Is the loss of being anonymous online really that big of loss?
In the epilogue Garfinkel states that:
"Today, many people live in two worlds: the online world and that of "real life." But this duality is quickly eroding."
I do not think this is that big of a loss. Mostly because if people need to have the duality, they usually have something to hide. I think that the online life, should just be as secure as the "real world. " I have one example to support why I think the online world should match that of real life.
From my time working at FDLE, I got to deal a good bit with the missing children's unit and while there I heard of many cases that the reason the child went missing is because they were solicited from online chat rooms, or instant messenger. If there were a way, not to have everyone registered as like "Andrew Elekes @ the world wide web" but to track them back to a computer serial number that I think would provide great protection to all on the internet.
I don't really have more of a solution to a problem like this, but wanted to put out a differing opinion to that of Garfinkel.
I think in the book he has skated the line between privacy and anonymity. Privacy to me means that I live at 112 Main Street and what I do behind close doors is my business. Anonymity means I can be who ever I want at 112 Main Street or any other address.
I feel the need to make the distinction because some of his plans to have consumers fight back by creating fake ids, and aliases will just hurt his cause for privacy. I think though he is right on track with the legal and public opinion approaches.
There is nothing that is going to stop the USA from becoming a database nation but hopefully it will be a secure one with individual rights.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Chapter 11
As expected Garfinkel brings it all together in this last chapter. Pretty much his view of the future can be summarized in this statement
"...today, our right to be free from intrusions is threatened both by terrorists with weapons ofmass destruction, and by our government, seeking to find and eliminate these terrorists. Our right to have private thoughts or conversations is threatened by governments, marketers, and the relentless instrumentation of our planet. Our personal histories are being laid open by insurance companies. [And]Our thoughts may one day be simulated, or at least stolen, by advanced computers. "
He really tries to bring home the argument that our privacy is on the line in this last chapter and calls for a Federal Privacy organization to regulate these areas of the economy in the United States.
Although Garfinkel does state that a Federal organization could be created for merely 5 million dollars; I think that it would be fairly useless unless the government would change the way it views privacy law and start enacting more laws that favor the individual. Otherwise it seems that the only thing this Federal organization would have to worry about is the fair credit reporting
Lastly, while I support a good number of ideas in this chapter I would like to discuss further his section on "Technology is Not Neutral" .
I believe that technology by itself is neutral. The developers behind the technology however are not. There is always a "back door" to computers or another way to get past the firewalls or passwords. This is probably because, unlike other areas, the development of technology is not really regulated. It is vastly driven by competition to get the newest, fastest, smallest, most efficient device to market and turn a profit fast and in this process corners are cut at the loss of the consumer. I do not think that the best way to control technologies "non-neutrality" is to regulate how software is programed or how technology is made but instead develop an agency that would certify organization or products on if they are truly consumer privacy enabled. This would be similar to the Energy Star rating or ISO 9000 certification. It would be an added step that consumers would have as protection without creating/adding to the bureaucracy of the American Government.
"...today, our right to be free from intrusions is threatened both by terrorists with weapons ofmass destruction, and by our government, seeking to find and eliminate these terrorists. Our right to have private thoughts or conversations is threatened by governments, marketers, and the relentless instrumentation of our planet. Our personal histories are being laid open by insurance companies. [And]Our thoughts may one day be simulated, or at least stolen, by advanced computers. "
He really tries to bring home the argument that our privacy is on the line in this last chapter and calls for a Federal Privacy organization to regulate these areas of the economy in the United States.
Although Garfinkel does state that a Federal organization could be created for merely 5 million dollars; I think that it would be fairly useless unless the government would change the way it views privacy law and start enacting more laws that favor the individual. Otherwise it seems that the only thing this Federal organization would have to worry about is the fair credit reporting
Lastly, while I support a good number of ideas in this chapter I would like to discuss further his section on "Technology is Not Neutral" .
I believe that technology by itself is neutral. The developers behind the technology however are not. There is always a "back door" to computers or another way to get past the firewalls or passwords. This is probably because, unlike other areas, the development of technology is not really regulated. It is vastly driven by competition to get the newest, fastest, smallest, most efficient device to market and turn a profit fast and in this process corners are cut at the loss of the consumer. I do not think that the best way to control technologies "non-neutrality" is to regulate how software is programed or how technology is made but instead develop an agency that would certify organization or products on if they are truly consumer privacy enabled. This would be similar to the Energy Star rating or ISO 9000 certification. It would be an added step that consumers would have as protection without creating/adding to the bureaucracy of the American Government.
Chapter 10
The picture Garfinkel paints in this chapter to me is quiet scary. The comparison between the arguments for human aviation and development of AI is also interesting. Looking back today we would think human aviation, we were just behind the ball on it. Today aviation is a normal part of existence especially in business culture. To where we automatically feel it's a requirement to travel and not an added benefit.I personally hope that I do not live to see the development of AI. It seems to Matrix like to where we could all be enslaved by out creation. And just to be a conspiracy theorist and somewhat historian, it wouldn't be the first time that human's greatest creation was it's downfall. Look at the Roman Empire, the Roman's use of roads ended up aiding the barbarian raids on the city. It would not seem to weird for AI to be downfall of the great computers we created. I do think that AI is possible especially after the Quantum computing presenation this semester. I only hope that if it does happen it is under our control still as a second class citizen, and that we can always pull the plug.
