Why isn't the internet considered a utility yet? It's nearly essential for daily life in the modern world and if it was classified as a utility the snooping would be slightly more justified.
It’s important to remember that in many cases the public is trading their privacy for free or discounted services; From Facebook which provides their services for free, in return you give up the privacy of you and everyone you know to the purchase of an android phone where you get an undisclosed discount for providing some information, normally without your knowledge.
Personally I don’t use anything that is ‘free’. I pay more for my Apple computer and phone and I don’t use social media. It costs more to have a less exposed digital life but I’m ok with that.
Ironic then that I choose to be a paying subscriber to NYT and use an adblocker - and get asked by the NYT to support them by allowing ads...
One’s every move being watched is not open and honest. Mass surveillance may be beneficial in a handful of examples, but the flip side, that firehose of data falling into the wrong hands, is way too dangerous. Some may argue whether or not the government are the right hands to begin with.
Take police body cams. Sounds like a great idea. But who’s the custodian of that data feed? The police having the final say on whether or not such a feed is disclosed dilutes its intention.
If these systems were by The People, for The People, and controlled by The People, perhaps an argument of “openness” could be made. However, currently, whether its owned by a government or commercial entity, there’s nothing open or honest about the systems being put in place.
While we want to be connected with our friends, we are in fact hooked to internet firms. This dependency ( Alexa etc) works as remote control of the user. The process produces a person that is no more than an algorithm of internet firms. The needs of the human are satisfied only if he agrees to change his behaviour according to the economic interests of the firms. It is like second nature. Real interactions with other humans, purchases in proximity shops, personal initiative, creativity, individual freedom, these need to be abolished in order for this worldwide digital dictatorship to work. Look at all the people emotionally dependent on their gadgets and you know: we are doomed.
I was recently checking my Google account settings and noticed Google now tracks (or apparently always has tracked) my airline travel and those of my family and friends as well as hotel info, car rental info. I was aghast to see Google trolling through my emails and Google maps queries to assemble these lists.
I find it a huge invasion of privacy. I did not ask them to track this. They took it upon themselves.
And even worse, they do not give you an opt out.
Also, I have location tracking turned off on everything yet Google thinks I’m in the Czech Republic and I still get location targeted ads for the area I live. It is completely frustrating to not be able to completely opt out of their tracking.
In my book, this needs to change. Or maybe it’s time to retire my Gmail account.
4
The reason the first instinct is that of feeling creepy re: being ticketed by facial recognition for something like jaywalking is because any system that supports TOTAL conformity denies the fundamental ambiguity necessary for actual living instead of what living looks like on paper - or in a computer code. Even if that means a few criminals get away, for the GREATER good we must actively protect that fundamental need for free will, within reasonably perameters, and rely upon education and socializing the populace to live and behave as actively moral citizens. This is why Democracy, (and perhaps Nordic socialism), with all it's flaws, is superior to Totalitarianism. The flaws propel the mechanism of participation which allows for a superior life experience for the greatest number of people.
2
Does photo recognition technology know your bank balance?
One advantage of being old is that I grew up with the concept of privacy, personal, and none-of-your-business. When Facebook was available to me, I rejoiced because it meant I could stay in touch with my far flung family. I enjoyed using it and added friend after friend until I realized I spent more time on Facebook than I did with my husband who was in the same room.
Then I saw myself as tagged in photos from other feeds. I don't want that, so I took care of that by contacting the poster and withdrew into stealth mode.
I cut back, stopped responding to friend offers, and ended up with a very small feed and a lessening interest in the whole business.
I have a cell phone that stays home. I find the home products like Alexa to be convenient but oh no.
I guess it's like wine: you have to age into maturity.
1
@Nannygoat
See my comment below. Anyone who wants to can find out the most intimate details about you without even knowing your name. A TV station in LA proved that way back in the 1980s before all this cell phone and web stuff. Anyone you buy something from has been keeping track of you since you spent your first 25 cents of allowance on a candy bar.
You are hiding behind a pane of glass.
As a country, we've always traded valuable aspects of our society for convenience, especially if it saves money, starting with the Sears Roebuck Catalogue. Continuing this trend, big box stores wiped out Main Streets all across the country, and those same big box stores now fight for their lives against Amazon and Ali Baba.
Privacy is something our young people will grow up knowing nothing about. Millions of my fellow baby-boomers are throwing theirs away because they love the convenience of their gadgets. Me, I've given up mine to buy CDs on Amazon and to make comments on threads here and for one or two other publications.
I draw the line at a smartphone. As long as they make flip-phones, I'm happy with that. God, what a world we've made.
@Vesuviano
"Privacy is something our young people will grow up knowing nothing about. "
That was true in 1960.
@Wolf Man
Relative to what went before, for sure. Relative to now, I disagree. I was born in 1952, and believe I understand the concept and value of privacy much more than the millennials. Can you amplify?
@Vesuviano
Certainly. I worked in Intelligence -- NSA stuff, etc. -- during the 60s. From what I saw then, all the tools to know anything they wanted to know about anyone were freely available at a cost that any average citizen could afford. In fact, the spy tool industry was taking off as a thing. That was also the time when I first saw them using computers to work with that data.
In addition, I have worked in marketing and with mailing lists and that kind of thing and it was clear long ago that all kinds of detailed information about all kinds of individuals was available for anyone who wanted to pay for it. A hundred bucks could get you an amazing about of background about people, if you knew where to buy it.
One good example was the 1980s LA TV show I mentioned below. They stood outside a market and asked people if they would participate in an experiment. With no other info -- not even their names -- they showed up at the subject's houses with complete background on everyone in the home, right down to their favorite everything, and the last time they went to the doctor and for what.
Ask two questions: Is it valuable for companies to keep track of their customers?
When do you think they first realized this?
As I said below, the only reason you have any privacy about anything at all is because that portion of your life doesn't matter to anyone else -- yet. In short, the only reason for having privacy is because your life is too boring for anyone to bother listening.
Part of me likes the lack of privacy because I know that my true whereabouts can always be proven. Between credit cards, EZ-Pass, security cameras, cell phone tracking, etc., I’m not I’m nearly as worried about being falsely accused of something as I might have been 20 years ago.
On the other hand, I have no smart speakers in my house and won’t probably forever. (This includes not enabling Cortana on my computer.) I can’t imagine why anyone would voluntarily allow devices to hear what is going on in your household 24/7.
The incredible irony of this so-called privacy project is that, The New York Times plants tracking cookies on your device. And that is for every single page of content. Now who's kidding who?
6
Not sure I will renew my NYT subscription next year. I am able to keep Google at bay through most of my internet activity, but reading anything on this site fills my history with Google links even if I am extremely careful to not even mouse over any ads. Then I have to clear my history and use the very annoying captcha app to log back in. You care a lot about who is able to log into the account they have paid for, but care little about how you expose us to Google and your advertisers.
This series seems a bit hypocritical.
You are part of the problem.
8
Nothing else new under the sun.
You're under the thumb of Big Data with your FICO score. And that's been going on for decades.
3
If you want to understand this in an even broader societal context, read What If We Don't Die?, chapters Natural Selection and Immortality, and Choosing Life!
Okay, that was interesting, enough of that for now … off to browse Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.
I think we should fight hard for privacy.
The problem is that there are bad people in the world. Not just the government. Bad people will seek to hurt others by distorting and misusing information about us.
Some of the worst effects of loss of privacy are experienced every day as women like myself are tracked, harassed and endangered by abusive men.
I avoid social media like the plague, restrict my location services, and block telephone numbers. I wouldn’t dream of using something like Alexa. I live with the constant anxiety of being found. The fact that I simply cannot control other peoples’ access to my private information, and that people think nothing of snapping a photo of me and posting it on the internet, makes me alternate between frustration and despair.
And now you want a government filled with bad people to endanger me further? So you can claim some phony First Amendment right? No thanks.
We need the right to classify our own information. It should be as hard for someone to get my phone number as it is to get a FISA warrant.
1
@Terro O’Brien
"I avoid social media like the plague"
How can I put this gently? You're on social media at this very moment.
1
@Terro O’Brien
Read my note below. If I wanted to know anything about you, including what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, I could know that with tools that are available to the average citizen and you would have no way of knowing.
It has been this way for at least fifty years that I can personally verify. If you really wanted to make this complaint, you should have shown up some time around 1960 before we got modern technology.
@DW
I am not going to become a recluse. I have to maintain some trust in some organizations.
I know the NYT uses my data in aggregate form to drive ads, I am not naive. But the NYT has some modicum of integrity, unlike outfits such as Facebook.
1
"Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on Facebook and Instagram.
Sign Up for The Privacy Project Newsletter
As technology advances, will it continue to blur the lines between public and private? Explore what's at stake and what you can do about it."
Interesting that the only way to participate is to give up my privacy by using these social media sites. I decided several years ago that those sites gave others more info about me than I was willing to allow and walked away from. I'll read the articles you publish but that's it.
Call me old fashioned, but I used to believe that there once was a difference, albeit often subtle, between wanting to know and having to know. That's as gone and soon forgotten as it will ever be again. That's privacy, one-way privacy that works for others against you. Call it 1984, call it Orwellian, call it deep state, call it whatever you will, your privacy is no longer yours, it's simply a tool that sells what you thought were your most intimate secrets to those who use it to manipulate your identity and your future at a price none of us can afford yet all of us must pay.
That's your new world, and welcome to it ...
@Guido Malsh
Do you know of, or have you ever heard of, anyone who sells anything?
All of those people think they "have to know" all about you, and they collect records on everything you do. If you are less than fifty years old, it has been that way since before you were born.
All I can say is that I was surprisingly dismayed to discover that the NY Times had been tracking my own reading habits unbeknownst to me. I don't have a Facebook acct or tweet so I'm not much of an online kind of person but I do receive the NYT newsletters and subscribe to the online edition, and I sometimes post comments. I believe it was last year that I received an email with summary data on which columnists I read, what kinds of topics I gravitate too etc. I did feel intruded upon and wondered what conclusions were being made about my personal tastes, interests etc. The gist of the email, it seemed, suggested that I would be appreciative of the info but rest assured that I am fully aware of what articles I read thank you very much.
4
@perltarry
I just don't understand why anyone thought they did NOT have this information. How exactly did you think it worked???? How could they link you instantaneously to the things you're interested in, without … you know … keeping track of what you're interested in?
That's the piece I can't wrap my head around … all the folks so shocked at their privacy being gone when what happened was, we handed it over. We clicked gratefully on every glittery object that flickered by on the screen. Did we think it was magic? How did we actually think all this amazing electronic enchantment worked?
1
Private individuals in America don’t have a history of controlling their personal information on their own.
This makes them vulnerable to snooping artificial intelligence and computers gathering personal information like FaceBook.
The solution is for all private individuals to learn simple techniques to preserve their privacy.
This can be achieved by taking a course on securing privacy online or at your local community college.
Capitalism is great for keeping us economically afloat but also a disaster at tempting companies to invade your privacy.
Don’t let it happen!
2
@Michael Kittle
"Don’t let it happen!"
At least fifty years too late, just by my own personal observation.
What if Privacy has become a crazy distraction, like the Kardashians or the Royal Family? Shouldn't we cast a journlistic eye on usury instead? Every year, we get letters from every bank we've ever dealt with saying they're following federal guidelines and telling us about their privacy policy. I would be more interested in an update on their usury policy. Some years ago, Sears was convicted of usury for charging more than 12%; now banks routinely charge 24%, with some banks going much higher than that. Why isn't the times interested in that?
1
I'm old. I don't use social media. I am completely aghast at the disappearance of privacy from our lives.
When I talk about this, the young folks I know, nieces and nephews, look at me like I'm a martian that just landed. They couldn't care less about privacy. They don't think they're giving anything away at all. Certainly nothing of any value.
I just hope I'm gone before SkyNet becomes sentient and takes over...
3
@EK
" I don't use social media."
Newsflash: You use social media. You're on social media right now.
2
This stuff about "privacy" always makes me laugh. I am worried about other real things too, like herds of unicorns invading my yard, and the neighborhood being taken over by leprechauns..
