The reality exists.

Auditors require it. Guess that makes me big brother.

The reaction to this is just paranoid people being paranoid. They'll never change.

Maybe the new generation should be called the 'Exhibitionist' generation because the new norm is to assume much of your personal data is out in the open.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. What I want to keep secret, I will.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

The OP is about the reality of modern electronic data collection.

It's what's *done* with it that is the concern.

So I guess I don't understand the point of the OP.

Data is collected and shared. Knowing that can inform a person about how to act. Not knowing that is a mistake.

It is reality. That reality must be dealt with, as reality always must be dealt with.

I posted the OP because it seems like a lot of people are surprised that such data collection and sharing goes on. I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised, but it appears that many are.

Recognizing reality does not imply approval of that reality. It is simply recognition.

There has to be some reason to do so, but those reasons can be found, if necessary. That's true of all mandated data collection.

That is classified as 'Top Secret', not to be declassified until 2038?

Most data the government wants access to requires a court order. Why it is so classified, I can't explain. I don't work for the government.

... a decade ago. Don't post, text or email anything that you wouldn't want your spouse to see, is the advice my divorce lawyer friends tell me they give to all their clients.

The problem is that technology rapidly outpaced our traditional concept of privacy. People still feel that what they do in their home is no one else's business. But if you're connected to the outside world every minute of every day in one or more ways, then you're not really "inside" your home anymore.

elsewhere, you lose control over it. It's just data. Privacy is largely a myth today. Both commercial and government agencies collect data on all sorts of things. That's the information age for you. I don't like it either, but I am aware that it is the reality. I assume that anything I do on anything connected to anything else is available for perusal by someone. Awareness is the key.

many years ago that this would be the result of his beloved computer, but he didn't believe me. Now he does.

We can make as many laws as we want, and this info will be accessed and used by commercial and govt forces at will, because corporations generally are not subject to privacy laws governing use of the phone/internet/purchasing info they gather, except in very specific cases (HIPAA, ID theft). Corporations retain the right to use any and all info gathered for their commercial use, and you can bet that right will never be taken away. And govts have loosened warrant requirements to the point they are warrants in name only, plus they have such a cozy relationship with corporations (can we say "fascism"?) that they trade info with impunity.

There is no privacy in a world with billions of cameras, computers, cell phones, satellites. None. It would be hard to enforce privacy laws even if the govt wanted to. And they don't want to -- neither the Dems nor the Pubs care, because they profit from it.

but I recognize the reality of it. I do not expect that to change, ever. In fact, I expect even more data collection and mining in the future. With that awareness and expectation, I manage my own privacy issues by keeping stuff out of the data stream, when necessary. Personal meetings are about the only way to share information privately today, and even those meetings are subject to being disclosed by either party.

I guess the only protection available is to always be aware of what one is doing and to act ethically and responsibly.

just check out say, Ancestry.com. Information has been collected on us for generations.


Honestly there really is no way to stop the collection of information. I'm really tired of getting outraged.

to put you away or at least ruin your life.

Private companies do not.

What do you suppose the charges would be in my case? What do you suppose I have done that would warrant that? Frankly, the government doesn't find me that interesting, I'm sure. I'm a very boring individual to the government.

And private companies most certainly do have the ability to ruin lives. Have you not been following the news for the past few years? Private companies have ruined many lives, and continue to do so. It's harder for them to put people in prison, but that's not really what they're about.

The mating call of the ostrich.

Data is being collected. The wise person will make sure that no data is available if he or she is doing something that might be of interest to the authorities, you know. Reality bites. The person who does nothing of interest has nothing to be concerned about, personally. For them, it's a matter of general interest in the situation.

Remember the late 1960s? Maybe not. I do. I was involved in a lot of anti-war and civil rights activities. Out of curiosity, I filed a FOI request in the 1970s for any files the FBI had on me. I got them, in due time. They knew about my activities, in some cases, but I was never a person of any real interest. I was always careful to be circumspect in my behaviors.

More interesting was the data they had from the investigation for the high-level security clearance I held while serving in the USAF in the mid 1960s. I was very surprised at its thoroughness, and at who they had interviewed.

The only things redacted in the file were names of FBI personnel. The rest was left alone.

There is nothing new about data collection. What is new is the amount of data available for collection. That is enormous, and very, very detailed. Still, I'd never really be of much interest to any agency.

Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

And having nothing to hide does not mean that we should give up our civil liberties. They exist for all of us whether we have something to hide or not.

