Discussion:
Google Analytics
David McNeill
2011-01-15 00:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Yet they will no doubt continue to use Google's search engine services
for free.

Do they not think Google should earn some revenue?

Yes they may have to give up some privacy, which costs them little or
nothing, so that Google may sell that data in aggregate.





_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Tim McNamara
2011-01-15 01:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David McNeill
Yet they will no doubt continue to use Google's search engine services
for free.
Do they not think Google should earn some revenue?
I don't even know if Google's revenue generation is the key consideration here. I fail to see how it is even personal information. Yes, it is information that can be used to personally identify people. However, that in itself doesn't make it information that should be made private by law.


If people do not want their computers to emit data about themselves, then they should take precautions. This means they should use operating systems and applications that respect their desires to keep their activities private.


I haven't thought about privacy too deeply, but I fail to see most of its virtues. I think privacy in some matters, such as allegations of misconduct, prevents speculation and taint of association. Other than that, I'm not sure. It seems like privacy advocates think that any information is private and therefore should be hidden, despite the fact that it could be very beneficial to allow things to be public.


As an example of what I mean, analytics data is almost only useful in aggregate. It tends to be used to make sure that content is relevant and applications are easy to use. Therefore, even though it it potentially private information, there is a positive utility for keeping it public. Facebook pushes new interfaces onto people. Although the people moan, the stats say they use the site more. This means that the service is likely to be more useful for users. That is, users' behaviour indicates they like the new interface more even though they feel that they dislike it. Without access to analytics data, application designers and developers would be unable to make people's lives better without relying on unreliable, expensive and annoying mechanisms such as surveys.


Moreover, I disagree that personal information is necessarily private information. Take people's names. A name only makes sense in the public sphere. If a person's name were not public, names would have zero utility. Its the key in the key=>value datastore that is society. The same thing is true for contact details. Why does this information need to be private? It only serves its purpose by being public.


Does anyone have references to arguments strongly in favour of privacy? I'm interested in learning more about this area.


Tim


_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Mark Harris
2011-01-15 02:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McNamara
Moreover, I disagree that personal information is necessarily private information. Take people's names. A name only makes sense in the public sphere. If a person's name were not public, names would have zero utility. Its the key in the key=>value datastore that is society. The same thing is true for contact details. Why does this information need to be private? It only serves its purpose by being public
The problem is in the aggregation of individual snippets of personal
information about a particular individual *across multiple websites*
that can be used to profile and target that individual. Aggregating
multiple individuals on a single website is only helpful if you
disregard the personal info. Otherwise you risk data smog by having too
much data. Privacy is less of a concern in that scenario.

But when you can match up an individual's home details, with his
telephone number(s) (whitepages.co.nz), his email address (too many
sources to mention), his church of choice (I have yet to see a securely
managed church database), his employment details (LinkedIn et al), his
membership of a BDSM website, his paypal account name etc - it is a
matter of privacy. Each snippet may not be, in itself, "private" but
when brought together across multiple sites, it can indeed constitute
private information.

The issue people have with Google in general and Analytics in
particular, is that no-one knows exactly what Google has collected and
will collect in the future. They raise the question, validly I think,
about the custody of this information - basically, how can we trust
Google not to be evil?

Twitter recently refused to give out information on wikileaks "users" -
does anyone think Google didn't get the same sort of request about Gmail
and Google Chat? We've yet to hear that they didn't hand anything over...

~mark

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Robin Paulson
2011-01-15 04:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McNamara
I don't even know if Google's revenue generation is the key consideration here. I fail to see how it is even personal information. Yes, it is information that can be used to personally identify people. However, that in itself doesn't make it information that should be made private by law.
If people do not want their computers to emit data about themselves, then they should take precautions. This means they should use operating systems and applications that respect their desires to keep their activities private.
unfortunately, this is nothing more than blind liberal ideology, with
no consideration of the consequences, or of the reality of how and why
people and corporations use technology

as you're aware, the subject of data privacy is not trivial. it's nice
to suggest everyone should have perfect information to allow them to
make a perfect decision, particularly from your situation of
knowledge, but pointing the finger at people when a multi-billion
dollar company intrudes on their world is somewhat missing the huge
imbalance of power that exists there.
Post by Tim McNamara
I haven't thought about privacy too deeply, but I fail to see most of its virtues. I think privacy in some matters, such as allegations of misconduct, prevents speculation and taint of association. Other than that, I'm not sure. It seems like privacy advocates think that any information is private and therefore should be hidden, despite the fact that it could be very beneficial to allow things to be public.
that's fine, if you are happy sharing your data and info, then fine go
for it. but that doesn't mean the rest of us gain from that