I used to work in government intelligence back in the 1960s with a clearance about as high as you can get. It was clear to me at the time that, if anyone really wanted to know anything about you -- including what you whisper to your honey before you fall asleep at night -- they could know it, and find it out in ways that gave you no clue they were even watching. That was achievable by anyone with any average person's budget, with 1960s technology.
Naturally, if an average citizen could have done that to you in the 1960s, think about where things would go in the fifty years thereafter.
In the 80s, a LA TV news show ran a segment where they met random people coming out of a market. They asked one question "Will you participate in an experiment?" With no other information, they showed up later at the subject's home with a list of everyone in their family and each of their favorite foods, colors, music stars, and a lot more private info. That was in the 1980s before the web and big data.
The bottom line is that the ONLY reason you have ANY "privacy" at all is because your life is just too boring for anyone to bother to watch. Any part of your life that does matter to others -- like your purchases -- will be tracked by multiple companies.
This ship has sailed. Get used to it.
1
"There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution."
Ok. A better statement: "There is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, expressed through clear limits imposed on government in its relationship with citizens, including those of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, as well as several landmark Supreme Court rulings identifying and articulating the clear existence of such a right."
Let's stop thinking of privacy as something that exists on shaky ground. It's there. it's real. We have it.
And don't forget many state constitutions provide greater privacy protections, or, er, more "explicit" protections for this right.
@50kw
Any common citizen who wants to know anything about you -- including what you do in the bedroom with the door closed -- they can know it, without you ever knowing they know it. This has been doable for anyone with an average person's budget, since the 1960s, at least.
In the 1980s a TV station did a segment where they stopped random people on the street and asked them if they wanted to participate in a test. With no other information, the TV people showed up later at their homes with the most intimate details about everyone in their family. That was before big computers and the web and stuff.
Privacy ceased to be real a long time ago. The only determinant is who wants to watch you and for what. None of that is up to you.
The Constitution didn't talk about "privacy" which was what people needing when they went to the toilet. The Constitution talked about "security." In the modern age, the two words have been conflated, but in the 18th century, they were distinct. You have to have read Constitutional scholars explain "Why Privacy Doesn't Appear in the Constitution"--which BTW why DIDN'T you--before you know why it doesn't. We have a Constitutional amendment which deals with the right of persons to be "secure" in their person and private spaces from unreasonable search and seizure, the 4th Amendment.
Privacy is NOT security and security is not privacy. The Constitution has definite Rights to Security, but the English language has evolved... in modern usage, "privacy" and "security" mean the same thing. Thus, the Right to Privacy... and people too dense to understand it.
1
The most completely asinine argument, which I've heard a million times, is, "If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be worried."
That's like saying, "If you don't smoke, you never have to worry about getting cancer."
3
This is where we need the press to keep digging about abuse of data use, data breaches and harvesting personal data from an unsuspecting public. James Bennet as editorial page manager can make a huge difference and contribute to public good. This paper’s Op-Ed pages are stacked with a New Yorkers and a NYC point of view. We need to see more diversity in the paper; that means hiring writers from the Midwest, Southeast Northwest and from more ethnic groups. Otherwise we end up with predictable subjects and predictable opinions: Is there really a difference between Brooks, Stephens, Michelle Goldberg, Leonhart, Roger Cohen et al? What do they really know about the state of communities ‘ neeeds in the Midwest, for example. Not much, except as desk reporters. Still don’t understand Bret Stephens hiring. In the meantime, personal data is being used improperly, the opioid crisis was/ is developing without impunity, schools are terrible, student loans are sheer robbery. How is this good for our society? Mr. Bennet needs to go back to the basics of the press serving the public good.
Ooops - i just logged into this comments page with my Google and/or Facebook account - guess who just made coin on my digital exhaust? NYT, etc. All the information you need to know can be found in the most clearly articulated, comprehensive and authoritative analysis to date "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshana Zuboff.
http://www.shoshanazuboff.com/new/recent-publications-and-interviews/big-other-surveillance-capitalism-and-the-prospects-of-an-information-civilization/
1
Meanwhile, also in the N Y Times today is an article,
"How to protect your smart home from hackers".
Like, Duhh. Set up your home with wi-fi cameras, door locks, thermostats, all wifi connected to the Internet? The article tells the story of people having video inside their home hacked, even sending voice messages into their home.
I looked into one of these WiFi cameras , to watch inside our home while we are away at times in the summer. Turned out the camera would be recording continuously, and sending video files to a server in China.
So no so-called smart devices in our home, connected to the internet. Article in NY Times, here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/smarter-living/wirecutter/how-to-protect-your-smart-home-from-hackers.html?
It it what it is! I pay for private encrypted email. And an encrypted text app. The are many EU PRODUCTS and they obey European standards. Being a retired IT guy I know what I’ve given up. All I use are mail and text. The rest of it all is for kids. If an app is free your cost is giving your data away. Except the streaming services which make you pay to give it away.
@Jim
"All I use are mail and text."
Sigh … really now - what do you think commenting on the New York Times website involves? Mail and text eh?
Be sure to share this article on Facebook. /s
1
This old man was surprised some years ago that my art photographs were published in a book without my ever having to retreat tot he photographic chemical darkroom to print them
Lately my computer with my CPA was the sole instrument to do our taxes, ,I had written that for we older folks sitting in a restaurant while a CCTV watches us masticate or re-check our waitperson's bill thatt will always be an intrusion of privacy.
I also wrote on a back page blurb of reviews & commentary regarding a fellow photog's book of pictures of CCTV's watching us worldwide that when you are born into this world of constantly being watched ,"you get used to it even start to desire it " as younger people have and here we are with reports such as this in the NYT.
Even myself in today's world of GPS tracking on a child's smartphone by parents, shudder a bit as to,how my mom back in the 1940's let us go astray on the streets of our city unknown where we were or what we were up to with just the prompt "just be back at home for supper at 6 pm" ,how did we ever survive!!!
Publication of private info, regardless of how obtained, is not permitted in the EU under the GDPR. It’s regulated. In the US, the term “regulation” is considered by some to be the negative output of “big government.” “The market will police itself,” they say. Sure...by stealing your wallet.
Google yourself. Friends of mine, who were part of the Equifax breach, discovered that EVERYTHING on their credit report is now public. MyLife.com. Whitepages.com. It’s all there, and if you want it removed, they will happily accept your credit card number.
Why, after this massive breach, is Equifax still in business; still collecting our info and providing credit reports? Why are these websites allowed to publish and sell STOLEN data in the US? Why aren’t Equifax executives in prison for failing in their fiduciary responsibility to protect the very information they sell to creditors for profit? Why is Facebook still operating after multiple data breaches while LYING to users about privacy protections? Why would these corporations invest in data protection when there is no downside for failing to do so? The message is clear: “Oops! Somebody stole your info. Sorry!” Follow the money...straight into the pockets of our non-legislators and their corporate pimps.
1
@Minuet
What do you mean by "publication"? There have been mailing list companies selling all sorts of detailed private information about private citizens for the last fifty years, at least. It is big business. If you have ever received a piece of direct mail from any company, it is probably because you are on one of the lists, along with a lot of details about the things you do, and buy, and believe in.
Companies have been buying this stuff in mass quantities for decades. Even if you shut down Facebook, etc., entirely, the problem would still be there.
1
I read this as; " Do you know what? You've given up". I guess that's what my post-Mueller report brain was seeing.
1
OMG, I recognize the picture at the top of this article. The black hole is watching us!
A browser extension I use, Privacy Badger, notes there are 5 trackers on this editorial that are tracking me across the internet. Where's the Times' transparency on its use of trackers? I pay for my subscription - that shouldn't give you the right to follow me around my use of the internet.
1
I have an iphone, I mainly use it as a communication device: phone and text but will also access the internet and social media, oh and the GPS is pretty handy. I don't conduct ANY business or banking transactions via the phone. I have a laptop (typing now), here is where I do email, business, place orders and delve more deeply into the internet. I prefer a large screen.
I have no smart appliances, no virtual assistants, no magic doorbells or thermostats, my TV is recent but dumb. I listen to music on ipods and turntables. My 19 year old vehicle is also pretty stupid and can't even play music (CD player was stolen a while ago).
No, I don't consider myself superior in any way to people who have more, um...enthusiastically embraced modern convenience tech. Nope, not a Luddite but just don't feel the need to possess all the latest fad gadgets. And I don't feel particularly inconvenienced living this way.
So, there are as many ways of absorbing and adapting to these tech advances as there are people. No, this is not news of any sort but it might be interesting if the NYT did a piece as part of this series looking at the different ways people use this stuff, or not.
Excuse me, I need to flip over the record now.
A chain haircut business offered an introductory cut for $10, so I checked it out, especially since some hot girls were the “barbers.” But before I got seated, I was required to give my name, home address, phone number and email address. In return, after 10 or 12 haircuts at the regular price, they’d give me a free cut. All I wanted was a $10 haircut and I showed them the money, so they knew I was good for it. But they wanted personal information that I wasn’t going to give up, even with the lure of that free haircut about once a year. Glad I wasn’t dim enough to fall for that one. Surprised they didn’t just ask for my DNA and a PIN number as well.
1
@Rich S.
IN the 1980s, a TV show in LA did a feature where they stopped random people at a supermarket and asked them if they wanted to participate in a small experiment. With no other information -- not even their names -- the TV crew showed up at the home of the subjects later with private details about every member of the family, right down to their favorite foods and colors, and even medical issues. That was in the 1980s. If the business really wanted to know all about you, they wouldn't have to ask you.
Did you ever get a piece of direct mail from any company? Guess what -- every one of those companies has access to your favorite everything, and has had for decades.
All things considered, the money you would have saved on the haircut was real, while the idea that your response would limit your data in circulation is pretty much not.
I see that a number of folks use fake names to sign up for services on web sites, and note that some here are astounded that their browsing interests show up in NY Times adverts anyhow.
Short Class on Internet:
Internet Service Providers, ISPs, (e.g., Comcast, Verizon, etc.) give your ISP approved interface device access to their customer network with an localized Internet Protocol (IP) address. This IP address identifies your home to the ISP, and is not seen outside the ISP customer network unless the customer pays a premium to have a public IP address. Most customers do not. The ISP can sell this info.
Your ISP takes your internet packets of data and translates their IP address to just one public IP address during your public internet connection. That address is seen by the web site you are looking at, and is the address they have for you. Using data mining techniques, you web sites can ID your ISP and other information that leads to you.
In addition, most web sites want you to accept "cookies" which are unique identifiers of your computer that are left on your PC. Some sites will not admit you to browse their site unless you accept the cookie.
With both of these types of information, a company that sells browsing tastes of individuals has enough to ID you, even through a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
DuckDuckgo does not record your browsing interests, but the sites you visit do.
1
I read,
"After all, the law is the law, and if facial recognition could nab all violators, without the racial bias that can warp enforcement by human officers, wouldn’t uses like this result in a fairer world?"
and I think, "Where have I heard that before?"
And then I remember: Dr. Ronald Arkin, arguing that a perfectly autonomous weapon with a rules table that included the laws of war would make superior decisions about who to kill than humans, and therefore would usher in a new era of perfect war without atrocity.
If you are so warped by your view that social good results when decisions are handed to an inhuman arbiter because you are so sure that all human decisions are flawed, I don't see where you are a good judge of the good and evil of technology.
I used to work on face recognition. Now, at the behest of EFF, all of journalism has decreed that "facial recognition technology" is a supreme evil. The last thing we need is a bunch of journalists who have such a limited stable of technical advise sources chunking the debate into cut and dry categories. The Times and other news outlets go to a group of encryption experts so small that you can count them with your fingers and all know each other, they will do the same with privacy.
We used face recognition to find and report child pornography, and the FBI used it to catch the Marathon bombers. Nothing is simple in a a complex world, not even a Privacy Project run by a paper that joint ventures with Google.
The Times focus on privacy and the internet is simply decades too late. Where was the Times years ago, when it was clear where the internet love affair (a.k.a. corporations hiring ad agencies to convince people the internet was an inherent force for good and progress) would lead, at least to any non-self-serving (i.e. tech corporation) interest and any non-addicted individual?
