privacy to the snoops! Who will watch the watchers? We can. We will, to quote AT&T. The only rational response to steady erosion of privacy is no privacy at all, and be gung-ho about it! Lobby for laws requiring full disclosure of all government and business documents! Outlaw NDAs! Get the credit reports for corporations, public and "private." Subject corporations to the death penalty (i.e., revoke their corporate status if they commit felonies).
A single standard!
Geezus (Score:4)
Michael threw a hissy-fit today about id Software sending back graphics card information and now we have this. This is a real privacy concern. The problem isn't with the information being so openly available, it's with it being so tightly controlled, not just by one organization, but by a combination organization/government body. Business/free-enterprise/commercial world is not a democracy. Once the government immerses itself in this world, some of the democratic freedoms (mostly those based on Socialist ideas) become lost as business takes over the legislative workings. This isn't lobbying we're talking about here, this is direct cooperation and the line is blurred between government and the private sector (ever see Robocop?). I don't mind businesses collecting data and I don't mind governments collecting data, but I mind them doing it together, because government cannot effectively regulate when it is part of the process (we see that too much now already).
Slashdot readers who posted over 600 comments today about video card information should open their eyes to this real problem. Whether or not the situation is exactly as it is presented here, someone (not just me) should get on the horn to consumer rights advocates right now and make sure that the world's largest conflict of interest doesn't become a reality.
Re:You'd better run-- you'd better take cover... (Score:2)
Re:Help, one australian who gives a shit! (Score:4)
As mentioned in a similar post a few days ago (Similar in that the Australian were being victims of something insane like government-authorized privacy violations), I believe this to be more of a global issue than what one might think right away....
Now this is happening in Australia - or rather: now we KNOW OF this happening in Australia. If it isn't going on everywhere else allready, it's sure to come.....and soon. Along with government approved and required backdoors in every system and restrictions on cryptography (and thereby - IMHO - on the feedom of speech) etc.
Let me restate my proposal from last time there was a
It is time for slashdotters to unite and raise our voices.
Someone mentioned somewhere in the comments following this story about another wierd act in Australia [slashdot.org] that the most likely response from the
And on that note...any ideas on what we CAN in fact do? I'd imagine that acting as a community would give some weight to our actions (please - decent ideas only...spamming someone, even a politician, is NOT a decent idea).
With great sympathy for "jdigital" and his fellow australians....
Hate to break it to you (Score:4)
There really isn't that much to fear. There is a margin of error that will always exists. If you try hard enough you can reach it. Most list companies (as we call them) are receptive to individual requesting removal, there aren't that many. You need to realize (as much as many of you hate it) that marketing makes markets more efficient, and the U.S. (and it looks like Aussieland too) use free-market economies. This information, en masse, is worth money and so a market develops. There are limits to the information available, but nothing that couldn't be obtained from a decent private eye, to help put it in perspective.
For what it's worth... (Score:4)
The main section that I can remember (since AustLII doesn't appear to be up at the moment) is that you have the right to review any information held on you and ask for it to be corrected if wrong.
I am not overly concerned by people attempting to do targeted marketing or to have a profile of me to make my customer experience more worthwhile, provided it is for a specific company. For example, I like having account records for the phone company so that they can suggets I change to a different mobile phone charging plan to save me money. It's a lot like having the waiters/waitresses at my local Italian restaurant knowing what I usually order. I get good service, and they get repeat business. This is good for both sides.
What I don't like is for a private company to gather information from disparate sources, throw it into a database and sell the extracted information to someone else that I may or may not have had any previous dealings with. If you check the fine print on most forms, there is a little section which says "If you sign this you agree to let us give/sell this information to a certain select few groups (eg: police)", so I have, in a roundabout sort of way, given my permissions to have this information gathered. of course, not signing the form denies me the services of that company, which is akin to blackmail in my mind.
What is more concerning is that with the speed of SMP computing and some rather funky algorithms it is possible to glean a great deal of information from trend analysis and similar techniques. This is information that you have not explicitly provided, but which has been deduced from your spending habits, amount of insurance, type of car, marital status, credit rating, etc.
