tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7596452835392217263..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Google: Goof or Snoop?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45728373112344044712010-05-23T10:46:45.619-04:002010-05-23T10:46:45.619-04:00The Trucker: "I say all of this because the c...The Trucker: "I say all of this because the collection of data regarding the general habits of large segments of people is not an invasion of individual privacy."<br /><br />Indeed it is not. For instance, if I use my credit card to make a purchase, information about that purchase is available to the credit card company. If the company makes use of that information by pooling it with information about other users, and the pooled information does not identify any user, then my privacy has not been invaded.<br /><br />The Trucker: "The fact that "large segments" are composed of individuals is unfortunate,"<br /><br />Unfortunate????? I do not think that it is unfortunate per se.<br /><br />The Trucker: "but any personal invasion depends on the use of the data as opposed to the existence of it. I don't see any way to "regulate" the gathering of the data."<br /><br />I do not know all the ins and outs, but there is what is called the "expectation of privacy". A surveillance camera on a public street corner does not violate the expectation of privacy. One underneath a grate in the sidewalk surely does, even though the sidewalk is a public area. Email is a gray area, because it is sent through a network of computers, and can be read at various points by the owners of those computers and their agents. But intercepting email when you are not part of the delivery network is questionable. And it could be made illegal, if it isn't. <br /><br />OC, the privacy of corporations is protected to a greater degree than the privacy of individuals. Daddy, can I be a corporation when I grow up? ;)Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-48521381046205623532010-05-22T14:03:29.195-04:002010-05-22T14:03:29.195-04:00Ixquick:
http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-priva...Ixquick:<br /><br />http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.htmlMinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-52121318269666111962010-05-19T09:37:18.823-04:002010-05-19T09:37:18.823-04:00Peter,
but if you think for a moment about how the...Peter,<br />but if you think for a moment about how the data would have been collected, you can see why it would be of fairly low quality. Even in a low density suburban area, a car might pick up 20-30 seconds of activity (my guess is it would be much less). That's a tiny sample size, and there's a pretty high chance that there would be no active internet activity occurring, or it would be pretty meaningless to an onlooker.<br /><br />They deserve to be censured for this, and they may well be charged in the EU as it was illegal here. I just have a tough time believing that this was intentional.<br /><br />I agree entirely about google, and there has been a general decline in this area (see the complaints about Google Buzz, for example), though Facebook are far, far worse.cianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12792805870968697706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-25416124799740954782010-05-18T14:27:38.539-04:002010-05-18T14:27:38.539-04:00I think that the issue of advertising and public r...I think that the issue of advertising and public relations is at the forefront of social science and has been for a long time. I can see no way to "regulate" free speech outside of presentations posing as "NEWS" and actual political lies maliciously delivered by actors undermining the public good.<br /><br />The protection against lies by political activists and others must be based on claims of damage to the public welfare and damages must be punitive. Faux Noise would not remain in business more than a few months if class action suits against lying were legally sustainable.<br /><br />I say all of this because the collection of data regarding the general habits of large segments of people is not an invasion of individual privacy. The fact that "large segments" are composed of individuals is unfortunate, but any personal invasion depends on the use of the data as opposed to the existence of it. I don't see any way to "regulate" the gathering of the data.TheTruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346127768102862741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63184267813085453562010-05-18T11:47:40.251-04:002010-05-18T11:47:40.251-04:00Cian,
My mind is entirely open on this issue, and...Cian,<br /><br />My mind is entirely open on this issue, and I've been hoping that people with expertise, like you, would respond and shed more light.<br /><br />I agree that Google has far more data on its users through "normal" channels than it could hope to acquire through these roaming cars, but the cars are acquiring a cross-section of all users, not just Googlers and Gmailers. As a data geek in other contexts, I'm inclined to think this could be valuable. That doesn't mean, of course, that Google extracted this value, much less that it deliberately tried to create it.<br /><br />But this is an econ blog, so I wanted to foreground the issue of incentives.Peter Dormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093399591393648071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-53650710864461589412010-05-18T05:10:33.414-04:002010-05-18T05:10:33.414-04:00How then to explain why Google collected not only ...<i> How then to explain why Google collected not only this minimal information, but also “snippets” of email and the websites users were visiting at the time of the drive-by?</i><br /><br />This is probably one of those instances where if don't understand the technology you should refrain from commenting. If the code to verify location had been implemented without any thought of privacy implications (highly likely) by a programmer against a deadline, then this is exactly what I would expect to happen. Yes you can strip out the contents of the packets, and anonymise this stuff, but its extra work. <br /><br />Its possible that this was deliberate, but it seems unlikely to me as there are much easier and cheaper ways of getting the information if you really want it. If you're going to break the law, FAR FAR easier ways. But legally google has this stuff anyway. If you use google's search engine, gmail, etc - then they have a pretty good idea as to where you're located. And the quality of that data will be much better than the tiny glimpses they would have got from the Street View cars.<br /><br />Also, the amounts of data involved would probably be quite small by Google's standards. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I think don't think Google are particularly trustworthy, and they need to be watched. Its just in this instance their story sounds plausible to me.cianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12792805870968697706noreply@blogger.com