As with all addictions, getting the monkey off your back is very hard. I expect it will take something major, such as a large chunk of our electric grid going down or China commandeering an F-35 through embedded code in all the chips we depend on them for, before we, as a society, even begin to take the issue of the internet's inherent insecurity seriously.
While people scream about the government's limited data collection, they happily give up much more information to corporations, which have absolutely no accountability to our people.
Recently Best Buy wanted my fingerprint to buy a printer. I said, "Not if you want my money!" Wells Fargo wanted prints to cash a check. I said, you want me picketing? Say no! And mean it, even at a price!!
Recently the Times ran a column from one of their people who claimed she was proud of her gadget addiction. To quote our Entertainer-In-Chief, "Sad!"
None of the Presidential candidates is taking the underlying issue seriously, a few going as "far" as merely suggesting "laws" that are effectively unenforceable or which can be subsumed as a cost of doing business.
1
Three times I’ve received a ticket in the mail for supposedly driving through the pre-paid toll lane at a bridge. The ticket came with a photo of the car and all three times it wasn’t me. The computer had misidentified the license number. I called and was able to void the ticket, but what if the photo hadn’t been included? I can see the convenience and efficiency of this kind of ticketing but the peril of extreme efficiency is that it could be appropriated for extreme abuse. Big Brother, in the hands of an autocrat, be it government or business, could suddenly turn your life into fear, or even worse, paranoia.
@Patti - I don't understand why people give away their DNA to these ancestor sites either, especially because it's not only their DNA that they're giving away. I almost popped a vein when I found out my mom had submitted her DNA to one of them, which meant that a good portion of my DNA was no longer private either.
These sites are already being abused by law enforcement to get around the Fourth Amendment. I suspect it won't be long (if it's not already happening) before health insurance companies start using those sites to screen for the potential to develop genetic diseases as well.
5
@Patti - I don't understand why people give away their DNA to these ancestor either, especially because it's not only their DNA that they're giving away. I almost popped a vein when I found out my mom had submitted her DNA to one of them, which meant that a good portion of my DNA was no longer private either.
These sites are already being abused by law enforcement to get around the Fourth Amendment. I suspect it won't be long (if it's not already happening) before health insurance companies start using those sites to screen for the potential to develop genetic diseases as well.
If my identity can be stolen, bought and sold, how is it really mine? And if it’s not mine, can I discard or renounce it? Serious question.
1
Your identity belongs to governments, tax collectors, web conglomerates, creditors, and most prominently credit bureaus.
No, Mr. Bennett, it is NOT okay for, "for an insurance company to ask you to wear a tracker to monitor whether you’re getting enough exercise, and set your rates accordingly?"
I have had the same auto insurance for years and my rates have been very reasonable and haven't increased much until about three years ago. Now, even though my car is getting older and I've had few claims, my rates have increased $50 every six months.
I haven't shopped for insurance for years because mine is considered the best but decided to shop around and called a few companies. Geico gave me an estimate for over twice as much as I'm paying. Why? The rep had checked my credit and found out I have no debt and a stellar credit rating so tried to soak me.
I have now told every credit agency to not allow ANY credit reporting for any reason without my express approval.
However, evey insurance company I called knew what coverage I am curretly paying for, including my deductibles and claims, so I asked my agent why. Insurance companies have an internet source that shows everyone's insurance coverage, at least in Washington State, so they use that to quote.
There is NO competition with the internet. There is colllusion. A vendor checks the internet for prices and prices their product accordingly. The first time you visit a site you get one rate. The next time it's jacked up because you didn't buy the first time.
It must end NOW.
7
@njglea
"The rep had checked my credit and found out I have no debt and a stellar credit rating so tried to soak me."
As someone who worked in insurance for years, I somehow doubt that story. For one thing, reps aren't allowed to make up the rates on their own.
For another, if any state allows them to make up rates based on things that are not related to driving -- and then punish you for having good credit -- then you need to get down to the state legislature and change those laws.
I appreciate the thoughtful approach of this project and will follow it with great interest. Thank you NYT.
4
I find privacy to be increasingly undervalued in the social media-heavy and digitally-connected worlds. Students don't even know what they are missing, since they never knew privacy to miss its absence. I've known workers who have requested private offices in which to improve their productivity, and the employer questioned whether the real motivation was the anti-sociability of the worker not the desire to improve productivity. Because there is more surveillance in the world, I think powerful companies are inured to the moments when they violate existing privacy laws. It is becoming increasingly common for hackers to steal millions of social security numbers and credit card numbers from Target, Chase Bank, Walmart, etc. The companies barely feel the need to apologize to all of their customers whom they've exposed to identity fraud. And on a personal level, I never assume upon entering a business or a government building or a private home that there isn't camera recording my actions even if I don't visibly see a camera. It is hard to shake a nagging awareness of ongoing surveillance whether there are or are not causes. Often, I see others and myself having internalized the surveillance of the panopticon. It is liberating to take a walk in a park or along a beach where one is truly alone with nature.
1
Way too late.
5
@Gui
Not if we start doing things differently.
@CA
GUI is right. If you want to change things you will have to go back in time at least fifty years and convince every company in the US that information about their customers is not important.
Slowly people are waking up to it. It wasnt long ago the Times admonished those of us who: blog under a nom du plume/gare ; dont do facebook or use any website that requires it to comment or login but set up dozens of fake accounts to intentionally dilute their power; who dont give their kids a smart phone - just a dumb one which makes calls; who didnt get all excited when that app went out scanning your face to see what movie star you look like - are we that stupid? the answer is of course yes.
The tech companies will push for this - cant blame thats their job, the other companies and the press were too slow to pick up what was happening, the government is inept and currently run by people who dont believe in government - so its up to YOU to become aware and to avoid this at all costs.
As for the smart home!! Turn your last refuge into an Orwellian nightmare so you can see whats in the fridge?
1
The dangers that are latent in the ostensibly innocent centralized accumulation of personal data are not hypothetical. In fact, there is a terrifying historical precedent. As described by Edwin Black in his book on IBM and the Holocaust, the destruction of the Jews of Europe was in a critical sense a supreme technological achievement, due to the necessity of detailed census information to carry it out.
Punch cards and tabulating machines were the cutting edge information processing tools of the day, and it would simply not have been possible to locate the Jewish population without a highly sophisticated census apparatus in place.
As Black observes, throughout Europe under the German occupation, there was a direct correlation between the countries that did and did not have efficient data gathering infrastructure and the eventual fate of their Jewish populations. If you were Jewish, it was good to live somewhere disorganized.
Before there could be lists of Jewish names neatly arranged on printouts by block, there had to be technologists ready to solve difficult information processing problems. They were the big data analysts of the day, and probably did not give much thought to how their handiwork might someday be used.
We do indeed have to think very hard about the moral hazard that hangs over the collection and concentration of personal information. Our lives may very well depend on it some day.
2
Yes. Facebook. Twitter.
I've just started reading "Zucked" by Roger McNamee about this very subject. Quite interesting so far.
The Times focus on privacy and the internet is simply decades too late. Where was the Times years ago, when it was clear where the love affair (a.k.a. corporations hiring bright ad agencies to convince people the internet was an inherent force for good and progress) would lead, would lead at least to any non-self-serving (i.e. tech corporation) interest and any non-addicted individual?
As with all addictions, getting the monkey off your back is very hard. I expect it will take something major, such as China taking down a large chunk of our electric grid or commandeering an F-35 through embedded code in all the chips we depend on them for, before we, as a society, even begin to take the issue of the internet's inherent insecurity seriously.
While people scream about the government's limited data collection, they happily give up much more information to corporations, which have absolutely no accountability to our people.
A few days ago the Times ran a column from one of their people who claimed she was proud of her gadget addiction. To quote our Entertainer-In-Chief, "Sad!"
Note that none of the Presidential candidates is taking the underlying issue seriously, a few going as "far" as merely suggesting "laws" that are effectively unenforceable or which can be subsumed as a cost of doing business.
The other day Best Buy wanted my fingerprint to buy a printer. I said in very clear terms, "NO! if you want my money." They backed off. That's what it takes. Say no!! And mean it.
4
As always, the use of a generalized "we" in political writing, as in "we have made choices...," hides the reality that it's only the rich who get to choose. The current state of affairs didn't come to pass by accident, or by some technological imperative. It happened because of deliberate choices, made primarily by the owners of Google and Facebook: Brin, Page, and Zuckerberg.
Instead of publishing dozens of ill-informed opinion pieces, and hundreds of even more ill-informed responses to them (no, I don't claim to be an exception), you should commission a primer from Shoshana Zuboff, who literally wrote the book on this subject. Only people who've read her book deserve the exposure that the New York Times offers to its writers.
3
On the internet, you are meat in a butcher shop. It really is that simple.
4
So, NY Times, when you send me emails that show what I’ve read last month and how much time I spent on certain categories, what do you do with that data?
6
You should have read a little further:
“This project will inevitably consider the work of The New York Times, along with that of other media companies, since, as our publisher writes, this newspaper’s own commerce depends to a degree on the gathering and sharing of people’s data. (So, of course, does its product — journalism.)”
A teacher, skeptical by nature, I've watched tech, phones and surveillance take over the lives of a generation, a process largely facilitated by schools themselves.
Sometime early 2000s the Apple advance guard showed up. We were shown videos of China and told by the newly minted Tech Coordinator that "Shift Happens". Anyone asking "clogging" questions or suggesting restraint was sent to "trainings" where we learned that use of 1-1 Apple laptops in class was now an "outcome" we would be evaluated (and paid) on. The kids of course had no choice and they weirdly didn't seem to want one.
Fast forward to 2019 dystopia. It's been like watching climate change.
@keith
But in both cases, however late, we need to get to work now.
1
We have "Alexa" and "Siri" and "Google Home" simply because Amazon, Apple and Google are afraid these things would merely sit on their shelves instead of yours if they had named them appropriately: "Big Brother" or "Nosy Nancy" or "Snoopy."
28
When I was a kid, I read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Was it terrifying? No. Interesting? Yes. But it was an abstract concept. And now - with Trump - perpetual war (on somebody), omnipresent government surveillance, and propaganda. A prescient abstract concept.
I have a primitive mobile phone. It works. In an emergency. Or if I want to send my wife a text message: "Honey...paella rice and chorizo..."
But I have resisted the iPhone which she has not. And now - like our tech-savvy grandson whose mother works for Apple - she is glued to that phone all day and all night. I always ask the kid: "What do you watch on there?" He won't say and god only knows. (Grand Theft Auto?)
In the supermarket: they're ramming into you with their carts. Doctor's office: glued. Driving: running over you crossing the street.
I don't like the idea of paying - even though I can well afford it - a $1000 bucks a year to run a phone on a Verizon contract. I own Verizon, and it pays me a nice dividend: about 6.6%. They must be doing something right. Or maybe not...
If your whole life, and most of your attention, is mediated through this device, it has transformed you. Forget about the privacy issues which are no joke. I had the cops banging on my door at midnight because she was fooling around with her phone in the dark without her glasses (mistakenly hit 911 on the touch-screen). Cop: not happy. Me: Whoa Nelly...
Read a book. A real book with pages that you turn. Maybe: Nineteen Eighty-Four.
6
Dear Mr Bennet, perhaps you could start with not requiring us to train autonomous vehicles via the Captcha when we sign up for the Project Newsletter. Thank you.
I think that enhancing privacy is a commendable objective, and I'm all for it. However, I find it ironic that I am asked to follow the privacyproject on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
2
@JB
And participate in a project asking us to "submit our stories" of times we lost control of our privacy online :)
I think it's ironic that the Times is doing this. I read the Times on my Kindle Fire so I don't know if it's Amazon doing the marketing or the Times. But - every Times article I look at has embedded ads for Kuru shoes for plantar fasciitis. I've been researching shoes for plantar fasciitis on my computer using Duck Duck Go and a VPN, doing everything I know of to keep the search private so why does every single NYT article have ads for Kuru shoes embedded? This shows me there's just no privacy no matter what I do.
4
This is nothing compared to what data brokers reveal about you to anybody with a credit card. At least, I have some control over my online data by using pseudonyms and not including real information when signing up for those services. Companies that sell public data have no reservations about making information about you easily accessible. Yea, it is public but thanks to those companies, it is all now only a mouse click away. How is that even legal? Duh It is the United States where if it makes a buck, who cares.
