Apple acquires "identity pollution" patent aimed at fighting Big Brother
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
This is a completely rational interpretation of this specific situation and the freemium/"your information is our product" business model.
- There's no way to know what the actual ramifications are.
- There's no way to measure those against the other things that I'm already doing.
I already do Google searches and watch YouTube videos on my own computer from my own WiFi network, and I also use a debit card, have an EZ Pass, use a cell phone, etc. As I'm sure do most people reading this.
There's zero way for anyone to really know how our actions will effect us in the future. For all we know, opting out may be worse than opting in when it comes time to get insurance, get a loan, apply for a job, etc.
It's certainly creepy when you're actually confronted with all the information that's floating around about you head on, but it's not at all clear what it all means or how it actually effects you. And believe me, I've read several books on privacy, Internet privacy specifically.
- There's no way to know what the actual ramifications are.
- There's no way to measure those against the other things that I'm already doing.
Huh? What role do those two statements have to do with the discussion?
I commented that the downvoted parent was a rational interpretation of the situation; you seem to be talking about the rationality of supplying the information to ebay. I did not comment on whether it was rational to supply the information to ebay because I have no concept of your utility schedule.
I am not sure what books you have read about privacy that have not exposed you to an economic analysis of privacy; especially books on Internet privacy. Seriously? What books are you reading?
There is a long history of economic analysis of privacy; Judge Posner published some seminal papers in the late 70s and early 80s [1][2]. A good place to do more research would be anyone of the ten or twelve proceedings from the Workshop on the Economics of Information Security [3] or one of the intro pages by the big professors in the field such as Acquisti[4], Anderson[5] or Ross[6]. Given that you "already do Google searches and watch YouTube videos on my own computer" Prof's Acquisti's introduction to the field seems prescient and especially apropos:
"Behind a privacy intrusion there is often an economic trade-off. The reduction of the cost of storing and manipulating information has led organizations to capture increasing amounts of data about individual behavior. The hunger for customization and usability has led individuals to reveal more about themselves to other parties. New trade-offs have emerged in which privacy, economics, and technology are inextricably linked: individuals want to avoid the misuse of the information they pass along to others, but they also want to share enough information to achieve satisfactory interactions; organizations want to know more about the parties with which they interact, but they do not want to alienate them with policies deemed as intrusive.
Is there a combination of economic incentives and technological solutions to privacy issues that is acceptable for the individual and beneficial to society? Is there a sweet spot that satisfies the interests of all parties? The papers, people, and conferences listed below try to address some of these issues."
[1] Richard Posner. An economic theory of privacy. Regulation, 19-26, 1978.
[2] Richard A. Posner. The economics of privacy. American Economic Review, 71 (2): 405- 409, 1981.
[3] http://weis2012.econinfosec.org/past.html
[4] http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/economics-privacy.htm
Because it doesn't make any sense to say that I decided my privacy was worth less than $1000 dollars if there is no way for me to rationally quantify or put a value on whatever privacy I was giving up.
"Seriously? What books are you reading?"
Mostly Jeffrey Rosen and Daniel Solove, so I haven't read much about this kind of economic analysis. Sounds interesting though, I'll check out some of those links.
Can you clarify: Were you selling something for more than $1000 or buying something for more than $1000?
What were the questions exactly (not stating the personal data of course)? And how were you supposed to answer, i.e., did you have to type in names and addresses, or pick the answer from a multiple choice list, or what?
"Which of these cities did [Grandmother's name] own property in."
"Which of these people are related to you?"
The questions themselves are relatively innocuous, but the entire situation of where the information comes from and how my answers get used is rather disconcerting on multiple levels, especially since there really isn't enough information to make an intelligent decision.
Credit agencies already have this information about you, so it's perhaps no surprise Equifax is the first result for "identity proofing" on Google.
I'm assuming you're in the US. You need some sensible privacy laws.
EDIT: Here's the official guidance from the regulator: (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/sector_guides/financ...)
(http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/c...)
Page 12 of this document talks about "associations" (http://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/consumer/creditRefAgency...) - credit reference agencies cannot use data about one person at an address to rate a different person at that address, even if they have the same surname, unless there is some financial link.
Consider all the potential damage if that happened and was brought to light, and for what? 1/1000 their revenue?
I haven't seen any analysis of this extension, but I suspect it'd be trivially easy to split the fake traffic from the real traffic. I guess it has an annoyance factor if people have to store your traffic data.
Maybe I'm just naive, though.
This story would have been interesting if Apple had actually acquired this specific patent. Now, not so much.
remove ads, and the efort to suport that browser just die.
On a tangential note, I'm always glad to see entities try and solve problems (here: user tracking, surveillance, and privacy violations) with strong technological solutions rather than conventions and policy. It's not that, say, DNT can't work, but solutions similar to the one at hand[^0] seem much stronger as guarantees.
Needless to say, I'd also be very interested in using this system, or a subset thereof. Hopefully, in a way that ensures not even Apple can track me ;)
[^0]: Acknowledging the fact that Apple themselves might not actually implement this, of course, and that Novell doesn't do much with it further.