Amazon outdoing PRISM

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Anything done on the internet is out in the public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is not true. If my computer connects to a server of yours and they exchange data, these data are *not* public. They are known to me and you alone. If they are encrypted, even sniffing the IP packets cannot lead (without effort) to the original data. So: things done on the internet are generally not public, unless you want them to be.

If you and I are talking on the sidewalk, this does not mean that the things we are saying are public, i.e. that it's legal for someone else to record our voices from afar, then use or sell or distribute the information gathered this way.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

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.

Now we are getting into technicalities; however, we are not talking of services running on remote servers, but of software prepared and distributed by Amazon which runs on your own machine. So local laws should apply. (Just guessing, of course... any expert reading this?)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

I think that this is an interesting thread. I also think that MattW's posts were civil and reasonable in their content and tone, and that even the one that MattW defined as a "rant" could not, by any reasonable definition of "political rant", be classified as one.
So, I found the "moderating" intervention by HarryT to be inappropriate.

Inappropriate, but oddly pertinent to this thread, that is. I think it's creepy that we (the world) have come to a point where public discussions about privacy issues get stopped for no clear reasons.

OK, so you don't think that a post of 500+ words where you can find the word 'government(s)' 7 times is political. That's fine, but HarryT didn't say that the thread will be closed, so the discussion wouldn't be stopped. And there is a "Politics and Religion" forum and the members who post there are actually interested in discussing politics and religion. The majority of the members of MobileRead don't want to discuss politics and religion, and don't want to have the high tension that results from discussions on politics and religion interfere with the regular threads.

And I could be wrong, but I think that usually Moderator Notices come as a result a decision among moderators and not just one person's snap judgement.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

This is not true. If my computer connects to a server of yours and they exchange data, these data are *not* public. They are known to me and you alone. If they are encrypted, even sniffing the IP packets cannot lead (without effort) to the original data. So: things done on the internet are generally not public, unless you want them to be.

If you and me are talking on the sidewalk, this does not mean that the things we are saying are public, i.e. that it's legal for someone else to record our voices from afar, then use or sell or distribute the information gathered this way.

It would be foolish to assume that any communication on the internet was private. If you are applying encryption you are obviously aware of that fact.

As to a sidewalk conversation; What is legal depends on jurisdiction and varies greatly. But if you can show where someone used such a recording and you were damaged by such use you could recover damages, even if that jurisdiction had no law against making such a recording. Now that could be effected by the interpretation of the First Amendment that deals with public figures, that limits their ability to recover damages in such cases.

Am I to take it, from this series of posts, that you feel that the mere collection of certain data is or should be a criminal act? Not all people see it that way.

Luck;
Ken

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Am I to take it, from this series of posts, that you feel that the mere collection of certain data is or should be a criminal act? Not all people see it that way.

Of course not. However, I feel that if a piece of software (or internet service) does things that can significantly impact on your privacy, you should be made very aware of that, and given full information about what is done and what data will be transmitted to whom. This is not always the case.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

.. Anything done on the internet is out in the public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

That's just one of these claims that are being trotted out repeatedly without any supporting arguments. When I do online banking I do indeed expect privacy, to give just one example. What Amazon is doing here isn't remotely like "overhearing someone on the sidewalk", it is far more comparable to bugging someone's home. It's not even being done "on the internet", it's done on the user's computer.

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The majority of the members of MobileRead don't want to discuss politics and religion, and don't want to have the high tension that results from discussions on politics and religion interfere with the regular threads.

And I could be wrong, but I think that usually Moderator Notices come as a result a decision among moderators and not just one person's snap judgement.

That's is both correct. While politics are sometimes unavoidable in everyday discussions, if the focus of the discussion is politics, it should be posted in our dedicated, opt-in politics and religion section.

[fjtorres]

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?

Uh, we are *still* talking about a browser plug-in that you have to actively install yourself, right?

Malware is already illegal.
But opt-in software that *you* install is hardly "bugging your browser".

If that is your perception you might want to avoid installing the plug-in to start with, no?

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh, we are *still* talking about a browser plug-in that you have to actively install yourself, right?

Malware is already illegal.
But opt-in software that *you* install is hardly "bugging your browser".

If that is your perception you might want to avoid installing the plug-in to start with, no?

Yes, provided that who provides the software tells you everything it does, and especially tells you about the features that are concerned with your privacy.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Yes, provided that who provides the software tells you everything it does, and especially tells you about the features that are concerned with your privacy.

