Privacy again
I've managed to get a lot of my concerns about privacy down to a simple statement. "Databases of everything" worry me. Where we've been, what we've bought, who we've associated with. I alluded to a conversation I was in last week where we talked about the information that could be gathered by Live ID - during that conversation someone made the observation that people stop worrying about privacy when they see utility. Even with my paranoia I'm fairly happy for Amazon to tell me things I might like, because the know what I've bought in the past. I haven't bought many things - and some gifts I've bought lead to odd recommendations. But I don't use a supermarket loyalty card because (or even use the same credit/debit card each time I shop) because that's somehow the wrong side of the line.
I thought there might a place where everyone would draw the line... ? For example implanting RFID into people is pure sci-fi, right ? Wrong: I thought when I read that doctors were talking doing just that to track patients with Alzheimer's - the technology comes from Verichip makers of " VeriGuard™ "the first radio frequency identification (RFID) security solution to combine access control [with] VeriChip's patented, human-implantable RFID microchip . "
The BBC has previously reported on surveillance uses of RFID tags and last Friday they reported how RFID can be used in combination with Wifi :
'Angelo Lamme, from Motorola, said tracking students on a campus could help during a fire or an emergency. "You would know where your people are at any given moment," he said. '
Yes. You'd know where they are every moment of every day - a classic "database of everything". 1.8 Million people signed the Downing Street Petition against tracking every vehicle movement for road-pricing - clearly this didn't offer enough utility to offset the loss of privacy. But the Motorola representative thinks Emergency protection does.
As I said, we were chatting informally about the Utility/Privacy trade-off and was it acceptable for Windows Live tobe a database of everything ? Around the same time, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt was telling to the press he has grander ambitions in that direction.. To quote the FT he said
Gathering more personal data was a key way for Google to expand and the company believes that is the logical extension of its stated mission to organize the world’s information. Asked how Google might look in five years’ time, Mr Schmidt said: “We are very early in the total information we have within Google. The algorithms will get better and we will get better at personalization. “The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ "
Worrying for privacy or great utility ? The next day a piece by Mark Lawson in the Guardian was introduced with the words "Anyone stupid enough to do a computer's bidding is not losing civil liberties so much as their marbles" Over at ZDnet Andrew Keen really had a swing at Eric. He calls him "the Chauncey Gardiner of Silicon Valley" (twice) and "Google’s Chief Eccentric Officer" (also twice) ouch. "Eric" he says "I thought you were a businessman rather than a looney". I remember Eric's time in charge of Novell, so I've got a view on which he is. Andrew's colleague on ZDNet, Donna Bogatin - who posted a summary of my post on Google's stance on T-shirts - calls him "Harmless" with links to explanatory posts.
Plainly I'm not the only one worrying about databases of everything. It doesn't matter who it is. What I wonder, and would love your comments on, is just what privacy will people give up for utility ?
Technorati tags: Microsoft, google, privacy, RFID
Comments
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Oh! you're a Guardian reader not a Daily Mail reader. :-) I'd never have guess from your views... But seriously it's an interesting read particularly the bit about their efforts to evade the DPA.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
And Ben, everywhere will be like that soon. Whether a loyalty card is too intrusive or not depends not just on what's gathered but who has access to it.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
May 30, 2007
"databases of everything" scare me witless. Almost, but not quite, as much as the general acceptance of this - even the promotion of it by the general rabble. I keep hoping that the general populace (rather than the paranoid few) will finally get the fact that large collections of trivial data is actually a very very significant loss privacy, and in many ways a loss of freedom. But I fear that it will take very many decades before this sinks inAnonymous
May 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
May 31, 2007
This issue of trading your privacy for 'something' is fascinating. I personally have a supermarket loyalty card that I use each time I visit this chain of supermarket or their petrol stations. I know that by my using this card, I'm handing over some really personal and valuable data. For example, the supermarket has a good idea what I had for breakfast this morning, how much petrol is in my car right now, how likely I am to be persuaded by an 'organic' promotion, they could probably have a fair guess at my wage, they know my age, how far I commute, my general health etc. In addition, I have a credit card from this supermarket that I use for a lot of my other spend outside of their stores, so they'll also know how often I eat out, what I do with my free time etc. You can see that with a bit of clever analysis, this information builds up into a really personal picture of me as an individual. So, the supermarket gets all this information and loyalty but what do I get in return from this deal? Pretty simple: I've earned enough 'points' in a year to allow me take a holiday somewhere pretty spectacular - haven't decided yet but current options maybe Cuba or Japan; that's what this exchange of 'privacy' is worth to me. At least the concept of the loyalty card is pretty open; I give them info on my spending and they give me a reward. It's pretty simple; if I wasn't happy with the reward for this 'data' exchange, I wouldn't have a loyalty card. On the other hand, lots of other organisations use your 'data' without your choice and with far less clear benefits to you as an individual. For example, you say you use your credit/debit card: your bank, if they are smart, will have probably already drawn up a profile as you as a customer. Unlike the loyalty card, they won't know whether you prefer orange juice with or without 'bits' but they know what you earn, where you live, what your house is worth, what you spend, what you do in your spare time. They will probably have compared your profile to their database of other customers profiles so they know the likelihood of your wanting to take out a loan this year, when you are likely to move house, when you will retire and the rest just so that can pop a mailshot to you at a well guessed 'appropriate' time. Petrol forecourts now routinely capture car registration numbers, CCTV is just about everywhere and this unavoidable volume of data that is being captured regarding you as an individual must be vast. As far as the loyalty card data goes, its a question of choice - I'm personally happy with the supermarket knowing what breakfast cereal I buy. But, we don't really have any choice in providing the rest of this other data to all the other organisations.Anonymous
May 31, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
May 31, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 01, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 03, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 07, 2007
The comment has been removed