

Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy - grellas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455192488549362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

======
_delirium
Many of the replies strangely don't seem to debunk the myths. For example, the
reply to #5, people's worry that "someone will know things about them that
they may want to keep secret", is that "most information is used anonymously",
and "to the extent that things are 'known' about consumers, they are known by
computers". That isn't a rebuttal at all, though: the fact that "most"
information is used anonymously, and much information "known" is only known by
computers and used as part of aggregate analytics or ad-targeting algorithms,
doesn't address the core worry, that "someone will know things about them that
they may want to keep secret". I mean, this is basic logic: you can't debunk a
worry that _someone is doing X_ by arguing that _some people aren't doing X_.

For example, there are no assurances that Facebook isn't giving personally
identifiable information about specific users to government agencies without
warrants (they refuse to say either way). ChoicePoint's explicit purpose is to
collect and sell such information ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan19.html)). Even at a small scale, I've personally
looked at information on systems I sysadmin that I suspect users would "want
to keep secret", and I could have legally shared that information; it was
purely my discretion and ethical sense that I shouldn't be publishing the
results of sysadmin snooping that kept me from doing so. So it seems at least
_exceedingly likely_ that companies are attempting to collect and connect
information about people that those people would like to keep private, are not
all (contrary to this op-ed) anonymizing the data or only allowing algorithms
to use it, and at least some are probably sharing and/or selling it.

#7 also seems extremely dubious as a prediction. If indeed someone were given
a printout of information collected on them by such firms, I think many people
would be unpleasantly surprised. The reason they aren't irate is not the
unfounded assertion that "there is no harm from the way it is used", but
because they have never seen such a printout, have no way to get one, and have
no idea how it's being used or shared/sold.

Much of the rest is simply pure opinion: "so-and-so says X is bad, but in fact
I like it". I mean, I can see an argument that privacy regulations will cause
more harm than good, but this doesn't really seem like that argument.