in short, any observation of society, be it through CCTV, data mining,
gps tracking of vehicles, search warrants, etc., etc, has a
demonstrable, significant effect on individuals and society. it
necessarily pushes all towards a 'norm' for one [1], and results in
ever further degradation of humanity. if you want to know more, read
some foucault. if you don't, don't complain at what others see value
in
Post by Tim McNamara
As an example of what I mean, analytics data is almost only useful in aggregate. It tends to be used to make sure that content is relevant and applications are easy to use. Therefore, even though it it potentially private information, there is a positive utility for keeping it public. Facebook pushes new interfaces onto people. Although the people moan, the stats say they use the site more. This means that the service is likely to be more useful for users. That is, users' behaviour indicates they like the new interface more even though they feel that they dislike it. Without access to analytics data, application designers and developers would be unable to make people's lives better without relying on unreliable, expensive and annoying mechanisms such as surveys.
who says it makes people's lives better? can you provide some
reliable, scientific evidence for that? i'd suggest all it does is
provide sellers with more data to sell people more crap they don't
need. your 'better interfaces' do nothing more than further
consumerism, by encouraging people to find some sort of fulfilment in
buying junk
Post by Tim McNamara
Moreover, I disagree that personal information is necessarily private information. Take people's names. A name only makes sense in the public sphere. If a person's name were not public, names would have zero utility. Its the key in the key=>value datastore that is society. The same thing is true for contact details. Why does this information need to be private? It only serves its purpose by being public.
oh fantastic, let's liken humans to cells in a database, that sounds
wonderful. i want to be a part of that world
Post by Tim McNamara
Does anyone have references to arguments strongly in favour of privacy? I'm interested in learning more about this area.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

is a good start. it's nominally about prison, but the effects can be
used as a metaphor to demonstrate the same consequences of observation
across society

also, anything on the panopticon. facebook is probably the best
example of a panopticon in modern society

[1] there are hundreds of scientific research papers written on this.
try a search in a social science journal archive for 'observation' and
'discipline'
--
robin

http://tangleball.org.nz/ - Auckland's Creative Space
http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Martin D Kealey
2011-01-16 22:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim McNamara
Moreover, I disagree that personal information is necessarily private
information. Take people's names. A name only makes sense in the public
sphere. If a person's name were not public, names would have zero utility.
Its the key in the key=>value datastore that is society.
I agree with your premise, but I disagree with your conclusions. I think
it's up to the individual to decide which of their personal details they
want to place in the public domain.

Names are not context-free, it's just that many people only have one context
(the whole of the life they've lived so far).

If I want to keep two different circles of acquaintanceship -- separated
either by time or by location -- and go to the extent of being known by two
different names, WTF gives anyone the right undo that for me?

And I'm not just talking about people engaged in immoral or illegal
behaviour: before you judge those who wish to compartmentalise their
identities, just wait until one of your relationships goes belly-up so badly
that you need to get away from everything and make a fresh start. Thankfully
it hasn't happened to me, but it has happened to a few people I'm close to;
I'm saddened to have lost contact with some, and I'm privileged that others
have trusted me enough to let me see their transformation of identity.
Post by Tim McNamara
The same thing is true for contact details. Why does this information need
to be private? It only serves its purpose by being public.
Contact details, when used themselves as keys, reveal your relationships to
other people.

Information is most personal (and most commercially valuable) when it
identifies relationships, and relationships are the most personal thing
someone can have, being a matter of trust rather than control; so I assert
that there is a greater purpose to be served in keeping personal information
private by default rather than making it public.

-Martin

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Martin D Kealey
2011-01-16 22:48:04 UTC
Permalink
[regarding lost of privacy being a quid-pro-quo for using the free search engine]
Yes they may have to give up some privacy, which costs them little or nothing,
The problem is, we don't know how much it costs, and the payment may come
years or decades later. And by the very nature of privacy, other people's
experiences aren't a particularly valid guide.

It's like selling virginity: either you do or you don't, and nobody ever has
their own personal alternative to compare it with.

-Martin

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug

Loading...