Amazon outdoing PRISM

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

By the way: I think that the point of privacy protection is limiting excessive *collection* of data about people, not *misuse* of collected data. Data that have not been collected cannot be misused; data that have been collected may be.

That is *one* of the positions in the debate.
Another position is that data collection itself cannot be (realistically) regulated in any meaningful fashion (because of technological issues) and the only sensible regulation can be on its uses and abuses.
Debates are built off differences like that.

I would point out that a lot of what raises people's hackles falls within the province of "accounting data" which companies are *required* to retain by the same governments grappling with the complexities of privacy protection.

[rkw]

Ultimately Pandora's box is open, perhaps too long and all that can be done is to protect future people not those alive today.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is *one* of the positions in the debate.

Of course. That's why I wrote "I think" ;-)

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Another position is that data collection itself cannot be (realistically) regulated in any meaningful fashion (because of technological issues) and the only sensible regulation can be on its uses and abuses.
I would point out that a lot of what raises people's hackles falls within the province of "accounting data" which companies are *required* to retain by the same governments grappling with the complexities of privacy protection.

Well, browsing history or your Google searches can hardly be described as "accounting data". And I don't see any technical issue in outlawing software that collects such kind of data except when the user has signed a (physical) document stating that it's OK for her/him. Or something like that.
By the way: how can you regulate the "use" of data that are exploited for means that are only indirectly related to the data itself? For instance: data about your habits can be used to guess where you live, where you work, and (therefore) what your social status is. Based on such guess, someone can target specific ads at you. How, exactly, could you even know that such data exist, who has them, and what they are being used for? And if even you don't know, how can anyone detect an abusive use of data about you, and who did it?

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Of course. That's why I wrote "I think" ;-)



Well, browsing history or your Google searches can hardly be described as "accounting data". And I don't see any technical issue in outlawing software that collects such kind of data except when the user has signed a (physical) document stating that it's OK for her/him. Or something like that.
By the way: how can you regulate the "use" of data that are exploited for means that are only indirectly related to the data itself? For instance: data about your habits can be used to guess where you live, where you work, and (therefore) what your social status is. Based on such guess, someone can target specific ads at you. How, exactly, could you even know that such data exist, who has them, and what they are being used for? And if even you don't know, how can anyone detect an abusive use of data about you, and who did it?

Then you must be terribly upset over all the nasty things someone might be saying about you, three threads over? The possibility is there, we had better shut down MR right away! Why, your reputation could be getting ruined this very moment in some thread somewhere, we have to stop this uncontrolled posting!!

Luck;
Ken

Oh, wait I get it, you must be a Moderator wannabe, or maybe just Canadian.

[CommonReader]

But people who have grown up online seem to have developed sophisticated standards of privacy in the very public sphere of social media that their parents really don’t appreciate. The attitude of today’s teens might best be expressed as “just because you can, that doesn’t mean you should.”

They have no sophisticated standards, they just have no clue. Kids are generally far too trusting.
I'm slightly puzzled by the attitude expressed here that you just can't do anything about online privacy. I do not see why a program that is supposedly just aiding product searches on a website but that is in fact a spying device shouldn't legally be treated like malware and its authors prosecuted. If the internet is a legal no man's land, then why should anyone bother about online piracy either?

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

They have no sophisticated standards, they just have no clue. Kids are generally far too trusting.
I'm slightly puzzled by the attitude expressed here that you just can't do anything about online privacy. I do not see why a program that is supposedly just aiding product searches on a website but that is in fact a spying device shouldn't legally be treated like malware and its authors prosecuted. If the internet is a legal no man's land, then why should anyone bother about online piracy either?

If the collectors of the data do something that causes you to suffer some damage or loss you can sue them to recover. If you have no loss or damages, that you can attribute to the data collection, then you would have no case. There are some who want to receive "micro-targeted" ads, who see the results of the data collection as something that benefits them. Is there some potential for a bad actor to get in there and cause harm? Yes, of course, and we may not have, in place, the measures to track and sufficient penalties to deter and/or punish such misuse/abuse. There should be criminal as well as civil penalties in place. Not for the collection of the data but for any actual damage done, it is the doing of the harm that we must have measures to deal with. No harm is done by the data collection itself and there are those who feel they benefit from the process.

Luck;
Ken

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Then you must be terribly upset over all the nasty things someone might be saying about you, three threads over? The possibility is there, we had better shut down MR right away! Why, your reputation could be getting ruined this very moment in some thread somewhere, we have to stop this uncontrolled posting!!

