Do people here oppose companies tracking us?

[Umaro]

There's constant discussion over how the federal government is violating privacy with the scanners and registrations and such, but do people have the same opposition to when private companies do it? Yesterday on ABC there was a report saying that companies are tracking internet use to find your bank statements, prescription records, buying habits, etc. They are also selling this information to other companies, profiting off your personal information. The FTC has proposed a "do not track" list, similar to the "do not call" list for telemarketers. I'm curious if people here are up in arms about this violation of privacy as well.

Do Not Track: The Online Version of 'Do Not Call' - ABC News

 

[rambot]

1) In Canada we instituted a do not call list. As soon as I registered, we started getting soliciting calls; three or four a day now. Do not call lists have to be airtight and guarantee security. For some &#*$ reason, the Canadian government didn't do that and it's totally back fired. I am tempted to change my phone number just to stop gettin' annoyed.

2) I do not want to be followed by people who wish to profit off of me. End of story. I am okay(ish) with people tracking certain aspects of my life to monitor my well being, safety whathaveyou and sharing that information appropriately within that organization.

 

[Bubbahotep]

I totally support a do not track list and safeguards protecting us from company datamining.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I am less concerned with companies tracking me than government tracking me. Government has the power of coercion, companies don't.

 

[Douger]

Of course I don't like companies tracking me, but like Steve Petersen said above, the government has the power of coercion which makes government tracking far more dangerous.

 

[Nathan45]

someone explain to me how corporations don't have the power of coercion since they basically own the government and have almost as many resources. In any case, If a corporation is tracking you do you think the government won't have access to that information?

 

[Nathan45]

On second thought maybe this list would be a bad idea because could it give government an excuse to shut down or harass any website they want? Is the "Do not track" list going to be enforceable?

Ok. now i'm split...

 

[Received]

Corporations owning companies (through lobbying, which is clear as day for anyone with eyes to see) isn't coercion in the sense that Steve appears to be speaking about. Presumably from his perspective, governments can take direct actions (in a totalitarian fashion) to limit an individual's freedom through the information gained; information known by the government can help the government "keep the people under control." Corporations don't have the same power given that they're constrained legally not to, e.g., dictate how a person he should live or limit his freedom in some way (such as arbitrary throwing them in jail).

But, of course, while "coercion" might not be the technically applicable term, there are other dark tricks corporations can use through the information you use. They could -- as with Google -- take the information and give it to the government, whether through subpoena or other means; we know that the former has happened, but just because we haven't heard about the latter doesn't mean it's happening. God only knows what could be going on between governments and corporations that use technology with tracking potential. In that sense, Nathan is on the money in pointing out that governments have the potential to use the tracked information for their own uses.

Secondly, you have other orms of freedom limitations that refer to the corporation itself, such as when online companies track information as a way of determining one's consumer interests. Gmail uses information you type in emails -- not through a conscious person, sure, but the information is still being used as a marketing prop. Is this a limitation of freedom? Well, for people who consider advertising as a soft form of coercion (in that it involuntarily inspires us to want stuff we don't need through providing us with messages we didn't initially ask for), then sure it is.

Most importantly, invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy -- whether it goes with governments directly, which are more dangerous in this sense, or through corporations, who could use the information for whatever clandestine purpose they would like or simply ship it off to governments. I don't like people knowing anything I haven't allowed them to see, regardless of whether or not this information is used in any way.

 

[chaz345]

1) In Canada we instituted a do not call list. As soon as I registered, we started getting soliciting calls; three or four a day now. Do not call lists have to be airtight and guarantee security. For some &#*$ reason, the Canadian government didn't do that and it's totally back fired. I am tempted to change my phone number just to stop gettin' annoyed.

And yet people from more "progressive" countries like Canada wonder why conservative Americans are against more government programs. Government programs not working, which your case is a perfect example of, or having unintended effects is why.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

And yet people from more "progressive" countries like Canada wonder why conservative Americans are against more government programs. Government programs not working, which your case is a perfect example of, or having unintended effects is why.

Unfortunately none of what you say is true.

 

[RETS]

And yet people from more "progressive" countries like Canada wonder why conservative Americans are against more government programs. Government programs not working, which your case is a perfect example of, or having unintended effects is why.

Unfortunately none of what you say is true.

Wow... A fail of epic proportions on the part of Ibrahim.


Oh... And a standing O to Chaz for saying what I was going to.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Wow... A fail of epic proportions on the part of Ibrahim.


Oh... And a standing O to Chaz for saying what I was going to.

A natural comment if completely oblivious to the facts.

