Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Dermot7, Mar 20, 2012.
A right, of course. But people are willing to give up their rights and just about anything else for money... and it's their right to do so.
It certainly isn't a "right". However, it is needed and should be available to all who wish it. Though Hungry has it right, overall, people will indeed give up anything and everything for money or convenience.
Privacy is a right, of course. But we know where rights come from Still, there are many circumstances where we voluntarily waive our right to privacy. Sometimes it's for health care, or for legal advice. Sometimes it's for money. What's wrong is theft of privacy. Extortion is also bad.
Privacy is most certainly a right, at least depending if and how it's defined by (national) law.
Alexis Madrigal had an interesting post in The Atlantic link on privacy and the cost of user data for buyers (from $0.005 cents per user) and how much a user might be worth to advertisers (up to $1200 per user).
He also cites a survey done by Carnegie Mellon's Lorrie Cranor and Stanford's Aleecia McDonald showing 'only 11 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $1 per month to withhold their data from their favorite news site. However, 69 percent of Americans were not willing to accept a $1 discount on their Internet bills in exchange for allowing their data to be tracked.'
He also mentions a US startup; Personal link, offering a 'personal data management tool' through which you can actually decide yourself what kind of rebate is interesting enough for giving up (some) privacy.
In my opinion, privacy is a right. As for people giving up personal information for a discount, it's actually normal that this kind of thing happens, because most people see their personal info as worthless. It is very hard to associate some value on this kind of data, especially if that data is already public (i.e. you have a Facebook account where you put everything about you; of course you will accept providing the same data in exchange for a discount). The issue here is educating people about the value of their personal info.
Is online privacy a right or a privilege?
Neither. It's an asset (soon to become a commodity) that you can choose to protect, sell, or give away.
It's quite shocking to see you say it's a right. I remember a thread where I mentioned that Google wasn't giving users any other choice other than allowing Google Analytics, if they want to install extensions or upgrade Google Chrome.
You told me I had no rights, other than accept the way Google runs their own business. Pretty much that.
So, what happened to you, to make you change your mind?
P.S: I think it was in some AdBlock Plus thread or something like that.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how online privacy is a "right". Of course, I'm waiting for a line to be pulled out of my Constitution and an entire "right" to be made out of it (pretty typical skewing these days, especially with "free speech".). I think too many are overlooking the fact that the Constitution for us Americans doesn't refer to what we can do, but what the government can do.
Privacy is a freedom we enjoy, and one we're losing. But it has never been a "right".
@Moonblood: You have every right to not use Chrome But if you do use them, yeah, you're kind of stuck to their terms, good or bad.
Actually, if you're using Chromium you also need to allow GA to install extensions. Unless you know how to install them, without allowing it.
As for this right vs privilege. Well, it's a privilege we got the right to fight for. It's a privilege because by "default" nobody's privacy isn't respected, at all. lol
Maybe the European Union will force Google not to force GA on European users?
I may send them an e-mail. If Opera made it, to get IE out of the European Windows version... maybe I could do it too. lol
Hmm, I'm thinking the EU will overlook that particular one, though hey, I could be wrong, lol. What's an email going to hurt, right?
Websites run by UK individuals and organisations must comply with the data protection act and consumers of these services do have rights.
There is specifically Personal information online section of the data protection act - code of practice : http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/online.aspx
I'm wondering if anyone is able to access the https version of -http://europa.eu/contact/index_en.htm
When I try to access it (the https version), I'm denied access saying my security policies won't allow to access the website, and that I should contact the network administrator...
I'm not sure if it's a Chromium message or what...
I get this:
Network Error (gateway_error)
The gateway may be temporarily unavailable, or there could be a network problem.
I am getting this on Firefox.
Would like to chat with you about this. Even if its via PM so we don't go off topic.
That's the same message I get. Damn... I really wanted to get in touch with them, but not using http.