If I understand correctly, you are saying that collecting information about someone else's private habits is OK until such information is put to bad use. (No one ever talked about "saying bad things about someone", so I suppose it's a metaphor.)
If it is so, if I follow you everywhere with a camera and film everything you do, and maybe also bug your house, this should not be an issue to you.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

If I understand correctly, you are saying that collecting information about someone else's private habits is OK until such information is put to bad use. (No one ever talked about "saying bad things about someone", so I suppose it's a metaphor.)
If it is so, if I follow you everywhere with a camera and film everything you do, and maybe also bug your house, this should not be an issue to you.

First you would get very bored very quickly.

It would not be an issue, unless you made it one by interfering in my activities or made some use of the film in some manner that caused me harm.
I assume that bugging my house, without a warrant is already a crime and the
planting of such a bug would involve breaking and entering or at least trespass. You would also have to deal with my dogs and the armed homeowner.

Luck;
Ken

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

I assume that bugging my house, without a warrant is already a crime and the
planting of such a bug would involve breaking and entering or at least trespass.

Ok, so bugging your house is a crime and is forbidden. Why shouldn't bugging your browser be treated the same way?

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Ok, so bugging your house is a crime and is forbidden. Why shouldn't bugging your browser be treated the same way?

In this context, it's hard to say why it isn't treated in the same way. Yet I do suppose that it's possible to make several arguments. One is that certain terms of service were agreed to, and the user forfeited their rights in the process. A second one that Internet service goes beyond the scope of your house, so this data is available to certain parties anyhow (most notably your ISP).

As many people have mentioned a multitude of times and in numerous places: there is precious little we can do about it now though. The decision to make the Internet a free-for-all was made long ago, when people demanded that the medium go unregulated. Alas, a lack of regulation means that certain technologies and attitudes were developed that are going to be difficult to reign back in.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

If the collectors of the data do something that causes you to suffer some damage or loss you can sue them to recover. If you have no loss or damages, that you can attribute to the data collection, then you would have no case. There are some who want to receive "micro-targeted" ads, who see the results of the data collection as something that benefits them. Is there some potential for a bad actor to get in there and cause harm? Yes, of course, and we may not have, in place, the measures to track and sufficient penalties to deter and/or punish such misuse/abuse. There should be criminal as well as civil penalties in place. Not for the collection of the data but for any actual damage done, it is the doing of the harm that we must have measures to deal with. No harm is done by the data collection itself and there are those who feel they benefit from the process.

Luck;
Ken

OK, so I'll set myself up in front of your house and watch you through your windows. Just in case that you dare to draw the curtains I am also prepared to resort to thermal imaging. I'll make video recordings and forward them to all sorts of companies and public bodies. If you believe that this has caused you any harm, you are welcome to sue me and to prove it. As it happens, I have almost unlimited funds to argue my case. It's quite suspicious that you would sue anyway. I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?

[TadW]

The whole affair reminds me of Google WiFi sniffing. An intentional mistake.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

As many people have mentioned a multitude of times and in numerous places: there is precious little we can do about it now though.

This is the point I'm not convinced of. It's difficult to prevent individual people from doing nasty things; it should not be so difficult to prevent companies, which are much more identifiable and can easily be targeted by regulatory actions. Of course the problem is: while individual people do not have the power to prevent such regulatory mechanisms being set up, companies...

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Ok, so bugging your house is a crime and is forbidden. Why shouldn't bugging your browser be treated the same way?

There is the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy that deals with the difference between what may be legal activity out in the public and what may be legal in private situations. Anything done on the internet is out in the public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In most parts of the world, your home would be considered private space, in the USA there is The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While that is intended to bind the government, it has been generally adopted as a principle in common law.

"My Home is My Castle" provides some reference to the concept.

Luck;
Ken

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

This is the point I'm not convinced of. It's difficult to prevent individual people from doing nasty things; it should not be so difficult to prevent companies, which are much more identifiable and can easily be targeted by regulatory actions. Of course the problem is: while individual people do not have the power to prevent such regulatory mechanisms being set up, companies...

Is it possible to prevent companies from doing this sort of thing? Certain information is necessary in operating a business, such as transaction records for purchases. Other information can be presented as being necessary: how often an advertisment is seen by (supposedly) unique eyeballs is a measure of the quality of their services to advertisers, browser statistics help them design a product that reflects the needs of the user, security logs ensure that their systems aren't being abused. Now I have a hard time figuring out what justification Amazon would use for data collection in this case, but you can bet that they'll make up a convincing one for legislators.

Even if they couldn't make a convincing argument and the data collection ended up regulated, what's to stop them from hosting their services in countries that don't care about privacy? Once that happens, legislators have no control over the collection of data.