 

[RETS]

A natural comment if completely oblivious to the facts.

Well, let me put the challenge to you another way then, Ibrahim.


Prove the statement wrong. Unless you are giving your opinion, prove it wrong.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Well, let me put the challenge to you another way then, Ibrahim.


Prove the statement wrong. Unless you are giving your opinion, prove it wrong.

Generally a statement should be proven correct by the person making the statement. Are you claiming to be capable of actually defending the statement?

 

[RETS]

Generally a statement should be proven correct by the person making the statement. Are you claiming to be capable of actually defending the statement?

Aight, moro-- I got this.

First off, you should know that the statement Chaz made is pretty self explanatory; not to mention self-proving.

Nevertheless, for the thinking impaired, I'll spell it out for you.

----------------------------------------------------------

And yet...

Meaning there is an example about to be given that shows the stupidity or incomprehensibility of a certain subject, given that something is obviously one way though the subject still responds to the opposite.

...people from more "progressive" countries like Canada...

Meaning that in comparison to the US, Canada and others are more progressive.

...wonder why conservative Americans are against more government programs.

Meaning the resistance shown by conservative Americans towards government programs is a source of conjecture and curiosity.

Government programs not working...

Meaning government programs FAIL.

...which your case is a perfect example of...

Here, Chaz is addressing Rambot who related the following story:

1) In Canada we instituted a do not call list. As soon as I registered, we started getting soliciting calls; three or four a day now. Do not call lists have to be airtight and guarantee security. For some &#*$ reason, the Canadian government didn't do that and it's totally back fired. I am tempted to change my phone number just to stop gettin' annoyed.

​

Thus, Chaz is stating that Rambot's story is a perfect example of a government program FAILING.

...or having unintended effects...

Meaning that in addition to the FAILURE government programs experience, they also have a bad habit of doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE; and in some cases, make the problem WORSE.

...is why.

Meaning that the two earlier examples are why conservative Americans are so resistant to more government programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------

As I said, it's a pretty self explanatory and self-proving statement, but hey... If you still have trouble grasping the complex issue of it, just let me know and I'll paraphrase it into small words and even define terms for you.

You know... Cuz I'm a nice and helpful kind of guy.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

Aight, moro-- I got this.

First off, you should know that the statement Chaz made is pretty self explanatory; not to mention self-proving.

Nevertheless, for the thinking impaired, I'll spell it out for you.

----------------------------------------------------------


Meaning there is an example about to be given that shows the stupidity or incomprehensibility of a certain subject, given that something is obviously one way though the subject still responds to the opposite.




Meaning that in comparison to the US, Canada and others are more progressive.




Meaning the resistance shown by conservative Americans towards government programs is a source of conjecture and curiosity.




Meaning government programs FAIL.




Here, Chaz is addressing Rambot who related the following story:

​

Thus, Chaz is stating that Rambot's story is a perfect example of a government program FAILING.




Meaning that in addition to the FAILURE government programs experience, they also have a bad habit of doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE; and in some cases, make the problem WORSE.




Meaning that the two earlier examples are why conservative Americans are so resistant to more government programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------

As I said, it's a pretty self explanatory and self-proving statement, but hey... If you still have trouble grasping the complex issue of it, just let me know and I'll paraphrase it into small words and even define terms for you.

You know... Cuz I'm a nice and helpful kind of guy.

Ok, how about a one on one thread, just you and I?

 

[Bubbahotep]

Unfortunately none of what you say is true.

And what would you know of US government programs?

 

[RETS]

Ok, how about a one on one thread, just you and I?

What would be the point, Ib? You've already shown you can do nothing aside from making baseless comments. If you had come right out and said "in my opinion," I would have left it alone. Instead, you brought it to this. Lie down already- It's getting embarrassing at this point.

And what would you know of US government programs?

Apparently far more than someone who's been following the workings of that same government for nearly 20 years.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

And what would you know of US government programs?

Being an educated gentleman, I know about a great many things.

 

[DuneSoldier]

1) In Canada we instituted a do not call list. As soon as I registered, we started getting soliciting calls; three or four a day now. Do not call lists have to be airtight and guarantee security. For some &#*$ reason, the Canadian government didn't do that and it's totally back fired. I am tempted to change my phone number just to stop gettin' annoyed.

2) I do not want to be followed by people who wish to profit off of me. End of story. I am okay(ish) with people tracking certain aspects of my life to monitor my well being, safety whathaveyou and sharing that information appropriately within that organization.

We have a National Do Not Call list in America too. It actually works really well, the problem with it is that it only applies to telemarketers. So you still get annoying political calls during election years.