I always lie about myself on purpose bc I resent my lack of privacy.
4
NYT should allow users to set a Do Not Track flag for their account. I do not like NYT keeping track of what I read. For that reason, I do not usually login, although I am a subscriber.
4
I would like to know what information is collected about me when I comment on this platform and who has access to that information.
1
You have no privacy in public, to think so is not real. Some of the rest are choices, some should be regulated, and most are just things we should understand. Progress has always had unintended effects.
About time. The Times reporting on privacy issues for too long and with too few exceptions has taken a business-oriented approach that accepts such invasions of privacy as the new normal. A 2014 article, for example, reported on the use of online data for research (which one expert compared to the addition of the microscope to the scientific arsenal) with a lot of discussion of how it should be done, but almost none of whether it should be done, as if people had all indeed opted in to sharing their information by going online. I recently came back from Europe and every time you open a new website there are clear questions about how much info you want to share. Change is possible. The comments so far point to many possible solutions, and ask the Times for more. Most of us all really can live without a virtual assistant and with a lot less Amazon and social media, and other data grabbers. The Times, in turn, could start by providing a forum to follow that's not on Facebook or Instagram. Then we all need to advocate for businesses and governments to join the resistance. It can be done.
1
It is a common fallacy that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
What is the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," if not an explicit right to privacy? It does not use the word, but the meaning is clear.
4
@Robert Miller
Best comment here
1
This issue isn't simply 'privacy' but freedom—and freedom is in the Constitution. Freedom to think and act without coercion or manipulation; freedom from having to make pointless 'choices' from a never-ending menu of options, all of which are false, meaningless, and dehumanizing to the degree they turn us into consumption machines. Technology is depriving us of the free will we are taught is our birthright; in light of the addictive and dependence-inducing nature of these blinking, buzzing, glowing devices, freedom, choice, and free will are simply another titillating illusion.
1
I want privacy. But like everything the new tech world has a cost. I want to drive, but I may get in an accident. I like to dine in restaurants, I may get food poisoning. Skiing is appealing- I might break my leg. I want to use email- my musings to my friends are scanned.
I know this new world and the risks to my privacy are complicated. Everything is complicated. Perhaps the tech compromise is too much?? But fundamentally it is like everything we want to do. Complicated.
1
Beyond the issue of security of our personal information, I have a real concern about the privacy of our DNA. I don’t understand why people are blithely giving away DNA samples to corporations and paying to receive dubious results that purport to disclose the ethnicity of their ancestors. Not only that, but they upload their DNA profiles to commercial databases that are accessible to anyone. Are there any guarantees this information will be safeguarded and can we trust the corporations to ensure the protection of our data? I’m hoping the NYT project will investigate this aspect of privacy.
2
The Innocence Project uses DNA from crime scenes to prove the innocence of the wrongly convicted. It's an emotional scene when people are freed from incarceration for crimes they did not commit.
What if we had a database with everyone's DNA? A crime scene with DNA evidence would instantly and accurately identify suspects -- and protect innocent people from being arrested. We could gather DNA at birth, just another routine part of the hospital visit. Is this a reasonable trade-off of privacy? I think so. What would an innocent person need to worry about?
Dear @Pragmatist: What is your definition of “an innocent person”? What if a law is passed outlawing Central Americans from working in your town? Or better yet, what if the state of Connecticut outlawed pragmatism?
@Checker Not exactly sure the point you're making. The FBI has a database of fingerprints gathered from various sources (job applications, etc.). It's not complete, but is used for matching against prints found at crime scenes. Now, imagine if the entire population was in the database? As for the 'what if's?' paranoia that the government would abusively arrest people based on non-legal reasons -- if we get to that point in the US, we have much bigger things to worry about than DNA.
Do I want facial recognition technology capturing people walking by my house and checking them against a database of sex offenders and felons, and instantly alerting me and the police? Yes I do. I understand there are tradeoffs with privacy, but well worth it to keep ourselves safe.
If people truly realized how much of their personal information is traded for the sake of convenience, I think there'd be a much bigger demand for increased privacy laws. Just this week came the news that the WPA3 wireless encryption most of us run in our houses is seriously flawed and easily exploited. Not to worry, since your TV is busy sending metrics on its use to the manufacturer, your smart fridge is sending your password in plain text, and that electronic door lock you installed is easily thwarted.
I've worked in IT for decades and it's appalling what people willingly surrender - but if anyone ever read the EULAs no one would use the product. Data breaches are so commonplace now that no one really pays attention - but here's a year of credit monitoring (never mind the fact that your SS number is now out there to be sold and resold - for the rest of your life).
I'm glad to see the Times doing this and I look forward to seeing where it goes. There are things people can do to protect themselves and it's high time everyone acts on it. Or do you want to leave it to a Congressional committee whose members think Zuckerberg is sincere, or that Google is Apple?
When we discuss privacy, we should also discuss asymmetry. Corporations today collect lots of information about pretty much everybody, but this is a very asymmetric situation. Individuals only have a vague idea of what corporations do. Information is power. Asymmetric collection of information is asymmetric gathering of power. Our privacy was a protection against that asymmetric power and its abuses. As we remove it, where are the checks and balances that keep a society stable?
3
As the information network in which humanity is embedded becomes more complete and diverse, we become more aware of the problem, not so much of what personal information is obtained, but how that information is used. It is vital that authorities are aware of dangers to the general public so that they can be dealt with properly but it is vital that the controls are not used improperly to disrupt personal lives out of inappropriate prejudices or insensitive use, commercially or otherwise, that prevents individual behavior that is personally important and of no detriment to anyone else. Much of the social innovation that has greatly improved society from past times to the present was initiated by innovative individuals with concepts not necessarily accepted by many of the public but was gradually understood to be beneficial. There are powerful individuals in any society who benefit from misusing their powers to general detrimental results and to incorrectly protect their deleterious secret operations severely damages society. False information is widespread in current society and corrections are very frequently suppressed for profit in a monetarily driven society, so solutions are difficult to obtain. But they must be pursued.
The right to privacy is legally well-defined, as are procedures to grant an exception, such as wiretaps or surveillance. The problem is that these laws have not been extended to the Internet. That's a regulatory and legal issue, not a technological one. Technology is capable of enforcing privacy and blocking unauthorized access. It is society that needs to decide. And that means politicians must wake up.
The Wild Wild West era on the Internet has to end. The medium has to be brought under existing laws. Facebook is crying out for regulation. Elon Musk wants a moratorium on AI research. Where are the politicians?
3
One thing people need to understand is that the internet cannot be held "accountable" by our government. Stop assuming the "good guys" are smarter than the "bad guys," History amply demonstrates that whatever tool is developed, it will be used for nefarious purposes as well as benevolent purposes. And, often" the "bad guys" are more motivated.
One can delineate all the problems with and threats to you of the internet, and still most people will stay involved with it, because their privacy and security are less important -- protestations to the contrary notwithstanding -- than is knowing what a friend made for dinner.
1
I was getting on a Delta airlines flight this week to Latin America and as I handed my boarding pass to the agent she asked me to pause and then took my photo, the first time that has happened. Upon arrival, I was photographed and fingerprinted by the local government authority who asks where I was staying, the purpose of my trip, and I will have another photo taken upon my return to the US. Fwiw, I just got a new passport with, yes, a new photo.
This is all in the cost of business these days, if you want or need to travel this is what you have to do. I get why people want to know who is in their country but as a law abiding citizen I wonder what the limits are and who uses all this information? Is is safe or is it on a contractors unprotected hard drive? I can guess that it’s likely not that secure anywhere in the world, just waiting for a hacker to gain access to all that personal info.
So, yes, please help us hold our governments accountable on this, I have little faith that anyone in the US government is thinking strategically about the implications of our loss of privacy.
3
To me the most outrageous things that happen is when we are asked to believe absolutely impossible things. And we do. The BBC broadcast about the collapse of Building Seven 20 minutes before it happened was one example. And it raises no eyelashes not to mention many many other 9/11 questions.
Today Assange was arrested and will be charged with trying to break a password on the heals of many stories of our government doing the exact same thing to its citizens.
We seem to be in downward spiral. These are interesting times.
1
I’d like to see an article in this series about the extent to which corporations monitor their employees’ laptops at work. What is typical? What is extreme? I doubt most corporate employees realize how closely they’re being watched.
Perhaps each of us needs to trademark ourselves and then sue anyone who uses our personal data.
3
I get the sense that a lot of readers here are confused about what this privacy means. These corporations do not so much care about exactly what you’re saying in your email or doing in your home; what they want is your data values to add to their datasets that they can sell to advertisers and marketers. The question is whether or not your privacy matters more than their bottom line.
4
We tend to assume that anonymity is privacy. Else, why the billions of screen avatars across the world wide web. There are probably more, many more fake personas than actual oxygen consuming humans. When you stop to realize that what, less than 1/2(?) of humans on the planet have exposure, let alone access, to digital communications, and who, by today's standards, are anonymous, almost to the point of non-existence, while you juggle a rolodex's worth of aliases to stay in touch with the world while remaining unknown and unseen, your very charade is stored on countless computers around the planet. And now AI is able to connect those dots. That queasy, greasy sensation in your gut is justifiable.
35 years ago, my dad retired, moved back to his childhood home and paid cash and wrote checks on, or used a debit card attached to, the credit union account from his lifelong employer. He paid his taxes, his utilities (electricity and phone bill only: water well and wood-fueled furnace covered those necessities) with credit union checks. He disappeared from the screens of TransUnion, Experian and Equifax. He had no FICO presence or score.
The biggest inconvenience that situation caused him was an inability to rent a car, for which a credit card, a form of ID he had not used in probably 2 decades, was an absolute requirement.
What a terrible situation to be in, real anonymity.
26
@Glen - Sounds like a lovely way to retire.
This interesting article begins with: "There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear."
There is nothing in the Constitution that bans assault rifles either; the words "computer," "internet" and many other telling words also do not appear in the Constitution.
3
Welcome to the human zoo. Where the one percent stalk and hunt us like they do when they hunt endangered animals for their most valuable bits - tusks, horns, pelts (skin), etc. As endangered as we are too, thanks to the one percenters, they hunt us down for our most valuable bits - SS number, bio-metric data, capital we have to be TAKEN, debt potential, health (ability to work to increase their wealth), credit scores - and our value-to-the-one-percent score, etc.
3
Probably the right to privacy has been the last one that have been legally recognized and the one that we have given up for free more quickly.
I like to thank you for this brilliant idea.
Also, I think recommending The Circle by Dave Eggers it is a must for this project.
Looking forward to follow this amazing project.
1
Frankly, we lost our expectation of privacy years ago; when the big 3 credit reporting bureaus started gathering all our financial and credit information. Then all our prospective employers coerced us into allowing them to obtain that information; what choice did we really have? The credit bureaus were THE FORERUNNERS in the business of selling OUR information. Now that it is so fine tuned, there is no reversal,or recourse. If an individual says no, then he or she us locked out. Maybe we,as individuals ,should get cuts of the profits that business makes from our activities. That is the only thing that will curtail this privacy issue: Hit em where it hurts, in the wallet!
6
I am 70 and drive a Mini Cooper S because the quick handling and excellent braking are better than the sports car I raced 30 years ago. Quick low speed turns and exit ramps are a joy. My driving record is clean and I am a safe driver. But when Progressive Insurance sent me a black box to install under the hood to record fore-aft and lateral acceleration and speed I sent it right back to them.
13
Sincere thanks to the NYT for this project. I hope other English teachers are also using it as readings for both younger and older students. It's important.
My daughter's private daycare center made all of us parents scan our fingerprints and now we are to use those to sign our kids in and out on a computer instead of using pen and paper. I resisted at first - why not use a passcode? They've used pen and paper for the 9 years we've been there with no problems. Why do I have to now give up my biometric information just to sign my kid out of her daycare center? The center director said she asked her boss about this and told me the fingerprint info goes "into the cloud" and then joked about having no idea what that means. And, oddly, not a single other parent questioned this. I was the only one. I eventually gave in because I had no other choice. There's an old saying that goes something like this - "those who will give up their freedom for safety deserve neither".
