Privacy in the information age

[bascule]

AOL recently released 21 million search queries by 650,000 of its users:

 

http://news.com.com/AOL+offers+disturbing+glimpse+into+users+lives/2100-1030_3-6103098.html?tag=nl

 

Usernames were replaced with numbers in hopes of protecting the anonymity of the users performing the searches. However, since searches could be cross-referenced by user, a large enough corpus of search data provided a substantial amount of personal data on the user performing the search. This was enough for Internet sleuths to figure out the identity of at least one of the individuals whose data was released:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?ex=1312776000&en=f6f61949c6da4d38&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

AOL has since made the data unavailable, but unfortunately, this is the information age, and the data virally spread throughout the Internet. I'll forego the opportunity to stick the Bascule-approved moniker describing this phenomena on it and leave that to your imagination.

 

The data has since been indexed and rendered searchable:

 

http://www.aolstalker.com/

 

What does this all mean for privacy as data-mining algorithms continue to grow more intelligent? What sort of data trail do we leave on the Internet via our searches? Can Google identify and cross-reference users by their search habits, regardless of their location?

 

How much does Google know about you from your searches?

 

Scary stuff... but I for one see the loss of privacy as an inevitability as the Singularity approaches. And I for one welcome our Google overlords!

[padren]

In a universally transparent society it wouldn't be that bad - our hangups would adjust and become more inline with who we really are.

 

The issue that worries me first is along the way we have disparity: when some people can stalk others by knowing a lot about them, while no one knowing enough about the stalkers to realize they are doing it. (Replace term "stalking" with any kind of exploiting of information)

 

 

The other issue is while people will be forced to come to terms with the way others (and themselves!) are really like, it could be an unpleasant transition.

 

Just imagine - what if all the new age granola heads around Boulder knew what you thought of them whenever you set foot out of your home? :eek:

[bascule]

Just imagine - what if all the new age granola heads around Boulder knew what you thought of them whenever you set foot out of your home? :eek:

 

My hope would be that in a world of more ubiquitous and easily accessible information, they would find the knowledge needed to put aside their foolish misconceptions about reality and adopt a more scientific viewpoint. As it stands, it feels to me like they are trapped inside a microcosm of other new age thinkers, and lies spread upon lies.

[Sisyphus]

Why is lack of privacy inevitable, and why is it a good thing? I'm afraid I don't really follow you two.

[Pangloss]

I think it's clear that the loss of privacy based on anonymity, for example, is in steep decline and may be lost completely. One may not view that as "inevitable", but at the very least it presents challenges that have to be overcome.

[Severian]

On the one hand I quite like transparancy because I have nothing to hide.

 

On the other hand it would be a complete pain in the ass if someone could look up your living habits on the internet. Imagine the directed marketing spam we would get.

[Sayonara]

People who are concerned about privacy should know better than to use AOL.

 

In an environment where information is a currency, and investment of that currency is mandated by service providers, a policy of caveat emptor is the only workable means of protecting users.

 

(Although having said that, it doesn't help when companies like AOL do such spastic things)

[Pangloss]

Or shop, or bank, or drive, or fly, or travel....

[Sayonara]

Or shop, or bank, or drive, or fly, or travel....

I mean in the sense that AOL have a history of privacy fumbles, not in the sense that they are not subject to privacy legislation and all the requisite marketing loopholes that go with it.

 

It's the obligatory "lol AOL are dumb lol" comment.

[Sisyphus]

On the one hand I quite like transparancy because I have nothing to hide.

 

You don't have shades on your windows?

[GutZ]

lol I don't have shades, all those poor people.

 

I am all for it btw, I don't really care if someone wants that information. Search results: Plot to destroy ISP HQ ; Crazy for Dummies; Ebay cheap hand guns; "ISP" sucks.

 

I could have so much fun with that.

 

 

 

p.s.

I've taken the view from this moment, that anything that can give greater chance to start us killing each other, or ending the human race, the better. So in the future you know why I state certain things.

[Severian]

You don't have shades on your windows?

 

Ironically we don't. We have been living in this house for two years but never gotten around to it. They have been measured up though and curtains are ordered, so within the next month or so...

[Jim]

Why is lack of privacy inevitable, and why is it a good thing? I'm afraid I don't really follow you two.

 

 

It would not be a good thing if we completely lost the right to be left alone within certain geographic or decisional spheres of our personal lives.

[Sisyphus]

It would not be a good thing if we completely lost the right to be left alone within certain geographic or decisional spheres of our personal lives.

 

Thank god. I thought I was the only sane one.

[ecoli]

smart spam? I say why the hell not? Kind of like the smarter google ads. I sometime find things that I like, but never on 'non-google' banner ads. And, isn't spam inevitable anyway?

[Jim]

smart spam? I say why the hell not? Kind of like the smarter google ads. I sometime find things that I like, but never on 'non-google' banner ads. And, isn't spam inevitable anyway?

 

They need to let spammers rot in jail. It might not be so inevitable.

 

Thank god. I thought I was the only sane one.

 

Here's a company that literally gives me the creeps: http://www.Acxiom.com.

http://businessweek.com/2000/00_12/b3673011.htm:

 

 

Founded by some former IBM cronies in 1969, Acxiom initially made its name in direct marketing. The Little Rock (Ark.) company's first big client: the Democratic National Party. Today, it has one of the most extensive consumer information databases in the U.S., and its biggest clients are AllState Insurance, Trans Union, and Citibank. Of the top 25 credit-card companies, 24 are Acxiom clients.

 

Look at its capabilities even back in 1998:

 

Twenty-four hours a day, Acxiom electronically gathers and sorts information about 196 million Americans. Credit card transactions and magazine subscriptions. Telephone numbers and real estate records. Car registrations and fishing licenses. Consumer surveys and demographic details.

 

What Acxiom does is perfectly legal – bringing together an array of facts from scattered sources. But the phenomenon known as "data warehousing" or "datamining" represents yet another example of how traditional notions of personal privacy have become obsolete, outstripped by technology's ability to peer into personal lives.

 

In a flash, data warehouses can assemble electronic dossiers that give marketers, insurers and in some cases law enforcement a stunningly clear look into your needs, lifestyle and spending habits. And without aggressive action to preempt the companies, individuals have no control over facts that are gathered and disseminated about them.

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, RSS feeds are poised to become the new "spam", as well as the new "email viruses". With Web apps and (soon) operating systems starting to integrate RSS into core functionality, we're going to see black hat types start to find ways to exploit that tech. It's even better than email, because you can theoretically infect millions of machines *instantly*.

 

The industry will fight that, of course, and I'm no doom-and-gloom type. But I think it underscores the point that tech is always increasing, and Web 2.0 is more deeply interconnected than we even dreamed possibly five years ago. It's only going to get harder to maintain privacy.

[Sayonara]

I suspect authentication and rights validation systems will be the new vanguard. A turnkey-style system of accepting information relationships should be easy to implement for "genuine" user-client relationships, and virtually impossible to hijack.