backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by bhieb.. on Nov 15 at 5:30 PM


Increasingly internet users online activities are being monitored and sold by large companies, landing some users in embarassing or financially damaging situations. Some privacy advocates are calling on the U.S. government to regulate how much user info can be collected.  (Source: Telegraph UK)
Industry coalition is pushing for tougher privacy legislation -- but is it a trojan source to sneak in monitoring?

In light recent data breaches like AT&T's accidental release of 100,000+ iPad customers' email addresses (including both Democratic and Republican politicians), some in the software industry and government are pushing for tougher privacy standards.

Among those companies pushing for improvements is Microsoft.  Peter Cullen, chief privacy strategist for Microsoft Corp, speaking at the Family Online Safety Institute's annual conference, states, "Information is the currency of growth, but it's also increasingly become the currency of crime.  People have very high expectations when it comes to companies in terms of how they collect, use, store and most importantly protect their information."

Its unacceptable for internet service providers and wireless carriers to let data be stolen or sell private data, he believes.

Online reputation-management company ReputationDefender founder, Michael Fertik, told a government panel recently that some people are suggesting that the U.S. government step up and force ISPs to give customers an easy to use interface to control what kinds of personal data they want to allow to be collected -- the strategy employed by European regulators.  He argues that most customers don't even realize that online media companies (e.g. Facebook, Google) are tracking their online behavior.  In a conversation with Reuters he states, "It's remarkable how deep the data sets are about each of us, and it's disturbing."

While data miners like Google and Yahoo in cutting its data retention times, the companies regularly collect data on users' "private" internet activities -- particularly web searches.  That data could increasingly land some users in trouble.  For example, health insurers are investigating using mined search data to monitor how often users frequent fast food restaurants, increasing premiums accordingly.  And some private investigation firms want to use searches for dating sites to ID infidelity.

Mr. Fertik says that expecting advertising-driven companies to self-censor when there's profit to be made is a questionable proposition.  He stated to us, "It is impossible to run a digital media company and care deeply about privacy."

Microsoft, despite doing some data mining of its own, earned Mr. Fertik's praise.  The key differentiation, as he sees it, is that Microsoft does not make the majority of its profits from advertising and thus has far less to lose from protecting privacy than its rivals.  He commented to us, "Microsoft and IBM dont make most of their money off advertising, so there's [little] tension between money and privacy."

He also tells us that he supports legislation to make it easier to opt out of data mining, stating, "It should be easier to opt out."

Congress is currently debating the proposal of new privacy laws that could offer users new protections in an increasingly web-connected world.  The idea has some support with both parties -- and some opposition from members of both parties, as well.  Amy Mushahwar, a data privacy and security attorney at Reed Smith LLP, states, "This is a much less partisan issue that still has the potential for movement."

Some privacy advocates are concerned, though that the U.S. Congress might use a "privacy" bill as a Trojan horse to sneak in increased anti-piracy provisions and proposed warrantless government monitoring of U.S. citizens online.

Updated: Nov 12, 2010 2:20 p.m.

There was some ambiguity in the interview Mr. Fertik gave Reuters, regarding whether he was directing his comments towards Microsoft.  We briefly interviewed him and have gained more perspective on his opinions.

Mr. Fertik made it clear to us that actually he holds a positive opinion of Microsoft and that he does not give negative comments about specific companies -- only positive ones.  When giving critical comments he refers in generalities like "media companies".  It is, however, pretty easy to figure out who the biggest-advertising driven forces on the internet are, so the remarks aren't too cryptic.

ReputationDefender is a company users can pay to remove their personal information from mining database and to lock those databases from collecting future information on their activities.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Huh?
By Invane on 11/12/2010 4:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
You have seriously GOT to be kidding me. Given the smallest opportunity any corporation out there will drive up its revenue and profit via any means they can get away with. This includes illegal means if they think they can get away with it...and most of the time they can. When they can't, it's accompanied by an insincere apology and a slap on the wrist from a corporately controlled government.

There are myriad reports of companies utilizing unethical or downright illegal business practice to drive up their bottom lines. Verizon's recent admission to data over charging, Intel's settlement with AMD some time back, Capital One's recent attempt to re-age their debt by issuing 'new' credit cards to avoid recent reform legislation, Microsoft's clear buyout of various ISO standards committees to push through OOXML...and the list goes on and on and on. These sound like entities that can be trusted with your personal information?

If that data can be misused, you'd best be ready when it IS misused. It's not a matter of if...it will happen. It's only a matter of time and degree.

If you REALLY think corporations are going to ethically handle millions of people's private data, you're possibly the most deluded and gullible individuals I've ever met. Corporate America is not out to get you. It's out to get your money. And they don't give a damn about you or your life as long as they get that money.


RE: Huh?
By bhieb on 11/15/2010 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
I know this has been dead a while, but I think you missed my point.
quote:
Corporate America is not out to get you. It's out to get your money.

I agree 100%, but that goal is NOT in and of itself "evil". The implication was that if they could do evil they would, but I contend that is tin foil hat paranoia. They only do evil if the market allows them to do so.

There is no more transparent entity than Corporate America. As you said they are out for profit and profit only, no hidden "agenda". If it can make them money they will do it, as you said even if it is illegal. But even the act of breaking the law to turn a profit, has a cost benefit associated with it and most of the time the risk is too great for the reward.

They behave with one sole purpose to make money, there is nothing emotional or "evil" about that. They can certainly be evil, but it will usually cost them more than it makes thus preventing such behavior because it violates their one and only goal.

Guess what I'm saying is they are only as evil as we the consumers let them be. If you don't like the behavior of those companies in your example don't buy their products. If their behavior is evil enough, and enough of us stand against them, they will cease that behavior or cease to exist.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki