… Or at least I hope.
A man I know just discovered — to his delight and horror — email apps that help create newsletters, then extensively track who’s opening the mail, when they open it, and what links in it they’re clicking on. “All without their knowledge, and completely legal.”
He’s delighted because that can help keep his business competitive. He’s horrified because … well, who wouldn’t be?
These things aren’t new and they can be thwarted by receiving email only in plain text format and not clicking on emailed links.
When I questioned the ethics of a company tracking its customers without full disclosure, my friend — in the nicest way, you understand — called me an old fogy. And called himself one, too: “We’re in an aging bracket. Kids today actually EXPECT they’re being tracked for books and clothes and food and you name it.”
Well, maybe. Sure, there are millions who don’t mind being tracked as long as tracking brings lots of goodies their way. Millions more probably don’t know, and wouldn’t care, that they’re being tracked. And many “kids” — giddy with materialism and caught up in the mania of “friends,” and “likes,” and “share this!” — may be among the unconcerned.
But I wonder. I think — and I hope — this doesn’t even remotely mean privacy is a lost cause.
First of all, there’s a huge difference between choosing to disclose your activities, as gazillions obviously do with Twitter, Facebook, Foresquare etc., and having information ripped off you. Sensible people eventually draw that distinction.
And what you are, and what you allow, when you’re 15 or 20 or 25 can change pretty fast when reality smacks you. For instance, recent research turned up the very surprising news that many young adults actually like debt. They don’t just see it as a necessity. They like it. It boosts their self-esteem, makes them feel more grownup. By the time they hit 30 or so … different story.
Now, that has nothing directly to do with privacy. But I remember feeling that way myself, as if debt signaled that I was a responsible person. And I had a similar attitude toward the primitive version of customer tracking that was around then. Shortly before Christmas, when I was a yuppie-wannabe, my mailbox would fill up with catalogs from stores like Gump’s and Neiman-Marcus. Did I ever shop at such deliciously hoity-toity outfits? Nope. But I was on other mailing lists, or had other spending habits, that led marketers to expect that I might be ready for the yuppie big time. So, thanks to my data, I Made The Lists.
I was so proud. I really thought that meant I was hot stuff.
Now? Are you kidding? Things change. A lot.
This weekend in the Wall Street Journal, some poor, aging 33-year-old mourned that that in his dotage he was becoming less enamored of new tech. There’s some truth to what he says, for sure. We do become less flexible with age, especially if we don’t guard against it. But what he didn’t say was that ancient ages like 33, 43, and on up, also bring — if we’re lucky — the wisdom of experience and the realization of what we’re trading away when we rush mindlessly into every “latest thing.” Experience teaches that privacy ripoffs — a prime feature of much new tech — can have catastrophic consequences. And a lot of just-plain-annoying ones.
So are the “kids” my friend spoke of going to get that one day soon? Who knows? Maybe I’m being absurdly optimistic. Maybe privacy really is dead — but I don’t believe it. You tell me what you think.
But here’s one more interesting little databit: Preliminary figures say that Facebook — that champion raper of privacy — has just lost huge numbers of members in countries where it was earliest adopted. Down six million in the U.S. Down more than 1.5 million in Canada. The folks who mined this data caution that we shouldn’t read too much into it. And let’s not.
But could it be, at least in part, that a few million former Facebookians are on their way to saying, “To hell with all that. No freebie is worth letting myself be stripmined for data”?
Claire, I think you should give us your friend’s business’ name. That way, people who enjoy getting their privacy raped for some business’ benefit can look him up and bend over, while the rest of us will know to to boycott in self defense.
Then there’s the idea of avoiding a businessman so clueless that it took him until this far into the 21st century to discover web bugs.
“Kids” & privacy: It’s nice to think they may grow up and learn better, but if they ignor it until then, it’ll be way to late.
Old fogies & Tech: I’m 50 and, yeah, I don’t like some of the recent rapid “advancements”. But it isn’t why you may think. I used to write hard SF, and mostly I’ve made my living with computers and electronics, so tech is pretty much my thing. But since I’m not one of those punks building “self esteem” through indebtedness, I can’t _afford_ to keep buying newer and faster computers every fewe months so I can view the latest mega-bandwidth Web multimedia fad.
Nor would newer, faster computers do me much good anyway, because, short of satellite (which I sure as heck can’t afford either), broadband isn’t even available where I live. No Fios, no DSL, no cable; the _infrastructure_ isn’t there. Not so long ago, I opened an account with a well known web outfit to design and sell items related to my books. But it didn’t work: the _account_, not the marketing. Turns out the company knows their system doesn’t work over dial-up, except by more-or-less piecemeal accident. And doesn’t care.
I’m not sure if the problem is that over-indulged yuppies sitting in well-wired cities can’t figure out that 40-60% (depends on whose numbers you look at) of Americans still don’t have _access_ to broadband service (and many who do have it via their workplace), if they figure that nonurban residents wouldn’t want their services anyway, or if they just don’t care. Maybe they think everyone without broadband is as broke as me, and isn’t worth catering to.
At any rate, the end result is that, until I can afford luxuries like satellite, I can’t _do_ the latest tech, an I get annoyed when some city clown expects me to anyway.
Carl-Bear — My friend is actually a very nice person with a good business that until recently has had little reason to adopt a lot of new (to them) tech. Clueless, he’s not. A slow and cautious adopter, he is.
I don’t like what he’s contemplating, either. But the sad fact is that businesses need to do that type of datamining merely to be competitive — and, sad to say, to ensure that they’re providing what their customers want most. If you or I were to subscribe to his newsletters, I suspect we’d protect ourselves (and you’d honor your dial-up limitations) by receiving them in plain-text only. Is a boycott needed? If so, we’re going to end up boycotting everybody.