Now I'm sure most of the uses for this information will be benign (if annoying) things like directed advertising, because the majority of people aren't interesting enough to be subjected to the wild schemes others here have concocted. A few will be though, and reality is often stranger than fiction. I don't want to be the guinea pig for one of those schemes. I want the opportunity to opt out, which should be my right as a consumer. Others may not be bothered by this company's motives. Fine. Let them remain in the database. I want out though.
If I am not given that option, then I may need to start taking subversive (yet amusing) action. A few random thoughts (please comment if you really are a lawyer):
Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
As for Acxiom, I have recently worked there as a software engineering intern. The people I worked with were great and understand that some folks freak out about this stuff. And, they *DO* have ways to "opt out" of their massive DB's (Admittedly, it's not well publicized.)
As someone else mentioned, it'd be nice to quit receiving those #$^@-ing AOL CD's, which is precisely what Acxiom tries to do in many cases. It's intended to save corporations $$ on mailings and free product offerings by collecting data for precision marketing.
I understand everyone's paranoia to a certain degree (I'm paranoid, too
---------
Mark Staggs
It's already here in the US (Score:2)
Back off on Australia Bashing... (Score:2)
I could turn around and say "Americans profile their own school children to weed our the mass murderers? Danm the United States must suck!"
On the whole, Australia is a great place to live.
It's open, relatively in touch with what is happening around the world and, for the most part, consists of an extremely diverse set of people and cultures, who generally get along very well.
At the moment, however, we have an overly conservative government in place, thanks to the economic hardships of the previous decade, (global recession etc). They're currently doing all of the things that overly conservative governments do everywhere around the world (and stepping on toes in the process while claiming a greater good)
In the not too distant future, however, there will be an election, and this overly conservative government will be tossed out having pissed too many people off, as it almost was in the last election, and Australia will be the better for it.
I am not entirely familiar with the US system of government - but if the US had a republican president and a predominantly republican congress and senate, wouldn't the US be in a similar situation right now?
M@T
Re:Future without any privacy a good thing (Score:4)
Say hello to Tru-Vu [zdnet.com]: The Transparent Society Article [metroactive.com] mentioned Microelectromechanical Systems: [isi.edu]
"The only thing accomplished by privacy laws is to make the bugs smaller." --Heinlein, in Stranger in a Strange Land
Read this article on CNN (Score:3)
The killer used online research agencies to find out information about his target. The killer even advises: "It's actually obsene (sic) what you can find out about people on the Internet".
Take his advice: refuse this gross invasion of privacy.
Privacy vs Ownership (Score:2)
The Transparent Society (Score:2)
There is an interesting and comprehesive discussion of this concept in David Brin's 'The Transparent Society'.
True Story (Score:3)
I use this fictional family whenever anyone asks for personal information. Warranty cards, whatever, I fill it all out.
A few years ago, my brother, who works for one of the major credit card companies, was testing out a new consumer database that someone was trying to sell them. The vendor was bragging about how accurate the database was, that it was based on the most current public information, etc... So how do you test something like that? Feed in family members, of course.
So my brother calls me and says "Todd, why does this database show that you have a wife and two kids?" 8-)
I agree with the sentiments voiced so far:
- currently, it's an easy system to jam
- you probably volunteered the information in the first place
- i'd rather see an "opt-in only" law rather than any form of serious government regulation. If I want to trade my privacy for convenience, that's my right! In the words of the Dead Kennedy's, Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!
-Twid
Re:You, Me and MegaCorp Inc. all do it for profit. (Score:2)
If there is going to be some sort of "revolution" as far as privacy and civil rights for that matter it's not going to be in the US. Most of Europe has much better laws than the rest of the first world, but they're still not good enough. It won't be China either (I used to think they had a lot of potential for revolution), because the Chinese government figured out how to numb their population: they're getting them hooked on the same drug as Americans, materialism.