12
Everyone that has worked for a bank has had fingerprints recorded. Everyone that spent a day in military service has been fingerprinted. Anyone that has had a day in any law enforcement capacity has been fingerprint. All the expedited airport security and customs features use fingerprints. The other parents did not think it was a big deal because it is not a big deal.
1
@Michael Blazin I was not applying for a job that required a background check or wanting to get through airport lines quickly. Those situations I understand. I'm so glad to know, though, that you think a stranger being told to unquestioningly submit their biometric data is not a big deal.
5
This reminded me that there is no Japanese word for privacy; in fact, most Japanese are trained not to have personal secrets or too much identity from young childhood both in schools and homes. Their interest in privacy is surprisingly low AND they are enjoying their long life expectancy and low crime rate.
I never signed up for Facebook and have no plans to do so. I won't be buying an Amazon Alexa device, but did buy an Amazon TV Firestick. The Firestick may be keeping track what I am watching with it, but I am getting a lot of entertainment from it in return for a very modest investment ($40?) so i don't feel I am being exploited.
If you really are concerned about your privacy, you should place a freeze on your credit reports. I have had mine in place since they became available in California in 2005.
1
Why doesn't the market fix this? A fortune awaits the tech company that invents and markets a secure computer operating system, web browser, ISP network, or cell phone service, that doesn't carry out surveillance on the owner.
5
@RC
Does not carry out surveillance that you know of.
@RC
I use Startpage.com, which claims that it is the world's most private search engine.
See https://www.startpage.com/en/?
Does anyone know to what extent this really works? We get some spam in our e-mail that seems related to searches, and the NYT has shown me photos of a pair of boots I glanced at online.
I thought I was being fairly smart about privacy and "identity security". Imagine my dismay when I checked my credit report and found that TWO former employers had called a credit-reporting agency, told them they were me, that my new address was [insert business address] here, and pulled my credit report. As long as liars can fraudulently scam not only innocent individuals but the very entities we think are serving us--totally aside from data breaches--I will never feel secure again.
5
Most people blindly assume that privacy is part of 'freedom'. Unfortunately, corporate interests want your personal data to generate profits and they will pay for legislation to get it. We have limited control over what happens to our data and only find out how little control we have when a company is caught abusing our information or a data breach puts it at risk.
The best we can do is limit the risks. I froze my credit with the three bureaus, use only one credit card, avoid all offers, use Linux over VPN with Firefox and Duckduckgo, opted out of all online people search services (that was very time consuming) and ditched Gmail. Don't trust companies to look out for your interests - they only see you as a commodity.
8
@Pete
I agree. I refuse to sign up for any social media. I will not have a "smart" anything. Not now, not in the future, if I can help it. I know I can't do anything about the ubiquitous cameras, but I can refuse to open up accounts for my hospital records, drug records, test records, etc. Someone will probably hack the providers at some point, but it won't be my fault.
So far, it's just fiction, but wait until some evil-doer hacks into our bank records, electric grid, air transport system, etc. Fiction often predicts world-wide chaos at that point. I hope I don't live to see it happen.
1
as a former internet executive (back in the 90's, when that meant something), i take the long view -- the corporate view.
i've posted repeatedly that society is constrained by infrastructure, and infrastructure is, apart from its economic benefits, a system of surveillance and/or control. everyone should read james beniger's "control revolution" to see how long the control infrastructure has been evolving.
laws that "protect privacy and ensure safety" will produce a complacent, unwary user population and will include many loopholes for the corporations that will write the laws for legislators. regulations enforcing the laws will depend on "data audits" or "algorithm audits" by companies the corporations choose or by auditors on the corporate payroll.
the constitution does indeed protect privacy in the guise of unreasonable search and seizure and the home as a castle. the fact that we have to "redefine" such elegant simplicity means that government, technology and corporations are intruding into that space -- as utilities, services and appliances, all part of infrastructure -- not that people are becoming more "sharing".
nurturing complacency and closer cohabitation with machines is AKA breeding, and what we're doing is not securing privacy but creating a more tractable strain of herd animal -- herded for profit and urbanized control efficiency. draw a line from beniger's origin tales through the present and that future is foreseeable with high confidence.
3
@drollere
Honestly, it isn't the"guhvment" that is concerning, it is the corporations.
"There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution."
I believe the right to privacy is fundamental in our human development and should be added to our freedoms of expression in the Bill of Rights: speech, assembly, worship, press
The school district I teach at in California has a new policy for visitors entering campuses: submit your driver's license or state ID. The machine then prints a copy of it which you wear as a badge.
I find it concerning that some company has access to all that data. When I asked about this, I received no answers. It's just one more data bank in which citizens have no control to protect their data.
At this point, it's the fox guarding the hen house. If your identify is used to open a false credit card account, you're told to use one of the very same companies whose data was breached.
3
We all need to read Marshall McLuhan. The Medium indeed is the Message, or is it the Massage? The Gutenberg Galaxy he spoke so eloquently of has been exploded into billions of computer bits, no longer in control of the creators of various forms of data. I do not know if "Skynet" is the next step, but I do know things are way out of control. A quick job page search the other day for a friend, unleashed headhunters to one of my email accounts, and medical issues, of which no one beyond my doctors and close friends know about, phone and internet contacts about pain management. Time to get far from the proverbial grid.
1
One of the biggest problems for me is the extent to which our legal system treats privacy as a binary question, when in truth most people care less about their information being perfectly secure than they do about it being easily aggregated, disseminated or sold. No one (or very few of us, I suppose) wants to live like a hermit for the sake of privacy, most just want a respectful amount of personal space.
There are any number of good examples of this, but here's an intuitive one: People don't care if others see their online dating profiles (in fact, that's kind of the point), but they'd be mortified if without permission they became the face of an advertisement for such a site, or if a spiteful ex took the time to print photos (even assuming they were non-suggestive) with personally identifying information and distribute to friends, employers and strangers alike.
I think we have to do away with the idea that people aren't allowed a sort of "limited use" privacy. My consent to the release of information for one purpose is not consent to the release of information for any and all other purposes.
68
@Tim Good luck with that. When you sign up they own the product you have uploaded, just like on the NYT's here.
They may or may not use it.
I can't imagine having a 'profile' on a dating site. The whole idea is deeply creepy. I would rather be alone for the rest of my life.
I realise that is a minority opinion.
9
@Jean
Minority of at least two. Thanks.
2
@Tim
You can't have it both ways. Either you maintain your privacy or you give it away. Since the beginning of time, people have selected their own friends and figured out what to share and with whom. What is the thrill of sharing your personal life with people that you don't even know? How do any of your on-line "friends" know what is true and not true? It is a fantasy world, with little to gain and much to lose; a world for the lonely and insecure.
2
People are making money off of our information and we have traded that away for convenience. The point I would make however is, was this informed consent? Who actually reads the User Agreement? Shouldn't the default be your data is not shared and that you must opt in? If companies are going to make money off of my data, where is my cut? I want to share in your profits just like someone who writes and article, say for the Times, or is a model. Lastly are services like email and phones really a utility, essential to the modern world? Shouldn't they be regulated since they reach so far and so deeply into our lives?
72
What is wrong with this picture? I pay NYT for news, extra for the cooking column......, suffer through all the intrusive ads which NYT sells and then NYT sells the info gained from all this. Then NYT pledges to honor my nonexistent privacy. I will believe NYT when it stops charging me for that which it has monetized.
24
@Bruce1253
Email doesn't need to be regulated. It is private if you choose it to be, Mine is. I pay $2 month for that privacy. I'm guessing you mean that you want *free* private email. That isn't a law, nor should it be.
3
@Frank
What is private email? Email goes out over the internet where it is available to anyone with the capabilities to hack it. But you may be talking about encryption. That’s another twist.
I have setup my computer browser to block tracking cookies.
I have never signed up for Twitter, or Facebook. Both of those "social media" programs browse your private postings, scan your pictures, and sell your profile.
I do not allow my phone to use my location; that is turned off (though government agencies can still track my location?) . I do not use mobile data on my phone.
Finally, I do not use free email programs , such a G-mail which also reads your emails, and uses de-identified (so they claim) content..
These people who complain abut data breaches at Facebook; what did they expect, when they hand over their info/pictures to a large corporation ? Just read an EULA sometime.
4
A worthwhile effort and something that my colleagues in the political consulting realm have been discussing for some time. Data collection and FB efforts are now the complete norm in political consulting (knocking on doors of a candidates’s supporters, for example, rather than wasting time knocking on an opponent’s).
However, we’ve been giving away our privacy piece by piece for years. I get a nickel off peanut butter at the grocery store if have a barcode keytag as a “plus member” or whatever it may be called. While that’s not “devious”, it does mean I’m participating in their marketing and restocking efforts for mere pennies. The EZ Tag lets me zip along toll roads (and has now saved millions in salaries by eliminating toll booths). The fact that the government can prove I was on a road at a certain time (or that I can also prove I was on a road at a certain time) is just another “exchange” of privacy for convenience.
My home is “Alexa free” and my refrigerator isn’t keeping an eye on what I’m up to or what I’m eating. But, I give away information all the time for free (the old adage, “if you get something for free, then you are what’s being marketed”). I don’t favor government regulation of privacy. A free country comes with responsibilities. If you don’t like Amazon tracking what you are buying, don’t use Amazon. If you want to keep your peanut butter purchases a secret, don’t use the store card.
33
@Mark H
I wonder how many people realize what information they are giving by taking part in discount and rewards programs? I would guess that most participants look only at the savings, never considering how their data is being used.
20
@Mark H: That's reasonable as far as it goes, but the trend toward increasing convenience is also a trend toward making it harder to remain anonymous. It won't be too long before the only way we can participate in society at all is to surrender our privacy (which to me also includes surrendering safety and self-respect).
It is already difficult to buy a book anonymously because most bookstores have closed. There are stores now that don't accept cash at all. Insurance companies are training people to accept carrying trackers, and why wouldn't they eventually stop offering insurance at all to people who are unwilling to be tracked?
Our society is adopting the attitude that privacy is unnecessary. This is strange considering how recently we considered this exact scenario to be an Orwellian nightmare.
40
@Bill
Yes, I think of that. So, I always set up a bogus name and street address.
I have never been a shopper but now when I do go to stores, I am constantly aware that I'm being surveilled. I have nothing to hide and I am not a criminal but I don't like that feeling so I shop less and, more likely, at places that don't feel so intrusive.
I also do not need smart devices in my home that supposedly offer ease and comfort. Most of us have existed a lifetime without these things that add expense with little if any real value. Yet, as always, many are buying into the marketing ploys and I urge everyone to think and keep their money in their pocket ! Just go over to the light switch and flip it....how easy is that ! ?
12
Another side to a discussion of privacy is transparency. We should have a right to know as much about entities as they know about us. Government, facebook, google, NYTimes... To often "they" know our information but we don't know their's.
56
I am baffled at why anyone would allow the surveillance devices marketed as "Smart speakers" into their homes. They are little more than data gathering devices that masquerade as conviences. They provide no service that a human could not accomplish by the flick of a switch. Most people are fools for a marketing pitch and these make people willingly become part of a data driven marketing loop.
107
@Bill
So true. How completely the marketing folks have "innocuously" insinuated themselves into our lives !!
I believe it was John Kennedy who said "the hardest thing in the world for people to do is "to think" ".
16
@Blanche White
Isn't it, in large part, about education,
about teaching young people to think about, examine the basis on which our much vaunted (by ourselves, principally) american society operates?
All well and good, in the abstract perhaps, but, ask yourself, how many mega-businesses hanker after thinking customers? ...
Ergo, how many elected politicians are going to turn 'quality of education' into a live issue, when they're on the receiving end of mega-business "largesse"?
It's hardly a new state of affairs -- all's been long been predicted.
It's just that we're too under-educated, too over-worked, preoccupied with getting ahead (aka 'self-promotion') to have seen it coming, on the horizon.