Most of the ones I exercise regularly have to do with the First Amendment. I've not had need of the others, mostly, due to the care with which I live my life. I'm not giving up anything. I don't know about you. Actually, I don't know you at all.

Recognizing realities doesn't imply approval of those realities, but it certain is expedient. Pretending those realities don't exist does nobody any good at all. Rather, it should inform people's behavioral decisions. Do you not see that? Do you act as though those realities do not exist? I doubt that very much. You seem to be a clever person. This thread is about the realities, and not about anything else. Awareness is the first rule of defense.

LOLOLOLOL

If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? That's really disgusting, and I'd think that even you would know how mewling and craven that sounds.

See my reply to Bonobo in this subthread. I deal in realities. I don't deal in speculations. Since I am aware that my life is an open book, I take care with the contents of that book. Doing otherwise is downright foolish.

Reality, my friend. We all live with it. We may try to change it, but we live with it until the changes happen.

I will give you that!

The central point of this mildly amusing bit of piffle is that the reader should calm down and accept the status quo as we know it today simply because it has been happening for a long time and everyone does it. At the summation, the OP offers that there is NOTHING individuals can do about it at this point.

Well, the truth is that we are NOT powerless in this society and we CAN effect change. One might simply respond to the OP that yes, we can change this by arresting, prosecuting and sending to jail those that authorize and conduct such activity. Now, that does not mean that changing the status quo will be easy, but by no means should we accept without a whimper things done by our government.

Awareness is essential. People seem surprised that such things are going on. That is the reason for my OP. They should not be, and that anyone is surprised is remarkable.

Awareness is strength. Reality exists, and must be considered.

It's amazing that pointing out reality is somehow taken as approval of that reality. That is what is amazing.

Changing reality is sometimes possible. Sometimes, it is not. I'm betting that it's not in this case. What can be done will be done. That seems to be the rule of technology. Sometimes it is done without the public knowing about it, but if it can be done, it is being done. That you can count on.

Collecting data isn't the problem. It's the use of it as individual profile data that can and IMHO should be regulated. I collected and handled other sensitive data for eons as a government contractor. Government data collection is highly regulated and restricted. For example, census data is made into public use data sets once individually identifiable data has been stripped. As a second level of privacy, data elements are suppressed when the observations of a certain characteristic are too low to prevent back door identification (e.g., if there are 500 heads of household in the data block and only three are African-American, the data block is not released as a separate element because it would be too easy for a clever person to reference enough data points to individually identify those three.)

We already have laws that control the use of individual data by businesses. HIPAA is one such example. So IMO what's missing here is that there is no public outcry to extend such safeguards to other data.

It's spotty, though, and not particularly influential. I'm aware of the laws regarding privacy issues. I'm also aware that they are frequently violated when circumstances appear to warrant those violations. Appear is the relevant word.

HIPAA is a good example. Although it is a good law, most people willingly sign the release at the doctor's office, allowing sharing of medical information with others. The others are health insurance companies, primarily, but not limited to that. Most people don't even bother to read that release before signing it.

Since health insurance companies have to pay claims, they know everything having to do with all policy holders' health. Everything. If you don't sign the release, you're not going to be seen in most clinics. So, HIPAA is toothless where it really matters. Yes, they can't sell your medical data to, say, pharmaceutical companies, but they send it to your insurance company following every visit.

People don't read the privacy disclosures on the websites they visit, either. I've written a number of those privacy disclosures, and have seen web traffic states for dozens of websites I've worked on. Nobody visits the privacy disclosure pages. Nobody bothers with any of that. Very few people read TOS pages, either. They should, but they don't.

In the information age, people need to take charge of their own privacy issues, frankly. They don't, though, for the most part.

of medical records. I'd say it doesn't go far enough. That insurance companies can demand everything is just wrong. They should have access only on a demonstrable need to know basis. Better yet, remove private insurers from the provision of health care altogether because the government has a much better record of safeguarding sensitive data (not a perfect record, admittedly.)

Privacy doesn't mean that anonymity is preserved. For practical reasons individually identifiable data records are necessary in order to provide the service (medical care, for one.) What can be controlled even in those instances however is confidentiality.

I agree with you that people don't read disclosure statements, but then again such statements are crafted to hide the "gotchas" in pages of legalese. After reading a few of them most people figure out that it's a waste of time because even if they THINK they understand the terms, the company still figures out a way to do what it wants anyway. A strong consumer protection agency could craft guidelines on transparency and simplification in those disclosure statements. It's been done for mortgage and credit card terms and it can be done for broader data collection and sharing.

Again though, unless the will is there in the general public there's no reason for the government to act on this.