Still not feeling much better (physically or mentally) than I was yesterday. Even the snow dancing outside my window isn't enough to brighten my mood. Hence, my commentary is likely to be more snarky than may be warranted. Read on at your own risk ...
I read Fred Reed's LRC article today, Living in a Free Country, hoping to learn more about the current climate in Mexico ... and was disappointed. Hidden amongst the personal details is some helpful information -- I noted that rents are still astoundingly low compared to most U.S. towns -- but not much. (If you'd like an older, but more informative take on living in Mexico, my own Doing Freedom! -- at present on hiatus -- offers Making it in Mexico [currently not available].)
Despite his dislike for CASPIAN and an apparently deliberate, ongoing misrepresentation of the group (of which I'm a staff member), Declan McCullagh remains on my must-read list. However, it was with some dismay that I read his latest c|net essay, titled The flip side of database snooping. It's essentially a light review of two new privacy books, which he apparently likes well enough, except ... well, I'll let him say it:
If the books have any fault, it would be overlooking the unsung benefits that have accompanied the databasification of American society. While unchecked police snooping through databases is worrisome, lawful information-sharing in the private sector accelerates economic activity and helps consumers. .... These consumer benefits are given short shrift in privacy debates, which tend to be driven by anecdote and emotion and not by an appreciation of how businesses work in the real world.
It seems to me that the benefits were probably left unsung in the books (I've not yet read either book) because they no longer need to be sung. Just about everyone knows about, and has experienced, the benefits of the ability to gather information.
The conversation has moved beyond singing the praises of databases because the Database Nation has moved beyond it. We've moved into a realm beyond using aggregate information in order to keep shelves adequately stocked, and into gathering individual data -- increasingly without a person's knowledge or consent. That information then gets mined, cross-checked with other databases, and sold and/or rented to others -- again, without the customer's knowledge or consent. The uses that it gets often go far beyond what the customer would imagine -- would you think that calling to order a pizza could end up with your address and phone number going to your local cops? I "appreciate" the pizza delivery business enough to know that's not how it needs to "work in the real world".
Declan's vague condemnation of "anecdotes" and "emotion" belies their importance in the conversation on consumer privacy. It's stories like the one linked to above, which Declan might dismiss as an "anecdote", that often provide individuals the first awareness that they're being monitored, sometimes in unexpected ways. Did you know, for example, that when you call a company, they may be monitoring what's going on in the phone call even while you're on hold? Should it be an acceptable element of "how businesses work in the real world" that T-Mobile hasn't publicly acknowledged that a hacker had access to its customer database for about a year? I just now googled for it, and checked the company's web site, and there's still no public statement from them, despite the story breaking almost a month ago.
Emotion is a large component of an individual's desire for privacy. Fear and desire both drive one to seek privacy, whether the activity is wrong (e.g., stealing, unjustified killing of another) or simply something one wants to go unnoticed by others (e.g., tax evasion, sexual activity, nose-picking, etc.). That's part of why there's so much ongoing, often contentious conversation about privacy -- individual preferences for privacy span the gamut from recluse to attention whore. I'm probably closer to the recluse end of the continuum than most individuals. But, despite what some who would seemingly be comfortable in a glass house might claim, I am not a luddite who wants to foist my privacy desires on others. All I want from a company are things that I think reasonable people would agree are appropriate:
- A clear statement in plain English identifying what information it collects and keeps regarding me and my purchases/browsing habits (if it's an online transaction);
- a clear statement in plain English regarding how any information from/about me is aggregated;
- a clear statement of what information is included in the database that's offered for rent or sale, and to whom it could be sold, specifically including any possible sales to government agencies;
- specific information visibly posted in a storefront as to what kinds of tracking/recording technology are used therein, and what's done with the information obtained from them;
- simple-to-follow instructions on how a shopper can opt out of either individual or aggregate information-gathering.
and
Unless I'm missing something, how businesses function in the real world is by providing goods and/or services at prices individuals are willing to pay. I understand that for some businesses, minimizing business risks has led to gathering and sharing information about current and potential customers. However, that use has opened the door to a world where a customer is being increasingly treated like pieces of information and money, rather than a person. I would like some choice: stores where my purchase history and demographic information won't be collected, aggregated, and sold or shared without my knowledge and with no way to opt out. Do they still exist outside of rural America? Even there, Wal-Mart and its RFID tags are creeping in. If you want to be part of the database generation, more power to you. I'd appreciate it if you'd reciprocate the tolerance, and let me and others like me avoid becoming assimilated into the database Borg.
From where I slither, the market in privacy-respecting shopping is pretty ripe for the picking. Any takers out there? I'll go on record as offering my services as a proxy shopper for others (terms to be negotiated for each transaction); it's an interim solution that at best muddies the databases, but it's a start to reclaiming some privacy in the marketplace.
And whose information is it, anyway? Does the transaction of my buying a can of tomato soup belong to me, or to the grocery store where I buy it? If the store can sell that information to Campbell's or Progreso, why can't I ask for a share of the selling price?
Okay, more than enough on that. If you're in dire need of some amusement by now, I point thee in the direction of this week's featured link: Common Errors in English. It's informative and helpful without being overly pedantic. There's also a page devoted to amusing errors of usage. Reading through it set me to laughing ... and led me to formulate the following plan: if I'm ever driving my car and the Cadillac convertor or exhilarator should fail, it'd be a very good idea to have an escape goat.
SmileyPig says:
:)