Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:00 PM
Ahh, but as etim has already pointed out here, lots of weasel words in those clauses.
Is it 'unreasonable' for the store to check your basket when you check out? To scan every bar code to tally your purchases?
And the 'convenience' of keeping track of every item of your purchase is a service to you, the customer. After all, when you return something, it's all in the computer. Never mind they'll tell you to '^&#( off' if you don't have the paper receipt.
What you do on the internet, believe it or not, is considered PUBLIC.
They aren't rummaging through your belongings or tapping your phone. You shouted it for all to hear. "I wanna know how to fix a #@&* NVidia 1234 card driver" That search (and your clicks through the results) are used to tune future results. And of course the advertisers who pay to get their results placed on top NEED TO KNOW the results were not only seen, but clicked through, or the web search company doesn't get paid. So Joe Bob's bait and tackle and computer parts gets information about you. Of course, a 'Joe-Bob' probably isn't a big threat compared to an Intel/Microsoft/etc. that pays for a similar link, and has a whole section of the corporation dedicated to mining data to make potential customers.
If you don't want your search results trivially tracked with your identity on Google, then don't ever be logged into a google account when you do those searches. The same can be said for Yahoo and Microsoft/MSN/Bing/etc. accounts. All the same corporation behind it, no matter how many service names they obfuscate it with.
You can (and should) always fill out the applications that ask for addresses and contact info with someone else's contact info in the same zip code. Conveniently there are other privacy gutting services on the web that freely give out YOUR name, address, phone number, etc., as well as everyone else's. Different companies, like Verizon vs. Google don't share and compare IP logs among each other. Keep in mind that the feds DO compare such data, so you won't get any privacy from them by falsifying your registration data. Similarly, you can get an instant store discount card with someone else's phone number and address.
You can (and should) make COMPLETELY different email accounts for certain things. These email accounts are almost universally used for 'uniquely' identifying you. Don't bother to anonymize email addresses used for purchase accounts (they have your credit card). But forums? Blogs? Definitely. When you do a web search for (your name) and (your email account), there shouldn't be anything particularly noteworthy.
Not only is this a 'privacy' issue, but this is a career and education issue. The email you give to a college admission and/or potential employer should be CLEAN. When they do a web search on your name and email address (background information checks - AKA 'vetting'), they shouldn't get naked projectile-beer-vomiting pictures of you, and forum rants from 1994. Take a small amount of time and effort to clean up your online reputation. Ask web sites (don't bother with account holders on those sites who will have forgotten their login after a year or so) to remove unflattering content about you. Use PAPER mail and make sure someone has to sign for it, and you get a receipt. If they won't, have a lawyer draft the same letter (relatively cheap), and it will soon be gone. The lawyer's successful letter will give you a good template to use for future 'delete it' demands. If you're fortunate, you'll have a common enough name that there are too many hits from other people to 'bother with' finding other people's pictures of you and stories about you, so just a unique online alias will keep your privacy. If you're unfortunate enough to have a unique name, every little youthful indiscretion may come back to haunt you as your friends (and former friends) post whatever they have on you. If you become 'famous', well you're screwed. Nothing will clean up your online reputation.
The problem with 'privacy' on the web isn't that they're accessing things they're not supposed to. It's that data mining of publicly available (or for sale) 'anonymous' information and turning it into specific details about individuals has been a fine art, and getting more scientific by the day. Even the public U.S. census data has been 'cracked' and shown to yield up private individual information with the right kind of clever cross-referencing.
And the losses are persistent. Just because the 2010 census will be 'more secure' doesn't mean that the 2000 and even 1990 census data can't be used to crack later privacy schemes, nor does it mean that people who do this cracking will be so forthcoming as the academics who announce their findings. The new data can consistently be used to 'refresh' what was already unlocked. The old connections updated. The additional links established.
Oh, and apparently DMV details are as public as property records. Let's not forget them. Every time your new car gets past a certain age, you get flooded by extended warranty offers. Few manufacturers of consumer goods neglect to offer an 'extended' warranty when the current one expires. Few will neglect to resell that information to third parties, where they can get away with it. After all, if they can't scam the $50 off you to extend the warranty on the fridge, they can at least collect $5 from nine or ten others who can try again (and again, and again) to get you to fall for it. What company could ever afford to ignore a revenue stream like that?
No, none of us are individually 'interesting' to the data miners. We're just worth pennies each for adding us to mailing lists. But it's for those same pennies (maybe even fractions of pennies) that they'll violate your 'privacy' and make your every trackable habit and personal detail public for any curious person who DOES care to see.
Sign In
Register
Help
MultiQuote