Lastly, one thing I do not mind and has been quiet successful in business is technology that mimics AI. Such technologies were shown in the Disney groups presentation. This is were I think there is a good possibility for growth, and return on investment. Such technologies can help bring fictional characters to life and which we can interact with. What do yall think?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Chapter 9
With all the different aspects that can be posted about this chapter from terrorism to thought crime I would like just to respond to two questions Garfinkel poses in this chapter.
This book and hence this chapter was published in January 2000 and a secondary version (paperback) was published in January 2001. I preface my post with this because I'm going to talk about how hindsight is 20/20 in relation to his questions posed in this chapter in relation to the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001.
The two questions he poses are: 1) Is it possible to prevent future incidents of terrorism by systematically monitoring all potential terrorist and imprisoning them before they can strike? 2) And, if so, are such measures worth the cost?
1) The extent of the incidents prevented since September 11th will never be known to the U.S. public mostly because we truly don't want to know. Every now and then we here a plot was thwarted and inside we are thankful, and go about our day to day business.
The amount of monitoring now available to law enforcement agencies to deal with terrorism is quiet scary but at the cost of "freedom" we as Americans have made that sacrifice to insure stability for ourselves and for our way of life.
2) Are the measures worth the cost? It's funny that this question is posed because in my finance class over the summer we discusses this same thing. How much is too much spending on the Defense budget. The teacher posed an interesting solution, since thinking term of economic and finance and said "No limit". I have to agree with him in this area. The United States of America is still (may not be for too longer) the strongest world economy and to maintain our way of life and freedom, there is no expenditure that we would not be willing to pay up. Stability of our government and economy is what drives American economic success. (Quick summary on this point Market effects economy, Fed effects market, Fed is backed by full taxing authority of US Government). And lastly there is nothing that we wouldn't do to insure this freedom.
There is a bunch of other arguements that can be made off this point (just war, no weapons of mass destruction) The only point I want to make is that America will always try to pursue protection for its citizen and sometimes at the citizens cost.
This book and hence this chapter was published in January 2000 and a secondary version (paperback) was published in January 2001. I preface my post with this because I'm going to talk about how hindsight is 20/20 in relation to his questions posed in this chapter in relation to the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001.
The two questions he poses are: 1) Is it possible to prevent future incidents of terrorism by systematically monitoring all potential terrorist and imprisoning them before they can strike? 2) And, if so, are such measures worth the cost?
1) The extent of the incidents prevented since September 11th will never be known to the U.S. public mostly because we truly don't want to know. Every now and then we here a plot was thwarted and inside we are thankful, and go about our day to day business.
The amount of monitoring now available to law enforcement agencies to deal with terrorism is quiet scary but at the cost of "freedom" we as Americans have made that sacrifice to insure stability for ourselves and for our way of life.
2) Are the measures worth the cost? It's funny that this question is posed because in my finance class over the summer we discusses this same thing. How much is too much spending on the Defense budget. The teacher posed an interesting solution, since thinking term of economic and finance and said "No limit". I have to agree with him in this area. The United States of America is still (may not be for too longer) the strongest world economy and to maintain our way of life and freedom, there is no expenditure that we would not be willing to pay up. Stability of our government and economy is what drives American economic success. (Quick summary on this point Market effects economy, Fed effects market, Fed is backed by full taxing authority of US Government). And lastly there is nothing that we wouldn't do to insure this freedom.
There is a bunch of other arguements that can be made off this point (just war, no weapons of mass destruction) The only point I want to make is that America will always try to pursue protection for its citizen and sometimes at the citizens cost.
Chapter 8
Okay, in my opinion up until this chapter Garfinkel has been on a role talking about how people can steal information, different types of information and future scenarios of what can be done with peoples information.
This chapter was a snoozefest I had to push my way through it. That's why this post will be somewhat shorter.
He makes and reiterates one important point that companies don't really have "you information" when it comes to marketing. They have information about you. I don't really own the fact that I am a 22 year old male who likes to play guitar, that's just information about me. And truly I agree with this position even though it stinks and in fact I've supported this notion in some database work I've done.
About a year ago I decided to help out my old campus ministry by updating their database they used to track students, alumni, and donors. (It turned into a big project, now I've been helping out other campus ministries across the Eastern Coast) But anyways, It tracks pledges and fullfilments, tax reporting, which students belong to which parents and donors (and what type of relationship) it also tracks what types of appeals they have given to. Needless to say this has increased the amount of money they collect on a year to year basis.
While we designed it though, all in Microsoft Access, we came across one crucial question. How Long would we keep information for? We went back and forth talking about archiving after 5-7 years or removing people from the call lists after a period of time. And we finally said forget it lets just keep all of it and organize it by date. The idea was that we collected all this information might as well keep it and put it to good use and if need be to clean up the database we'll worry about that every 5 years or so.
