Yes, but remember we started a discussion in this subject so as to
give a real life analogy of what happens on the Web. Businesses who
sale you stuff face to face are probably going to go for the sale
over getting information. But then, just take AirMiles for examaple,
do you think they are giving you free trips just because they are a
bunch of generous lovely people? And on the web it's a whole
different ball game. From what do you think Double Click gets
it's money from? And what about the serial code in Intel thing,
what did you think they had in the back of their minds?
I can give you a whole bunch of other examples...
In this, the information age, information is money.
Anton
+-->> Petro a ecrit:
>
> > And then the grocery sells that info to a national database that
> >adds it to all the other info on you. Which the cops can access to see
> >just how much alcohol Tim is using these days, and maybe they need to put
> >his vehicle description/plates on a watch list to stop for DWI checks
> >whenever they see him on the road. Or perhaps he's been buying books on
> >meth at Amazon and they need to pay his house a visit, because that's
> >probable cause.
>
> As Mr. May has clearly stated in the past, most
> businesses--absent a law requiring them to collect the
> information--will choose the sale over the gathering of information.
>
> For instance with Alcohol, you currently only have to display
> an approved ID demonstrating you are over a certain age. There is no
> *mandated* tracking. If you choose to be tracked (for instance by
> using some sort of store supplied "discount card", you get what you
> deserve.
>
> > Most libraries vetoed the idea of "customer tracking" long, long ago,
> >after the FBI started visiting libraries demanding that they be given the
> >records of what certain people -- commies -- were reading. Library
> >computers automatically delete the record of who had a book immediately
> >after it's checked back in.
>
> Probably because at the time most Librarians were Socialists.
>
> Today things would be *very* different.
> --
> A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
>
> If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
> the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
>
>
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Anton Stiglic /--\____|__||_|_|
M.Sc. Info. Theorique, | O _____________)
Universite de Montreal \__/
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
