X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: "Allan Hunt-Badiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...by automated algorithms and shared data that give rise to
> insurance cancellations, denials of credit or scholarships,
And is this supposed to be BAD? I mean, is someone going to deny me a credit
application because I always paid on time? I doubt it. It's not in their
interest. But if I don't pay on time, then shouldn't those who are going to
lend me money KNOW this?
> or trigger
> covert embedded surveillance systems for "preventative" law enforcement.
Everything the state does is bad, by definition (at least for anarchists). I
thought Lizard's question was about private databases.
> it represents a collective loss of no less than what it is that defines
> us as unique human beings. slowly, profile by merged profile,
> automated corporate software will churn every bit and byte about your
> every move, from the biometric ID systems in public places, to cash
> machines, to credit card purchases, to which websites, which keywords,
> which stocks were researched, and by result, which interests, medical
> concerns, social behavior, etc...to the point where your driving
> records, criminal history, medical history, credit reports, home
> address, email addresses, private phone numbers, employment, income,
> assets & liabilities, even personal spending and browsing habits on the
> net combine with the rest of your collaboratively filtered data to form
> a unique transactional self-- your personal profile.
Use nyms, if you're scared. Lizard was opposing the idea of involving law
enforcement against private corporations - like calling the wolf to save
your flock from the mosquitos...
> this market identity, bought, sold and traded as the ultimate commodity
> of the new millennium will do more than generate discount coupons. it
> will govern your every interaction, condition the spontaneous
> generation of web pages that you see, package your media, display
> products for you to choose from, select your entertainment, not to
> mention choose the advertising you see.
So far, nothing evil.
> the entire world as represented
> electronically will be tailored to this data master, and only then
> might the flesh slaves realize what has happened.
Like what, exactly? Am I going to see ads for computers instead of cooking?
> users will be attracted to
> vendors who walk their privacy talk, and demonstrate respect for their
data.
So there's still no need for government involvement.
> when the public gets energized around an
> issue, the markets listen.
Exactly. As opposed to the government.
> personalization without privacy or real choice is oppression, but when
> people are free to decline cookies, free to decline profiling, free to
> insist all user data be kept from third parties, and still use a site
> with full functionality, then, for those that DO give their informed
> consent, personalization can be a powerful convenience and result in a
> more productive and pleasant web experience.
The start of this paragraph is bullshit. Go to China to see oppression.
There's always real choice, you just have to make an effort - only browse
for sensitive information from Internet Cafe's, for example. Or learn how to
use anonymizer services. Still no need for legislation.
At most, a company can refuse to do business with you; and since that's not
your God-given right, no harm is done.
> If there is a perception that protection of net privacy is a function
> of paranoia or of concern only to extremists, perhaps we should look at
> the European solutions to these problems for guidance and perspective.
ROTFL... this was a joke, right?
> We are free to window shop or browse merchandise on Main Street without
> losing our anonymity, we should have no less right in cyberspace.
Should? [Aka religion?] Why? Do you think you have a right to someone else's
business?
I don't like gov't databases - they're mandatory. I have nothing against
private databases - I can always "go around" those.
Mark