I didn't change my mind. By default we should have a right to privacy, we also have the right to give that privacy up in exchange for something - though we should never be coerced into doing so and it should never be by the government.
I have the right to free speech, by default, but if I were to tell a teacher off in highschool I would have been kicked out. If I were in private school they could have dictated my rights even moreso.
By default we have no privacy. Almost everybody tracks us; want to track us. Even yesterday I mentioned in this thread that eEye security vendor tracks you when applying for the tool, for example.
And, by default Google takes away the right to our privacy. They coerce users to break their privacy. Google Chrome users can't upgrade Google Chrome if they block Google Analytics.
You can't install extensions from Chrome Web Store without allowing Google Analytics either. (There's a workaround, though.)
Google also breaks users privacy on their search engine. Now, everytime people make a search, Google will track where users will be going.
I agree with you, when you say we also have the right to give that privacy up in exchange for something, though.
But, that's not what happens with Google. You're (=anybody) not deciding for yourself to give up that privacy. Google is deciding that for you (=anybody). Which is where the difference lies.
One thing is if I deliberately break my own privacy; an entire different one is for you to be forced to break it.
Of course you are. If you don't want to give up your privacy don't use their service and product.
Just came across an interesting article on 'The Atlantic.com' on privacy and 'the government'.
It's about job applicants being asked for their Facebook password during a job interview.
Example; '... Robert Collins was returning to his job as a correctional officer at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after taking a leave following his mother's death. During a reinstatement interview, he was asked for his login and password, purportedly so the agency could check for any gang affiliations. ...' link
From 'The Atlantic' article; '... In Maryland, House Bill 364 (pdf), proposed in January, would prevent employers from discriminating against job applicants who refuse to provide access to their social media profiles. Illinois House Bill 3782, introduced in early March, would do the same. Protections like these, if they're passed into law, will likely prove important -- not just for job-seekers and their online connections, but for the everyday privacy standards that are solidifying as Facebook and its fellow networks make their way from an innovation to a way of life.' link
Some (US state) governing bodies see online privacy as a right instead of a mere privilege. (And some employers obviously have a different opinion).
Do you even realize what you're saying?
Can you imagine if all services start doing that? Yeah, by then I'm sure you'll still stick with the If you don't want to give up your privacy don't use their service and product.
Then again, you do say privacy is a right; but, then again, you also say that if we don't like it, when our privacy is broken, because they force us to break it, then we should use something else.
Isn't that a paradox?
And, taking your government example and what user Baserk mentioned, then if they all agreed to break our privacy, just that easily, then I'm sure you'd still stick with the If you don't want to give up your privacy don't use their service and product.
So, does your government force you into breaking your own privacy? Tough luck... leave your country. Does that other country force you to break it too? Tough luck... leave that country too. Does it still happen in every other country? Well dude... go to the moon... or to Mars. But then again, be careful with satellites.
A government should be seen as a company... and we're the shareholders. You don't like the way the company works? Leave it... or fight it.
I see no paradox, the quote here is the only issue. Because of this it's up to the government to clarify what companies and cannot do.
P.S. Sent you a PM about the analytics thing. Mike West wants to look into it.
Sorry for not having answered yet. But, I wanted to retest it. The latest extension I installed from Chrome Web Store was TrafficLight, and I had to use a direct download link to install it; otherwise, I couldn't. This was sometime ago. Apparently, Google changed that behavior. In Chromium, at least. So, I suppose it's a good call by Google.
I'm on low speed connection, right now; and very short monthly traffic. So, I can't test with Google Chrome, unless I'm able to put my hands on a relative's computer. Maybe you could test it.
I can say that, when I last upgraded Google Chrome in my relative's computer, I had to disable the hosts file (which is blocking Google Analytics). So, I don't know if it's still like that. I don't think Google Chrome was upgraded to the latest version yet, so I may give it a try later on as well.
Add the following entries in your hosts file (either with 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1):
www. google-analytics.com (remove the space)
Separate names with a comma.