3
@Bill
You raise a significant point. It is all about the data now. Every piece of personal information we give away in exchange for deals, savings, access, convenience, connection is sliced and churned and used to create targeted "segments" into which we are slotted. The segments are malleable depending on what a particular business wants to know and what they have to sell. Most of us understand this exchange casually, and we've accepted it without too much concern over what it may mean in the long term. I studied advertising a long time ago in another era of marketing research, when gathering information was more time consuming and less precise. We have the flood of data generated via the internet, social media activity, smartphones, reward card systems, and now the in-home "smart" devices. And of course the infrastructure that's emerged to parse and organize the data, and sell the results, is huge and worrisome in its reach and influence. It's not easy to avoid being drawn into the marketing loop. The European are on the right path in their effort to give people control over how their information is used. We'd be wise to follow suit and to limit the power of the private sector in creating the regulatory structure.
1
As with all things, this issue boils down to one thing: money. If companies (and the government) had to pay us for the information they obtain from us - and under the rules of capitalism and ownership, this would be only right and fair - they couldn't afford to do what they do. If we want to control and limit the access and exposure to our personal lives, this is the ultimate solution. Of course the costs for this information would have to be prohibited from being passed back onto to we the consumers/citizens, otherwise we would simply be subsidizing the theft of what is rightfully ours.
The invasion of our privacy, and the theft of our personal data has been insidiously expanding, enabling companies to become rich, while not sharing that wealth with those from who was derived. This is theft, plain and simple. People need to see this in these stark terms.
If freedom is priceless, then how can our privacy be valued any less?
Individuals should be protected from having any data relating to them or their behaviors collected, collated, or stored, unless they give their informed consent for each specific invasion of privacy. And for any instances where this consent is given, they should be compensated fairly based upon its relative value.
I may be like an open book, but even e-books aren't free. You want to know me? Pay me.
70
@Kingfish52
I think you have it backwards. You are giving away your information when you choose to use one of these "free" or discounted services. That's 100% your choice. Your data is not being "stolen". You are choosing to give it away every time you use Google, Facebook, Amazon, or your cell phone.
4
@Kingfish52
Exactly! Like songs,movies ,books, we should get residuals every time our info gets sold, or passed on to an entity we didn't contact directly.
4
@Frank In SOME cases you have that choice, but in many other instances you do not. I agree that if you're offered two products, one cheaper or free if you agree to give up personal info, then yes, that's fine. But there are countless transactions where no choice is given. These should be clearly stated and either allow you to opt out, or pay you (giving a reduced price or free is a form of that).
2
We are not all completely helpless victims here and while much is not under our individual control much is; don't buy Alexa or Google Home, put fake data in your Facebook account, leave your cell phone at home or turn it off more often. I hope the Times will offer us a list of practical ideas to reduce our exposure to privacy issues and not just leave us feeling like helpless victims. We can resist.
151
@Mr. Jones
Don't HAVE a Facebook account, and if you do, delete/abandon it.
11
@Matthew
Try off-grind.
"The best things in life are" hardly the exploitability of your personal information, nor your addiction to your fancy new phone.
It's more about how you see yourself vis-s-vis your fellow human beans, the current state of our home, the planet.
Disconnect with the epiphenomenal status quo. Reconnect with what has always underlain, and will forever underlie all status quo's, quite possibly ad infinitum.
3
@Mr. Jones - No Alexa in my house!
My sister and her husband were excited when they got theirs. He said to me, "It only listens to you when you give it a command, by saying "Alexa" first."
I said to him, "how does it know when you say "Alexa" unless it's listening in all the time?"
They immediately turned it off.
8
I don't think we can talk about privacy, particularly vis-a-vis American citizens and the government, without a thorough understanding of The Patriot Act which has cleared the way for the government to legally invade any American's privacy in the name of "terrorism". They only have to think you're a terrorist - no probable cause needed.
28
Dear James, your post states "We’re looking to you to participate in this project. We’d like to publish your stories about how the sharing of your data hurt or helped you." I would like to contribute, but there is no information on the submission process. Could you please tell us how? Feel free to reach out to me.
Question: When has man ever had the ability to do something and not done it? Answer: Never. We doom ourselves to a China-like total lack of privacy, possibly even in our lifetimes, and there is not one dang thing anyone can do to stop it.
The good news is that crime and misbehavior in general will go way, way down. The bad news is that the reason why crime will disappear is that anything and everything anyone ever does will be known.
Enjoy your freedom now while you can.
1
I don't feel comfortable with any of these privacy eroders.
1
The tech companies are hooked on greed and were never acting in the best interests of the people.
It’s the same with our government.
The current administration is not acting in the best interests of the country or it’s people.
As long as there is no accountability, we are on a very fast race to the bottom.
4
The foundation and invention of the world wide web has just privatised information that governments used to collect manually before the invention of the internet, except when the information was manually held at a government department, that department couldn't be hacked, like the internet can be hacked. Misuse of information by hackers and criminals and other nations, seems to be the problem. The internet has probably made it easier to police people for the government, as governments can request information on any of their citizens, from private businesses like Microsoft and social media. The governments job has been made easier, in some instances; that's why the government hates people who take cash only payments, instead of using credit cards online. Just remember folks when you use you cards anywhere all those financial transactions can be tracked by the government. Cash is legal tender and people can't trace what you're doing with your cash. Only use your cards to draw cash out of a cash machine, so businesses and government can't track your lifestyle. Cash is the other legal option and worked well before the invention of the internet.
1
It isn't just humans that can suffer from privacy breaches. Apps that allow people to identify and locate wildlife — like eBird — have had to hide the locations of threatened species. Illegal collectors have been using these crowd-sourced databases to poach flora and fauna in locations from California to Africa.
Our most ingenious tech inventions have a habit of banging up against the most venal of human behaviors. Let's face it: we are, for the most part, not a very nice species.
51
@Elizabeth A
We're for the most part a pretty execrable species -- certain limited exceptions allowed, perhaps.
Time for a massive reset?
(I frankly thought we'd been through this once before.
Ya remember Noah?)
1
@Elizabeth A
But we are able to change, and the time has come.
1
@An American in Sydney
If you've never read it, there is a remarkable — and clever, and subtle — science-fiction story about a future person so distressed by the situation that he takes it into his own hands: "The Last Flight of Dr. Ain" by James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon). This is not rayguns and clumsy prose, but a short and thoughtful work of art.
Despite the information on the posting I link to here, the story was first published in 1969.
http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/last-flight-doctor-ain/
I suggest the project could inform the readers about the differences among private, club, public, and collective goods. This is not a mere academic discussion - the differences are the central conceptual markers for the understanding of today's policy issues (and power) such as immigration, health, climate change, internet, information economy, welfare, and security, among others.
Privacy has intrinsic value to individuals. Needs and wants, abilities and capabilities, all play in power, markets, and the pursuit of my happiness (including what future fo my grandkids).
Now back worrying about the weather, markets, and crops.
1
Born in 1961 I have been, since the cradle, a subject of the televised state. That alone, was the black and white beginning of our social invasion of privacy. We were being invaded indeed, but not yet spied upon, not beyond Neilson Ratings clocking our viewing preferences, and the profits to be had in the golden age of television advertising.
Then the other things - I watched the Kennedy and MLK and Bobby assasinations on television. And I also saw Apollo 11 land on the moon with my dad. But there were backyards, and stars, and swing sets not Fortnite. I didn’t have a cell phone. My friends and I trampled the universe of our safe suburban neighborhood until the echoes of parental wails to dinner beckoned us back.
I teach middle school now and I am witnessing a generation that permanently has a cell phone in its hand texting all personal thoughts into a permanent digital photograph of themselves. They live enslaved and bedazzled by that instrument peering into their very hearts, which they are conditioned to give everything of themselves over to.
It is a sad thing to see what price “evolution” and “progress” has exacted in the human psyche and soul - if indeed we possess souls.
Perhaps all this heralds the unstoppable age of robotics where every human life will be but an algorithm and a data profile.
I’m glad I got to run barefoot at dusk, only to crawl into bed to read Treasure Island to myself by flashlight on my astronaut sheets and that I didn’t own a cell phone
14
Its been a long time since I was an undergraduate in college. But, back then, in the mid 1960s, I remember some universities published a booklet each Fall semester, with the photos and names of all new students on campus. And believe it or not, some of those included each student's Social Security number.
Can you believe it? And if you went to the university library looking for these old booklets, do you think the Social Security numbers would now be obliterated?
5
Here's how one senior is dealing with the problem:
I don't carry a cell phone.
I have not connected my smart tv to the internet.
I do not utilize social media.
I don't do business with enterprises that want me to set up an account with them for one or a limited number of transactions.
I don't give my email or other personal information to stores where I make a purchase.
What I give up is convenience and some connection with friends and relatives, many of whom think I'm a Luddite (maybe so.) I communicate by phone or email (which is also probably not private, but more of a necessity.)
Despite this, I still get what appear to be directed ads on my TV and in my emails - do Millenials get the same ads for drugs related to aging and other subjects that may or may not be of interest to me, but certainly not to a younger generation? I doubt it. I suspect my cable company or internet browser tracks my viewing habits and sells the information to whomever wants it. For example, how do you otherwise explain that when I research used cars my son might be interested in, I'm deluged with ads from used cars sellers for the next few weeks?
If the brave new digital world wants me to opt in, they'll first have to respect my privacy concerns. Otherwise, I can do just fine without whatever it is they're selling.
6
This is a pretty pessimistic though, but I have a hard time giving value anymore to ethics discussion about technology given the history of technology adaptation. I would love for the NYT to given an example of when there was an ethical discussion about a technology that led to that technology not being pursued. Stem cell research. Animal testing. Nuclear weapons. Drones. The internet. Gene editing. Mechanization of agriculture. Automation. As much as I personally value ethics, I haven't seen it affect, at all, widespread adoption of a technology if it meant greater comfort/speed/affordability/convenience. I would be really interested if NYT did a piece discussing whether or not ethics moves the needle in any significant way.
3
Privacy is relatively easy to maintain.
All it takes is determination and persistence.
3
A while back I went on Zillow to see what they thought my house was worth. My jaw dropped when I saw they were posting an entire library of photos of the *interiors* of every room in my house!
I have a guess as to how they were acquired: years ago I temporarily rented out the house using an agent. He may have posted photos on line at that time, for that specific purpose. It galls me that this private company has scooped up this info and broadcast personal details of my life to the world, without permission or compensation.
14
You can claim the house as yours and remove the photos. I doubt Zillow grabbed the photos from anywhere. The real estate agent posted them and then neglected to remove them. Your complaint is with him or her. Your story provides good advice that you should not close the deal with agent until the agent removes all promotional material. Same photos are probably on realtor.com and other sites.
3
@Jomo -real estate agents post up to dozens of photographs of the property with MLS listing(s), which are on the www (remember when we didn't know what www meant?!) Those pics are pretty much available to anyone; anywhere; anytime; for any purpose.
1
And yet, I got a notice from the NYT telling me what my most read oped columnist was and the types of articles I read. A snapshot of what I think? Not at all. I read everything, especially opinions I do not agree with, to see what they think. I thought it was very intrusive that they were tracking what I was reading.
16
They track everything. Where did you think the section Reader’s Choice gets its selections? The editor guesses?
3
@LJT
Use Ad Blocker Plus so no ads on the NYT website ( It still bugs me that although I pay for my digital subscription, I get a bottom line of " please allow ads on NYT" )
Also go into your browser ( I use Firefox )& have them disable tracking.
This is a very clever test by you folks at NYT. I see it and how it works implicitly. I chose this topic because it seems neutral.
How many clicks are on "I love My Phone" versus " It's time to Panic?"
However, thanks for bringing this to light. Dozens of "job creators" are making lot's of money from our collective stupidity. I never understood why the model can't be reversed, i.e. people charge Google, LinkedIn, Facebook for data usage. Monetising people's data model is really out of date going forward. It was something to kickstart the enterprise. I would rather pay for the service an amount I know, rather than get "free" services in return for my private info. I could agree, for a fee, to show you my wine preferences or book readings for better service but I should have that control. Remember that if you get the free service then you're the product not the client.
2
Privacy?
Neighbors' gossip has always been around. Our friends know us and what goes on in our lives. When have school children had "privacy"?
