The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Privacy is not dead, just becoming impossible"

Living in Public: What Happens When You Throw Privacy Out

skeptic — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:51:00 +0000

Fascinating article but like all similar ones the only negative conclusion it can come up with are
1) "personalised ads are creepy". I think that says more about the person's level of paranoia than anything else. I filter out 95% of Google ads: i don't even see them. When i do, i appreciate their relevance for optimising my time.
2) "burglars might know when you are out". Most burglars are of sub-normal intelligence, so i think this is asking a lot of them. For any burglars, they'll know when you are out by seeing you leave: most burglars have a lot of spare time.

I'm always banging on about how privacy is now impossible and we need to move on from it. This article hasn't changed my mind.

transparency of intent

skeptic — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:55:00 +0000

"Google Related is a good opportunity for Google to track all the pages you visit and to offer something useful in return."

http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-related-for-chrome.html

Even some in the EFF agree privacy is impossible

skeptic — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:32:00 +0000

It is ironic that the following remarks came from John Perry Barlow, a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with the BBC

Privacy for the individual is going away and I don't think there is anyway to stop that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation tries to slow that process as much as possible because there are a lot of people who still believe they want privacy. I don't happen to be one of them personally...

The reason that privacy was never put into the [US] constitution is that the people that wrote it didn't have any. They all lived in small agricultural towns where everybody knew everything. Ultimately I think that having personal secrets is a stimulus to social dysfunction and pathology and what we need to be working on, rather than maintaining privacy, is maintaining the ability to respect difference - different kinds of people.

Facebook and privacy

skeptic — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:59:00 +0000

I like some of the comments on that HBR thread:

you don't have 1,600 "friends" you have 1,600 strangers that don't give much of a meaningful damn about you and aren't any more helpful than a random anonymous user on an Internet forum. Real world math probably gives you 120 friend and relatives, of which you probably keep up regularly with 20-40. The less real-life time and fewer meaningful real-life events you share in the real world - the less you are anyone's "friend". All you have is a bunch of distant acquaintances and strangers.

The fact is that every trend has its apex. Facebook and other social media sites is just a trend. A certain percentage of people will play with it to be hip, social, popular, etc. But there is a limit to that demographic and its attention span. Facebook is just like watching porn, you read about, chat with, ogle at, random people.

Nicely acerbic. Sadly only partly true. The obsession with parading one's party-vomiting in open webpages may fade, but that doesn't change the basic premise that most of what we do in such a connected world is still traceable.

The coolest thing to do now, is to deactivate your Facebook account. Social media fatigue has settled in amongst my artist and designer friends and colleagues—in Toronto, New York City, Amsterdam and Paris. Even economists in Italy and accountants in France. It's refreshing.

Personally I only ever had a placeholder page on facebook and i wish I hadn't buckled to social pressure even that far. That doesn't change the fact that much of my life leaves little glowing digital footprints.

And this gem...

In 1955, at the height of his career there were 205 Elvis inpersonators worldwide. By 2002, there were 43,560 Elvis inpersonators worldwide. That means by 2017, everyone on the planet will be an Elvis impersonator. If you believe in trends and extrapolations therefrom, you had better start working on your version of "Love Me Tender."

But the key message of the post was great: "privacy is a luxury" not a right.

Big Uncle not Big Brother

skeptic — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:45:00 +0000

the corollary is it is up to all of us to ensure that the result is Big Uncle not Big Brother

Coincidence?

Sid — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 05:43:00 +0000

What a coincidence Rob, a similar thread on HBR blog was posted a couple of days ago. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/privacy_is_a_luxury_you_dont_h.html

You are right, most people sell their life story for a few loyalty points. On numerous occasions we are asked to provide name, telephone and address details, what happens with those is a question mark.

Another aspect is how anonymous is anonymous? Is it like an ostrich hiding its head in sand? Those with unlawful intent will always find ways to be anonymous as much as they can.

Sid.

P.S. While writing the comment I noted a small note on the form under the E-mail field: "The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly". Is this anonymity or privacy, or both? In my view anonymity and privacy do go hand in hand, but complete anonymity or complete privacy is a luxury, which probably even the rich and famous can't afford.