Privacy concerns are usually written in the Terms and Conditions.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Privacy concerns are usually written in the Terms and Conditions.

Yes. As clauses are written in a contract. However (in my country at least) there are special classes of clauses that need to be signed not only once, but multiple times to be valid/enforceable: this ensures that your attention is drawn towards them.

A similar mechanism could be very useful for the Terms and Conditions of software packages, too. For instance, I think that the installation procedure for Android apps is a step in the right direction, because it requires that you explicitly authorize the software to access each specific category of your personal data. However, this is not sufficient: the procedure should also inform you about what the app does with the data (things like: it processes data locally on your device/it gives someone else access to the data).

[cfrizz]

Good god, some of you people are simply unbelievable! If you are that worried about your damn privacy, then get the hell off of your pc & throw it out don't go online for anything whatsoever and live in a cave somewhere! Oh and don't use a cellphone or a pc at work or any current technology.

I have no problem with Amazon sending me ads for wheeled luggage since I am shopping for one currently. If they post an ad that strikes my fancy then I will buy it. That is a benefit for me.

Now you know I'm looking for luggage, just what are you, the govt, or anyone else can/going to do with that knowledge that can possibly help you and hurt me?

Go take your medication and make an appt. with your therapist or just crawl into an anonymous hole somewhere.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Good god, some of you people are simply unbelievable! If you are that worried about your damn privacy, then get the hell off of your pc & throw it out don't go online for anything whatsoever and live in a cave somewhere! Oh and don't use a cellphone or a pc at work or any current technology.

I have no problem with Amazon sending me ads for wheeled luggage since I am shopping for one currently. If they post an ad that strikes my fancy then I will buy it. That is a benefit for me.

Now you know I'm looking for luggage, just what are you, the govt, or anyone else can/going to do with that knowledge that can possibly help you and hurt me?

Go take your medication and make an appt. with your therapist or just crawl into an anonymous hole somewhere.

Nicely put (and so delicately)...

Originally Posted by cfrizz

If you are that worried about your damn privacy, then get the hell off of your pc & throw it out don't go online for anything whatsoever and live in a cave somewhere!

Does it really have to be an either-or proposition? Yes, we give up some privacy every time we interact with other people. But should we be expected to give up most of our privacy in order to interact with other people?

I have no problem with Amazon sending me ads for wheeled luggage since I am shopping for one currently.

Some people would disagree. Some people don't like being bombarded by personalized email from the companies that they deal with. Others don't like the manipulative nature of advertising. Others find the amount of tracking of their personal tastes creepy. Then you have the extreme cases, like Target and that pregnant teen.

Go take your medication and make an appt. with your therapist or just crawl into an anonymous hole somewhere.

It takes all types in this world. It is good that you have people who are concerned about privacy because I doubt that anyone wants their entire life to be an open book. Whether you agree with them all of the time is a different issue altogether. While I do advocate privacy, I tend to shy away from the conspiracy theorists simply because they are too paranoid (in my opinion). You may not agree with the degree to which I want my privacy preserved, but you are probably going to agree that there are some parts of your life that you want to be private.

Please try to find some tollerance rather than medicating those who you disagree with!

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Does it really have to be an either-or proposition? Yes, we give up some privacy every time we interact with other people. But should we be expected to give up most of our privacy in order to interact with other people?



Some people would disagree. Some people don't like being bombarded by personalized email from the companies that they deal with. Others don't like the manipulative nature of advertising. Others find the amount of tracking of their personal tastes creepy. Then you have the extreme cases, like Target and that pregnant teen.



It takes all types in this world. It is good that you have people who are concerned about privacy because I doubt that anyone wants their entire life to be an open book. Whether you agree with them all of the time is a different issue altogether. While I do advocate privacy, I tend to shy away from the conspiracy theorists simply because they are too paranoid (in my opinion). You may not agree with the degree to which I want my privacy preserved, but you are probably going to agree that there are some parts of your life that you want to be private.

Please try to find some tollerance rather than medicating those who you disagree with!

This is about COMMON SENSE! If I don't want it out in public, I DON'T POST ABOUT IT!

When someone can show that these companies are posting SSN, addresses, bank accounts etc. willy nilly then I will get worked up. (And I'm not talking about stolen info!) Until then there are a bunch of men/women who are constantly crying wolf who can easily just STOP using this technology and keep all of their info private.