I just hope my friend has honor enough to give full disclosure to his subscribers.
That, “All without their knowledge, and completely legal.”, is what bothers me. Doesn’t sound like full disclosure is what he has in mind.
If planting web bugs “without their knowledge” is what businesses have to do to stay competitive, then mass boycotts may be the only tool we have left to protect ourselves. But I’m open to suggestions.
Since I’m not one of those young kids who think privacy is passe, the argument that “SnoopCo is doing it, so we at PeakabooInc have to spy to stay competitive” is a little like ignoring a Peeping Tom at your kitchen window because the other Toms are already trying to peek into your bedroom windows. (Flashback to something we probably all heard as kids: Mom says, “I don’t care if the other kids are doing it. Would you jump off a cliff because they all did?”)
There are businesses that I let track some of my preferences. When I get something out of it beyond tailored ads (which almost never seem to actually do much for me- the snailmail catalog lists I get on are… peculiar sometimes): discounts, for instance; in effect, the business “buys” the service of personal information from me. Quid pro quo sounds rather unlikely in a case of a business that likes the idea of “without their knowledge”.
Yeah, I’ve always stuck with text/no-html for personal mail since I’ve been online (and I’ve been on the ‘Net since Lynx was the only browser), even when dial-up bandwidth wasn’t an issue. Laughed when I got my first warning about web bugs, and asked what the hell they thought _any_ embedded graphic or link amounted to in HTML mail.
Not knowing your friend’s product, I don’t know whether I’m even a potential customer. Why not point him at these comments so he can get a feel for what he might be getting into. You might also direct his attention to the Citibank, IMF, Senate, Sony, etc. hacks; if he does choose to covertly collect customer data, he’ll know what sort of liability he’d be facing if that data leaked.
It’s amazing how many users of both MySpace and now Facebook are under the assumption that if they “just turn their profiles to private, then no one will get their important information”……completely oblivious to what goes on behind the scenes with the people running it, they’re “ok with it” as long as the public don’t see much or any of their profile…..
As with everything else, it will take some real frightening (& widely covered in the press) situation to happen in order for them to fully understand why it’s not a good idea for ANYONE to be able to access any of their info…..and they will do a mass exodus away from that right into something else just as bad….the need for so much attention seems to always trump good common sense about security……
As for email, I have a “public account” that doesn’t get used for anything private, not that I ever say (or do anything) that much that’s private online (period)….but as a single woman (and as someone who was once stalked online) I tend to take a more cautious approach to anything – clicking on unfamiliar links or answering unknown email mail etc etc etc…..most people just don’t think once they park themselves in front of a computer, especially young people…..
“But could it be, at least in part, that a few million former Facebookians are on their way to saying, “To hell with all that. No freebie is worth letting myself be stripmined for data”?”
I think the decline in Facebook use has less to do with privacy issues and more to do with people wondering why the hell they’re wasting a significant percentage of their lives checking Facebook and Twitter updates to learn some friend just brushed her teeth or is feeling sad because his favorite contestant on some unReality show got the boot.
My own dear daughter who, just a year ago, during one of my weekly family dinner instructional lectures (aka – rants), confessed to devoting three to four hours a day on Facebook recently disclosed she now spends about twenty minutes or so, a decline for which I’m sure her husband is most grateful.
Whatever the reason for the reduction in usage, I hope the trend continues. Maybe some percentage of folks with new-found free time will pick up a newspaper or book, or start to wonder exactly where all those tax dollars are going.
Hmm…maybe I should start a “Where are my tax dollars going” Facebook group.
I’ve used several layers of protection against web bugs and other forms of tracking for years, in part thanks to early warnings by Claire. They work well and I’ve used them for so long that I no longer really notice their presence.
A year ago I subscribed to a newsletter. It came out monthly with occasional “Alerts” in between regular editions. I would download each edition and read it.
After 6 months I was contacted by the Customer Service department. They were concerned because their records showed I had not read any of the newsletters.
What had really happened was that my defenses prevented their tracking systems from working.
I let the subscription lapse; the content was so-so, and while I wasn’t livid about the surreptitious tracking, it didn’t help them when it came time for me to spend more money.
Not a boycott, just voting with my wallet.
I don’t write hard SF, but read a lot of it,and I used to be the maintenance guy(mostly, but not limited to, electrical) at a college,and a hospital. Technological advancement is great, if you ask me-it’s not the gizmo, but how it’s used. Or misused. My view on it is I have what I want, or need. My cell phone is old, but it does what I want it to do, so I see no need to replace it yet. Same for the computer. The car. My clock radio..and a great many other things. While I find many of the new toys interesting, I really don’t have a use for them.
How many of those same “kids” would throw a screaming fit if their parents snooped through their dresser drawers?
I’m a youngster and I don’t know of anyone who actually LIKES datamining and tracking. Everyone who finds out about it thinks it’s creepy as hell; however in a choice between having online security and being able to comment on their freinds stupid party pictures, the latter almost always wins.
If Facebook wasn’t basically benevolent, then we’d really be up the creek without a paddle.
[pthssspth! snork]
Jim, you forgot the [sarc] tag.
Benevolent: 1) having a charitable nature 2) kind
At best, I’d say they’re neutral; in old D&D terms, I’d say “true neutral”, just doing what they need to make a buck regardless of the “evil” or “good” implications of their actions for other people like users. At that, though, they’re probably better than “Don’t Be Evil Google”, whose search results on some subjects are so politically biased that I had to stop using it for research (never mind the China connections, etc). I don’t use Facebook either.