Most marketing information doesn't bother me that much, I don't mind getting a few computer ads once in a while. Or maybe I should say it wouldn't bother me if I knew that was the only way it was going to be used. Once it falls into the wrong hands, it could be used to jail you, discredit you, deny loan applications, any 1984 type scenarion you can think of.
I think we need to add onto the 4th amendment or at least base new laws off of it, something like this: no personal knowledge may be obtained by another party without the consent of the individual, as well as knowledge of exactly how it will be used. Anything less than this is unacceptable to me.
Clue: Heaps of this sort of info is wrong (Score:2)
- Apple have always referred to me as Ms since I bought an orignal Newton Message Pad
- A local coin collectors place used to refer to my mother and I as Dr & Ms C & J Johnson - but she's the doctor. When I corrected them the next mailout arrived as Dr C & Ms J Johnson.
- My mother and I have swapped our flybuys cards. This means they think I regularly buy petrol, but I don't own a car
- There is a Mr Chris Johnson who works in a surgical centre at 39 the street I live in - I live at 31. I've been getting his calls and mail.
- Many American web-based services think I live in Washington, USA - I live in Western Australia, Australia (WA).
And these are just the ones I know about - yet these places build these data warehouses in the belief that they're Right, they're The Truth. That's what worries me. We don't need the right the view or delete the data, we need the right to fix it.The Australia card (Score:2)
While that certainly has privacy concerns it wasn't, unlike this scheme, about collecting data for the express purpose of selling market information. While having large government databases with personal information is a cause for concern, to my mind having similar privately held databases is much, much worse.
Hi my name is Adolf, you may board the train now.. (Score:2)
First, gun control.
Now privacy.
The horror began a long time ago.
It'll happen here when I'm no longer able to use
my index finger to send rounds down range...
Editting ~/.netscape/cookies (Score:4)
(Another post below observed how much of the information mined is wrong -- titles and address wrong, for instance. I always give a mangled address to the Radio Shack people who insist on asking for it when you make a purchase. I know someone who was called for a political poll, and instinctively lied to say he was supporting the underdog, figuring it was in his interest to see the front-runner campaign a little harder. I think it is in our interest to lie as much as possible to these sorts of people. Hey, I just convinced myself to go to the local grocery store and sign up for some fake discount cards.)
But anyway, back to cookie-diddling. What I want to do is write a shell script wrapper that spawns of netscape and a second process, which watches the cookie file and does the following sorts of things:
-- I want it to keep a number (say, fifty) New York Times account passwords and usernames. As I browse the nytimes.com, it should switch them in and out at random from the cookie file. This way, nytimes.com sees a number of users making random deep requests into the site, and cannot track the series of articles I read. It should be able to occasionally abandon a username password and pick up a new one automatically.
-- Play with advertiser banner ad cookies: either scramble them and let the site retrieve them, or better yet, somehow trade ad cookies back and forth with several users, thus mixing our viewing histories. The more people the better. Maybe we can set up some type of server that everyone can use.
-- Retrieve new cookies off the web that don't represent a page view, and allow them to be retrieved by the site later. It could submit a randomly choosen dictionary word to yahoo or alltheweb and crawl those links til it got some nice cookies, and toss them in the cookies file. In fact, writing a continuous low-level background task to do this all the time might be good too.
-- Finally, I want to be able to view some sort of statistics on what sites set the most cookies, how often they retrieve them, etc. Basically, the problem here is that I can't get a good idea of what information they are collecting. I can set netscape to pop the annoying little window everytime someone wants to set a cookie, but I'd like to log when they are retrieved as well. Anyone know how to track that ?
I think my last point is the most useful. While engaging a little guerilla war with data miners might be interesting for a while, what would bring real change is if the major browsers automatically kept track of them keeping track of you and allowed you to view the information in an understandable form. This might upset enough people that things would actually change -- those trusting techno-impaired out there would see this and begin to modify their buying practices.
If anyone out there has already written this sort of thing, could you please share, rather than making me re-write it ?
--Rob