I think companies have the same approach if we go through the trouble of collecting others informations we're going to keep it for as long as we can. Hence why so many people still get mail not addressed to them where others have lived before them.
Anyways turned out not to be a short post at all. To wrap up, GO NOLES BEAT GATORS.
This chapter was a snoozefest I had to push my way through it. That's why this post will be somewhat shorter.
He makes and reiterates one important point that companies don't really have "you information" when it comes to marketing. They have information about you. I don't really own the fact that I am a 22 year old male who likes to play guitar, that's just information about me. And truly I agree with this position even though it stinks and in fact I've supported this notion in some database work I've done.
About a year ago I decided to help out my old campus ministry by updating their database they used to track students, alumni, and donors. (It turned into a big project, now I've been helping out other campus ministries across the Eastern Coast) But anyways, It tracks pledges and fullfilments, tax reporting, which students belong to which parents and donors (and what type of relationship) it also tracks what types of appeals they have given to. Needless to say this has increased the amount of money they collect on a year to year basis.
While we designed it though, all in Microsoft Access, we came across one crucial question. How Long would we keep information for? We went back and forth talking about archiving after 5-7 years or removing people from the call lists after a period of time. And we finally said forget it lets just keep all of it and organize it by date. The idea was that we collected all this information might as well keep it and put it to good use and if need be to clean up the database we'll worry about that every 5 years or so.
I think companies have the same approach if we go through the trouble of collecting others informations we're going to keep it for as long as we can. Hence why so many people still get mail not addressed to them where others have lived before them.
Anyways turned out not to be a short post at all. To wrap up, GO NOLES BEAT GATORS.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Chapter 7
This chapter was jam packed full of good information but my favorite two sections that I want to discuss further are Love Me, Love My Purchases and Taking Direction Against Direct Marketing.
The points that Garfinkel makes in Love Me , Love My Purchases are quiet interesting. He talks about how watching the behavior of customers by tracking their transactions using customer cards can be used to increase sales and by what mechanism sales can be increased by. An example mentioned would be whether a 10 cents or 50 cent coupon triggers more coupon sales. They also use this technology and information to distinguish more profitable customers from less and give more perks to more profitable customers.
A great example of this today is the very popular CVS card. From personally having this customer rewards card, I think it is the best free customer card service compared with others in business. The CVS card gives actual CVS dollars back for purchase in store. However, I usually only buy milk and stuff on clearance there and while they started out giving me large rewards such as 3 dollar coupons once a month, they have now withdrawn to dollar and $10 off a purchase of $50 or more. (However recently I did work the system when getting a $17 antibiotic prescription and had a coupon for a $25 gift card with transfer of a prescription, talk about a good deal). I do know some people who really benefit from the CVS card but they usually have prescriptions at CVS and are definitely the best customers for the business.
As for Taking Direction Against Direct Marketing, I think Garfinkel paints a possible view of the future with all the different and new forms of junk advertising that will be available by using databases and other forms of IT. However, I think after a while people will be desensitized to it as the individual he portrays seems to be very offended by all the marketing. Out of the four alternatives to taking direction against direct marketing I think alternatives 2 and 4 are the most realistic. Mostly because society responds well to public opinion and legal coverage. Which do yall think were the best?
The points that Garfinkel makes in Love Me , Love My Purchases are quiet interesting. He talks about how watching the behavior of customers by tracking their transactions using customer cards can be used to increase sales and by what mechanism sales can be increased by. An example mentioned would be whether a 10 cents or 50 cent coupon triggers more coupon sales. They also use this technology and information to distinguish more profitable customers from less and give more perks to more profitable customers.
A great example of this today is the very popular CVS card. From personally having this customer rewards card, I think it is the best free customer card service compared with others in business. The CVS card gives actual CVS dollars back for purchase in store. However, I usually only buy milk and stuff on clearance there and while they started out giving me large rewards such as 3 dollar coupons once a month, they have now withdrawn to dollar and $10 off a purchase of $50 or more. (However recently I did work the system when getting a $17 antibiotic prescription and had a coupon for a $25 gift card with transfer of a prescription, talk about a good deal). I do know some people who really benefit from the CVS card but they usually have prescriptions at CVS and are definitely the best customers for the business.
As for Taking Direction Against Direct Marketing, I think Garfinkel paints a possible view of the future with all the different and new forms of junk advertising that will be available by using databases and other forms of IT. However, I think after a while people will be desensitized to it as the individual he portrays seems to be very offended by all the marketing. Out of the four alternatives to taking direction against direct marketing I think alternatives 2 and 4 are the most realistic. Mostly because society responds well to public opinion and legal coverage. Which do yall think were the best?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Chapter 6
First Technology is awesome, it’s 65 degrees out, clear skies, and I’m chilling out under a tree writing this post.
I really hope that then the situation has changed then because it would be sad that if this is the case. That someone else has more rights or can obtain rights to your records faster than you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)