Sex in the bedroom has for a millennia been a topic for discussion.
The "privacy" conversation is the current trend but it holds no water because we have never had true privacy.
Privacy is what we make it. It has always been that if we wish to hang our 'dirty laundry" out in the front yard; so be it. We have a choice.
Nothing new here.
Please take a walk, and leave your phone at home. Turn it off at night. Don't give multimedia to young children.
It's all addictive, and it's not all healthy.
Meet a stranger's eyes. Smile.
17
Most of us aren't all that good at standing up to social pressure, and I gather that social media (which I am old enough to get away with avoiding) only exacerbate the problem. If we admit that many people submit easily to social pressure, we must also admit that when privacy dies, much of our freedom dies with it. In one of her books (maybe The Overspent American?), Juliet Schor gives an example of the interplay between social pressure and privacy. People buy fashionable items when they know that others will see them. However, they often ignore fashion when buying things that few others will see -- nightgowns, blankets, etc.)
5
It is why we retired people are such on drag on consumer economy. We have the money, but lost interest in impressing anyone. Unfortunately that attitude can lead to a permanent attitude of Get Off My Lawn. That social media site started as Millennials ridiculing old people and has become filled with older people clamoring for that status. That is a bizarre form of social pressure, wanting to be known in social media as someone that resists the pressure of social media. Put a fork in us, we are done.
5
Another aspect of this, is now that NZ has had a terrorist attack, the citizens have lost some of their freedom and privacy, because our government passed a law that says it's a crime for us to read the terrorists manifesto or watch the video, yet we have other people commenting on this worldwide because it's not a crime in other nations. The weird thing is that it doesn't stop us from thinking even though it is banned, so we can't draw factual conclusions. I think it makes people feel less secure and confused if you can't go to a source to research your topic. Immediately the government did that I thought of how China decides what it's citizens watch and read on the internet, and this morning I read that Russia is banning worldwide internet to its citizens, not unlike China. That's how propaganda gets spread. Now, this morning I read how the terrorist told the police that there were 9 people involved in the mosque massacre, yet we were not told this when it happened. You just create more fear in society if there is no TRANSPARENCY about what government is doing and why. Also, I read this morning that some guy with Trump for New Zealand tee shirt on, was arrested for yelling slurs at Muslims outside one of the mosques in the attacks. And he's to appear in court this morning for disorderly behaviour. It's good that the government is getting firm on discrimination and racism but we're all in the dark in NZ because of lack of freedom of information. There needs to be a balance.
4
I watched a commentator on CNBC talking about the situation of people criticizing Facebook for showing things that are not illegal in the country being seen. He said the idea of foreigners using Facebook et al is pretty much done. In country after country, the material originates within a target country using domestic resources and expertise. India, as the largest democracy, is the best example. You cannot fault Mark Zuckerberg for publishing legal material created by Indians to raise tensions in India.
ust remember when you're on social media that it's like transparency worldwide. That's why I don't have a fake name as I like to stay in the real world. It's probably a dangerous place to be with all the trolls and bullies just there for entertainment but I like to think I'm adding my 2 cents worth in opinions in our planet earth. That's how stuff gets changed by reading other peoples opinions because once you read something you learn a new way of thinking and it all adds up to your knowledge as knowledge is power. You need to be cautious as there's lots of con-artists and liars out there just looking to get a negative reaction out of you but if you realise that they can't hurt you. The internet is great if you use it as a tool and it doesn't take over your life. Bit like addictions in the real world. Getting hacked doesn't worry me as I have nothing to hide and never put any bank details on the internet. I don't have a cellphone so that is less stress in my life. If it all gets too much for users of the internet you can always switch it off. Facebook has over three billion users worldwide.
2
Just about everything ever invented has been abused one way or another. Not regulating internet privacy long before now just shows how utterly ignorant and out of touch our governments are -- or corrupt and in the pockets of lobbyists.
That ignorance was not just governments. The media happily collected and stored contributors' information. Something once thought mundane was storing people's email addresses; half the login credentials for many websites for most people! Not only that, but the Telegraph of London went further by even openly publishing their contributors' email addresses in archived LTEs. Asking them politely to remedy it twelve years ago did nothing. I had to complain to the regulating agency and explain it to them. Even then it took them months to fix what was a two minute database fix, if that.
Problem is, people are still largely ignorant of the risks, and the long term ramifications of allowing others access to their data, any data. I routinely found unencrypted personal credentials, including credit card details, when fixing companies websites -- often hidden amid discarded, forgotten files, but still there. Not all those with access to your web files are honest, and there are millions of easily readable passwords in those files, which are then often tried first before being sold on to others. Database passwords are a classic find for an unscrupulous web developer who might be anywhere in the world, but might now have access to your bank account.
5
The need for "balance" between convenience and privacy is an unbalanced point of view. Every business , politician, huckster, wana-be dictator, thief, will trade in/on your information for money/power. The only real way to control this appetite is to make the "privacy invaders" pay the invaded individuals a cash price for each item collected, whether sold or not. Hefty jail and fines for the bad guys. Any purchaser of such data must pay again. Finally, any data taken and/or sold must be provided to the individuals involved in paper form, human readable, with soft copy and free software/equipment to explore this data by each holder of the data. This includes the various federal, state, county, and city governments when the data is not in compliance to the law.
Whistling in the dark...?
Yep!
3
I look forward to reading your findings. I hope you are ready to be snooped on by our government and governments around the world, by private interests and crooks of all types as you dig into exposing their business. Best of luck.
4
The problem is not about the use of that kind of technology but its abuse.
2
Try something legally simple: All information about a person belongs to the person and can not be stored or transmitted without the person's permission. Violation of the requirement is punished by a financial charge and by prohibition to use the storage/transmission device for a certain length of time (to be determined)
5
People do give their permission. I doubt any firm sends any info anywhere without some acknowledgement by the user at some point in the sign up process. If people are too lazy to understand what that check off means, that is their problem.
2
While the word privacy doesn’t appear in the US Constitution, it is the basis for many Supreme Court decisions and it’s been understood to be in the penumbras. Whether privacy extends beyond unnecessary government intrusion might be up for debate but there are a number of instances where privacy and freedom are two sides of the same coin.
11
When will the NY Times be providing information on how to kill NYT tracking cookies on the website?
And when will the NYTimes explicitly explain the usefulness privacy-wise of an encrypted VPN?
12
@Yaj And when will the NYTimes explain why paying for a subscription does not exempt users from seeing ads, if those ads rely on tracking cookies?
3
You people need to get the app. We see very few ads and you can blow right past them.
@Michael Blazin
"You people need to get the app."
Michael, have you read the article you're commenting on?
While agreeing with the ideals of The Privacy Project who has stopped using social media for many years now, I find it ludicrously hypocritical to ask us to follow the project on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram.
38
Here is another take on privacy, my experience dealing with a fraud claim at BankofAmerica and PayPal.
Someone used my stolen credit card info to open a PayPal account, buy some jewelry from a merchant set up to accept payment from PayPal.
Here's the thing, because the Paypal account that used my credit card info wasn't in my name, I could not get access to any information about the transaction or the account holder because it would go against PayPal's privacy rules!
So, someone can use your credit card info to make fraudulent purchases, but you can't pursue them because PayPal protects their privacy while yours has been raped!
They claim that only a duly issued and presented subpoena will pry that information out of their hands. This means you have to pursue a court case against them, which would be expensive.
This means that BankofAmerica has about the same access as you and must determine who pays the bill. It took multiple attempts to contest that this was fraud over three months with multiple agencies. With the help of the Washington attorney generals consumer protection dept. and also the federal CPFD department, and the local BofA branch manager, my claim was finally resolved in my favor.
15
@BillH
You're using Bank of American and PayPal: two notoriously bad actors when it comes to both privacy and customer service. You might want to consider who you do business with, in the future.
Face-recognition technology is hardly devoid of human bias.
8
If it generates wrong hits, I do not see a problem other than possible delay for investigators. So the software thinks I look like George Clooney. If I’ve been seen at a crime, does that mean a computer initiates a nationwide APB for George Clooney? Of course not. A human looks at me in the captured video and a picture of George Clooney and quickly decides that I look nothing like George Clooney. Error! APB cancelled.
If it is correct 80% of the time, that sounds pretty good compared to a human looking at mugshots.
Among the rights to privacy currently under siege is Roe v. Wade (1973), whose passage was based partly on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
Less than two years ago, India's highest court recognized privacy as a fundamental human right, citing U.S. law as one precedent.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/24/545963181/indian-supreme-court-declares-privacy-a-fundamental-right
A majority of the Supreme Court is determined to eliminate the right to abortion. Are we going to retain or lose our moral hegemony?
4
Data acquisition and data mining is a reality of our world. A sound mind and soul is not easily swayed by a pop-up ad or a custom marketing message. We need to focus on what can be addressed, and that is education 2.0 in our schools which includes understanding your digital footprint, the personal impact from accessing those free views or apps and cultivating Savy Information Consumers (University of Washington). This list is of course unending.
On a side note, journalism needs to be supported, so if news organizations needing to feed reporters stuck in the basement of city hall earn funding through the sale of reader data, less personal information, then by all means. Whatever it takes to keep those with the hands on the wheel in check.
3
Looking forward to reading this. Even though I presume a lot of strangers will know I am doing so.
5
It's wonderful that the NY Times is embarking on this project. As a society, we need to confront the issue privacy in the same way we need to confront the issue of climate change.
But no amount of discussion will matter without legislation. An individual's private choice not to use Facebook, or to give up driving a car, will not change the larger realities of privacy invasion and climate change. Only legislation can do that, because laws and government are the only things that can stand up to the power and reach of corporations.
But what if corporations buy the support of legislators? What if individuals in government appoint corporate leaders to oversee the very industries they once ran? What if one political party is owned by big business, and uses every marketing tool available to convince voters to maintain the status quo? That's the situation we're in now, and there's nothing to suggest it will change.
I applaud the NY Times for running this series, and I look forward to reading more articles on the topic. But none of it will matter unless enough leverage is brought to bear upon our legislators to actually do something.
10
Privacy matters a lot, especially if Americans are concerned about either "big government" (ie the Right) or "Trump authoritarianism" (ie the Left) trying to control your life.
4
I predict solutions that result from this project will have foundations of democratic governing. The comprehensive information available to tech companies and the government are pretty high fidelity representations of us all and we should have control in how this data is used. This is the role of government. We'll have to strengthen our democracy and build more faith in government.
2
@Al...
There may well be a foundation...But Congress will always find some way to politicize this in a red vs blue fashion within a picosecond.
The more AI knows about you, the more it knows how to separate you from your wallet, adding to income inequality. AI both profiles and brainwashes, serving up targeted ads and content, to enrich companies and impoverish individuals. Little ole you don't stand a chance.
Question: Why is the EU is so far ahead of the US when it comes to online privacy, and what does that say about our supposed "democracy?"
Question: Why are shell companies even allowed to do business in America, and what does that say about a system that vigorously protects the anonymity of such "entities" while exposing its citizens to identity theft?
76
@Bill - regarding targeted ads, there's something that baffles me.
I use Youtube, Facebook, ... in a moderate amount. I have NEVER clicked on a single ad, or bought a product online that I saw through ads on those platforms.
I must assume that all those companies that are spending billions on ad placements are getting some kind of measurable return on their expenditures. Do people really click regularly on the ads that FB, Youtube and the rest put in front of them?
I've noticed that a lot of the ads are reactive as well. For example, if I've just bought printer ink then I suddenly start getting ads for printer ink. (Presumably these sites are reading the cookies left on my computer from a recent visit to Amazon, for example.) Of course, having just bought some it's the last thing I need to buy more of.
4
I want to see published the results of a study that reveals just how much time and effort an average American would have to expend to actually read and process what the rights to privacy relinquished during the course of an average week in which one installs a couple of new apps on their phone, logs onto social media websites, etc...
the legal burden that is too overbearing for average citizens to seriously consider in order to find out when the next bus is coming or if there are people meeting to discuss Dostoevsky is ridiculous and every company that hires lawyers to write the terms knows it.
the time to pause was 5-10 years ago.
Why are we always in damage-control mode and never ahead of the curve? Seems the Europeans have infinitely better ways of tackling protection of their citizens.
