Decius wrote:
] Should the government force me to be private even if I don't
] want to be? I don't think so. The government should create a
] framework in which we can make choices. They can force you to keep certain (or better) records, and have been doing so in various industries such as healthcare and accounting. If that's happening, rules that say what information can't be kept (or used in certain ways) could be crafted as well. I could envision laws that either have something to do with protections or disclosure. The disclosure angle is both tricky and interesting. Think about your average online transaction, and the various parties your information passes to/from. Might be a group like Amazon, Visa, your bank, and UPS. There are also a few additional parties in there, such as companies contracted to handle transactions, accounting, etc. Its probably complex as hell.. Picture a requirement, in lets say 5 years, that every company you deal with online has to be able to present you with a detailed individualized privacy report. That type of empowering of the consumer would result in an interesting form of distributed oversight, not to mention education and awareness.. That's the type of thing I'd like to see. ] The system is not responding to your interests. The number of people concerned about these issues is growing, as we said it would. I am still confident that will change. ] We ought to curtain the data the government shares. I am of the opinion that some top down clue is necessary. Most of the real problems occur at the "DMV level". Note I said top down clue, not top down control. I think these ID systems should all remain state level concerns, but a shared strategy or set of guidelines for protection of privacy seems like a good idea. The national ID doesn't. ] 3. The most important thing that we need is awareness and
] sophistication about this issue with the general populace.
] Levels of understanding have improved a great deal in the last
] 20 years, but there is still a lot of road to cover. This is one of the reasons I think strategies that push for more disclosure are good ideas. As you indicated earlier, the absolutist approach to privacy can't work. The best way to teach someone is to throw information at them, in context. People don't spend much time reading privacy policies, but they do go over whatever "my account" information the site provides them. That is where the consumer needs to be provided with more information.
] There is no reason why Google can't discard the last two
] octets of your IP address. It will not impact their
] demographics at all, but it would provide enough protection
] against turning their database into a thought crime monitor.
] And they'll do it, but only if we demand it. Google might disagree with you. That may cause more problems for them then it solves for anyone. Given cookies and ways to cross-reference them with things like Orkut, it really wouldn't matter either. The weak part in the chain, at least as far as the Patriot Act angle goes, is the removal of judicial protections. Not the information or the ability to relate it. With most ID concerns, the problem is parties releasing information without permission, or failing to protect information. Companies addressing these issues will become in vogue at some point. Just mark my words. It will be used to build trust with their customer base. In terms of long term trust, many of the companies in the position to be a "leader" in the space have only been around for a few years. Google should care right now about how I'm going to feel about them in 4 more years. Same for Amazon, B&N, etc.. RE: Wired News: Great Taste, Less Privacy | 
