Unofficial Post: Online Data Collection is Coming to Attention...Again

It appears that someone in the White House has finally taken an interest in the privacy of it's online citizens.

Who: John D. Podesta
What: A recently-released report that "recommends requiring private companies to disclose the kind of information they gather from their customers online" (NY Times).

In other words, someone has noticed that companies are using the data they receive from customers logging in (and clicking those pesky Terms of Use without reading them). Like, really using it. These techniques, "mosaic techniques," allow companies to pretend like they're collecting anonymous data from large groups of users, when they're really finding out what you're doing online. So they can send you ads for bras when you went online bra-shopping that one time.

Or maybe you found an app on Facebook that lets you fight dragons and stuff. Well now they know you like that stuff; expect to see RPG/MMO images cluttering the margins of your internet browser.

Mr. Podesta asks a really good question, "Does the Terms of Use process still allow us to control and protect our privacy as the data is used and reused?" Well, John, you may be onto something.

And companies don't like it. After all, we expend so much data, cutting off or restricting this supply to companies might seriously damage their sales. Oh dear, what a shame.

The report recommends extending American privacy rights to foreigners, and "notes the risk of dat being used to discriminate against some Americans in new ways that are otherwise prohibited by civil and consumer rights legislation".

Yikes! It seems like people are catching on to the idea that online tech. available these day is just another tool-- and tools have always been used to promote the status quo.

But wait, there's more. It appears that the "sensible" guidelines of 2012, which were administration recommendations regarding online privacy. They were shot down:

"The task of translating concepts like transparency and accountability into legislation seemed complex and time-consuming, and were opposed by business groups. Few members of Congress showed interest."

Great, so business owners (probably Disney, dangit!!) didn't like the idea of restricting their access to our information, and IGNORED THE ISSUE. Wow. This is such a good example of showing who really has our best interest in mind (or not!).

Hopefully, this time around will be more successful. I'm not sure what it will take for Podesta's recommendations to become more than that, but I hope it happens, and soon.

Amendment to "Facebook Privacy: Why Does it Matter?"

So in my previous post, I claimed I didn't think Facebook privacy was much of an issue. Well I couldn't be more wrong. 

Part of the problem is the fact that I wasn't even aware of the status quo to which I've been subscribing. 

In class, Proffessor Kim challenged us to rethink our norms, our ideas of what is normal. I thought the idea of a privacy-free online world is just the way things are. I figured there was no use fighting the inevitable: that privacy has become a luxury commodity. 

But Kim showed me how this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't have to be in the future. 

After all, we've spent much of this course covering how twitter and slacktivism can impact the world.

As the Professor put it, "Social change happens on multiple levels and never evenly or quickly" (@mukurtu on Twitter). She's right of course. If people use the tools available, we can actively fight the encroachment of our privacy rights. 

Maybe, hopefully, someone higher up will listen. 

Personally, I hope to watch out for such polarized, open/close ideologies in the future. I need to protect myself from a very western, polarized way of thinking. It's easy to fall into thinking black and white, but many issues, especially ones in today's digital circles, are far from clear-cut.

So, back to the question: why does Facebook privacy matter?

Because it's another marker of our receding rights, rights which every person should hold without question. Our lives have become increasingly digital, but this does not give an excuse to companies and/or the government to infringe on our right to withhold information. We don't have to believe that this is how it's always been.

Facebook Privacy: Why it Doesn't Matter Much to Me

Recently, there has been a lot of negative attention focused on Facebook's changing privacy policies.

Upon learning that things on my profile might become less private, I hurried to check my privacy settings. Almost everything on my wall can be seen by friends only. It was really easy to do. I clicked about 3 buttons/links to change my settings.

I scratched my head, wondering why people are so freaked out by changes that are easily addressed and tweaked. Seriously, people, this isn't rocket science.

But then I remember that I belong to the digital generations, the ones who grew up around computers. I doubt my mother would have been able to figure out her privacy settings so easily.

Still, I feel like nothing much has drastically changed for me regarding privacy. 

We all know the government listens in on our phone conversations. They minister basically everything digital we day and do. This isn't old news. So I'm not sure why the idea of face-recognition and privacy changes are such a big deal to people.

Our privacy has already been compromised. As long as I'm not posting pictures that make sure I don't get hired (and I don't) then I should be fine. There's nothing on my Facebook wall I don't mind the public seeing. Everything else is hidden. 

Bellyachers need to understand how to use the tools at their disposal, or not use them at all. We gave up privacy a long time ago, with the advent of the Web, but we can still manage what the public sees.