16
@janet silenci
The time to start is always today. Yes, it is ridiculous it has taken the US this long to wake up to the invasion of privacy, but we can act now. The Europeans improved their privacy protection not that long ago. It's all a matter of making the choice to begin.
One thought comes immediately to mind...
Why is is that it is legal for a commercial enterprise to profile people and our police are not?
There seems to be a serious disconnect here.
12
@The Owl
You don't give up your rights to the police/government to profile you.
When you use "social media", amazon, or cell phone, you explicitly are allowing said company to profile you.
NY Times needs to exam their own privacy issues. I strongly feel that the digital space should be ad free. $65/month or $780/year for weekend delivery and digital access is significant. The NYT is accessing my digital photos to target adds in areas that they think I might be interested. Believe me... it’s not bras and underwear!
10
The collection of data is only the first layer of the onion. The data is used to build behavorial models, which are then used to manipulate behavior, that is, manipulate us. Facial recognition software will monitor your moods and advertisements will be displayed accordingly. It’s called Surveillance Capitalism by Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff.
19
Privacy Project? Methinks too late.
1
I know what’s been taken from me. I wrote a novel about events in Brazil in 1968, which includes references to the CIA and its role in supporting torture of Brazilians by the military dictatorship of the period.
Since then, the CIA has harassed me relentlessly, stealing my writing off of my home computer and laptop and distributing it to people for their reading pleasure, including people at the Times. They then can poach the ideas and phrases for their own use. Chiefly, the government’s object is to incite derision against me in order to undermine my confidence and destroy my reputation.
These acts are crimes and if the Times is genuinely interested in privacy and the First Amendment, you will not aid and abet these crimes by reading or distributing stolen material. Whether the injured writer is a journalist or not should not matter, what matters is that if the government gets away with this with me, they are emboldened to harass and intimidate all writers.
The First Amendment protects writing wherever it is fashioned and protects all citizens equally. You would do well to remember that.
1
"There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear."
This just doesn't seem to foot with the core notions of democracy and liberty. Privacy has been implied in Locke, Hobbes and Jefferson and their writings on liberty and then stated explicitly in more modern works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
10
Our culture of self-promotion is part of a continuum in which personal privacy is sacrificed for (corporate) economic benefit. Surveillance technologies (algorithms) tend to reenforce built-in cognitive thought structures that predispose us to uncover what’s unfitting about another person. We are designed to filter out who is trustworthy and cooperative and who is not (See: Moral Tribes by Joshua Green). But without context, meaningful communication is limited. The dark side of our culture of self-promotion is the advance of an anti-social discourse where superficial personal information is used to stigmatize and denigrate anyone that does not meet our pre-existing expectations. Real human relationship takes empathy and the courage to trust others. In this regard, the culture of self-promotion is not helping. Looking forward to this NYT series.
4
I have spent my life selling computers, software, computer networks and communication systems to individuals, small businesses and global corporations. While the broad freedom business has to operate and create in the United States helped enable our dominance in software, information services and communications, our natural suspicion of excess regulation has also created the greatest of dilemmas. Ascertaining the correct balance of privacy rights, security, technological progress and personal freedom is the largest single challenge for creative legal minds since the constitution itself was originally written. It will require industry to cooperate more than resist and for individuals to likely need to make more than a few compromises as well. A very carefully crafted amendment or two may even be required by the time all is said and done. This work must begin immediately, for it is already almost too late.
9
Concerning Genetic Engineering
We are opening Pandora's Box. I have read the articles here and in the Economist extolling the benefits of the new technology. All well and good, but we are messing with the fundamental code of life. Something we do not understand and do not know the unintended consequences of our changes. As this technology becomes wide spread, people and or governments will use it for purposes we do not want. The problem being that this 'Hack Job' will not be for money, it will be to infect the code that makes us who we are. It will be a virus for which we do not have a vaccine. This is dangerous, dangerous stuff and we are rushing in where angels fear to tread.
1
I quit Google last year. I'm aware that I will never recover what they already have, but I can minimize some of their data harvesting going forward. So far, I have yet to encounter even one person who understands why I'm not okay with letting a for-profit corporation vacuum up every single detail about my life without any oversight whatsoever.
15
I'm glad to see NYT raising some awareness about privacy, people need to understand the risks about putting their personal information on the internet. I have worked in IT security so I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from most internet users with regards to privacy, you can even call me paranoid. Some of the practices I follow are:
-Always browse in incognito/private mode , prevents websites from keeping a history of you but is inconvenient
-Anonymous accounts for almost everything
-Ad blocker, most annoying tracking is done via ads
-Never ever opening email(or any other account) on a computer that's not mine, you can't be sure there's not malware on there and next thing your account is on sale
I haven't included steps to follow for doing really sensitive stuff
6
@RS Some of your practices are not quite accurate. Specifically:
"Always browse in incognito/private mode , prevents websites from keeping a history of you but is inconvenient"
Incognito mode does nothing to prevent websites from keeping a history of you. All it does is to prevent your web browser from keeping a history. Websites track you via IP address, cookies, and a number of other methods over which you have limited control.
To actually prevent websites from tracking you, you would need to connect through a third-party, typically a VPN.
11
I read two paragraphs and I can do a full stop. I think this is about spurring job creation. However, some people are better left in your past.
1
This is an important project. It fascinates that the project is announced on the day Julian Assange is arrested. He is accused of telling us about government's subversive action to look into our lives, doing so to "protect" citizens from the malice intent of others. While his case would appear to be black or white, it is anything but this.
Cost/benefit analysis part of everyday business practice. Trying to analyze privacy can only delve into shades of grey.
I am hopeful the project will help people discern between light and dark grey. Good luck to The Times and thanks for taking on such a formidable topic.
10
This will be interesting. I’m one who has never particularly worried about privacy. Doesn’t bother me if people know how much money I make, what my medical conditions are, where I am at any particular moment. I will read this series and see if I should start worrying.
8
@PC I completely agree. It’s why I’m supportive of employees sharing their wage (and bonus) information with other employees at the same company. It’s a great way to root out wage disparity based on gender or based on length of service. It’s not illegal and can’t be “discouraged or forbidden” in the US without consequences from the NLRB. Of course, it’s not OK to share company proprietary information etc., but you are absolutely correct — this is a two way street.
2
One day a privacy violation may end in a huge court settlement which will prompt these aggregators to draft and pass shield laws similar to the gun industry. And like guns, there will be no liability by the data companies. You won't have to the read end user agreements any more, they'll be free to do what they like without redress.
The confluence of readily available private info AND those who own guns (and how many) should make for an interesting few days.
4
“... a good moment to pause ...” ?? There’s no ‘pausing’ in this world now. That kind of thinking got us into this mess. “Let’s launch this technology into the world, trust that people will use it for good and make adjustments along the way” is what the early Internet pioneers essentially thought in the beginning. In the period of this admirable and forthright monthslong NYTimes initiative will run, no doubt multiple stories will break about privacy and security, engineers and developers will conjure new ways to analyze data and the train will be even further down the track with no plan to stop in the future.
5
@LRS
So stop not pause? It's not clear what you're arguing for. Being clever about one's own destruction doesn't seem adequate.
“Is it O.K., for example, for an insurance company to ask you to wear a tracker to monitor whether you’re getting enough exercise, and set your rates accordingly?”
“What if your employer demanded access to all your digital activity, so that it could run that data through an algorithm to judge whether you’re trustworthy?”
Let’s turn this around.
Should you be allowed to gather as much information as you can on any business you interact with?
Should any employee be allowed to gather as much information as possible regarding their employer?
Folks, this is a TWO WAY STREET. It is NOT a ONE WAY STREET.
Whomever gathers information on you, you should be able to gather information in reverse!
How much debt does this company carry? Is your Boss sleeping around? Does this business have a history of malfeasance?
What goes around, comes around. Information is a two-way proposition!
41
@PC
sure.
Except businesses ≠ people (sorry, Mittens)
And your tool is probably going to be google and businesses' tools are much more powerful.
So....
5
@PC - It has a great deal to do with consent.
If I go to a bank to apply for a loan, they cannot do a credit check on me until I have given them my consent to do so. And if I refuse to give the consent they won't do the loan. That's fine. We each remain in control of our own data.
Actually, I've simplified a bit to make the point. There are certain instances in which companies and government agencies don't need your permission to do the check, but I'm trying to get at the basic principle.
Take another example, SEC disclosures for publicly traded corporations. These came into place to control against companies who promoted their shares using fraudulent information. In order to enjoy the PRIVILEGE (not right) to sell their shares to the public, companies are required to divulge certain information. This is necessary in order to have an efficient and effective capital market, the foundation stone of our capitalist economy.
If I, on the other hand, want to invest in someone else's PRIVATE business enterprise, it is entirely reasonable for that person to have the right to consent or deny consent to my pursuit of information about his business. Of course, if he denies consent, I won't invest. But we each maintain control of our respective data, assets, etc.
I find it rather funny that this article is wrapped with the usual buttons and links to Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram...
70
Great topic. In Germany as well, But here the people are divided : They hate giving data to the state/ government ( because of our history with the nazis and after that the east-german stasi (secretpolice)
But they don’t care giving their data to private companies . Which is ...frankly...kinda crazy and naive.
We trade in our privacy for some convenience. But i am afraid most of my young fellow citizens just think: Silicon Valley and social media is cool. Don’t care about tomorrow.
47
@Claus
It does seem many people don't care or have given up. But I think if we show it's not impossible to change, they might feel differently and re-engage.
1
As long as the Artificial Intelligence hype continues, the hunger for data will not stop. I mean they are viewing data as the new electricity that powers the new insights of AI. To constrain the inflow of consumer information is to hinder the advancement of AI. We all know AI has this great potential to change the world and hopefully make the world a much better place. privacy seems to be a little price to pay for the greater good. But at least, we should have law to allow us to choose which data we want to provide and which we don't. Before the company can gather any data, they should inform us with a simple list of what they want to gather and share with third party and let us check what they can gather and share. In addition, since information is of value to the companies, we should be compensated for the information we choose to provide. When signing off our information, the company should list the benefits of the data sharing and what additional price they are willing to pay for our info. In another word, make information sharing a transparent market exchange.
6
This is a very worthwhile project that has the potential for us all to consider how the powers of government and corporations, at times working together, have deepened methods of surveillance and control over our individual and collective lives.
18
Add to this the burgeoning and evolving "surveillance capitalism" designed to reap financial gain from the very personal information of which you speak, and we may realize the need for laws and policies reminiscint of the "Robber Baron" and "Monopoly" political actions of the early 20th century.
6
The next step for the information cartels in their drive to own our information is is now that privacy is a problem, they will monetize it and sell it back to us. In other words, we will have have to buy our way out of this do loop. The Facebooks of the digiverse are no better than the criminals who use it.
9
How would the Founders have fared if England had access to similar surveillance technology prior to the American Revolution? Would we be a country today, or still a collection of colonies?
18
@CV Danes Actually, good old George Washington had a pretty good sized network of spies. He needed information and wasn't afraid to use spies to get it. Now, both he and England had the same level of technology which consisted of non tech info gathering.
NYT, thank you for this series—but is it possible to read a version without the bright blue backgrounds? To those with blue light sensitivity, it’s nearly impossible to focus on the words & read them!
6
Modern America equates privacy with loneliness and loneliness with being adult and responsible. As long as the "shepherd" is watching, sheep who follow a private path and the interior life will be caught and returned to the public herd. The abortion debate, for example, is about whether the powers of government and church have jurisdiction over the private experiences of the individual. If the fear of loneliness weren't so great, and the distrust of privacy so high, perhaps they'd be less obesity. Now, when people strive to reaffirm the right of privacy, they are viewed as suspects with something to hide. Not that what they hide might be bad, but that not wanting to be watched by the government's and church's shepherds is a sure sign that you want to do something personal and you're not afraid of loneliness. The fear of loneliness industry is huge. When government or surveillance takes away our privacy we see it, like an abused person, as something they are doing to us for our own good. Thank you for running this story. It's a fertile topic, especially since identity politics, rather that private conscience, is what's running the nation.
19