Privacy and trust

[Dave2002]

There's an advert going the rounds at the moment. In it there is a declaration to the effect that "you have more data in your phone than in your house". Actually this is not true - it depends on who "you" are. Some of use don't have or use smartphones, so the statement is immediately false for such people.

Then, after a few mentions of the word "privacy" - which IMO is mispronounced - there is a statement which I agree with - that private data should stay private. However, the point of the advert is to promote Apple as a provider who will ensure this privacy, and that requires trust.

To date, in fairness, Apple appears to have had a good record in this respect, but it is a US company, and it most likely uses servers based in the US. This means that any possibly useful data input into or received on an Apple smartphone is likely to travel over communications links to the US, where it will be stored.

I can think of one way in which data remains more private - never enter any data which one wants to remain truly private into a smartphone or tablet.

Another system which claims to help maintain privacy and security is Firefox - a well known browser. This has a few interesting features - one of which is a security breach checker. This matches emails with known security breaches - but yes - you guessed. In order for it to work you have to input an email address - possibly your own email address. So that is a point of weakness. Whether you should try that depends on how much you trust Firefox - both now, and into the future.

These are just two of the ways in which privacy might be compromised. It may be convenient to use gadgetry to help with our lives, but it certainly comes with some possibly significant downsides, which many of us are encouraged to overlook or ignore.

[kernelbogey]

I have avoided nearly all social media: never on Facebook, though I was briefly, but no longer, on Twitter. I have never bought from Amazon. In all cases because I dont want to have my data captured. I am currently trying to avoid using Google by instead doing searches on DuckDuckGo, which doesn't retain search records and proves adequate for most purposes. I've occasionally been encouraged to use Whatsapp, but as it's now owned by Facebook, I resist. My private firewall is not complete or consistent: for example, searching the Guardian automatically takes one into Google.

Not using Amazon means I pay more for some purchases of books and records. As far as possible I use local retailers or smaller specialist online retailers like Presto Music. I am currently depriving myself of the use of YouTube (but occasionally cheat my own rules by using the private window facility on Firefox, my preferred browser).

While some of this self-sacrifice also appears self-defeating (and occasionally self-undermining) it seems to me in tune with our need, as a society, to consume less. This remains an ongoing experiment and dialogue with myself.

[MrGongGong]

I think it's important to differentiate between which data you feel is important to keep private.
Many people have developed ridiculous levels of paranoia about this in recent years which sometimes makes their lives very difficult

I know a couple of people who refuse to use online banking, booking, Youtube, Google etc etc which would be fine if they were monks BUT the net result for the rest of us is that WE have to do this on their behalf.

[kernelbogey]

I was aware that my post wasn't quite a direct answer to the OP, but I was shifting the topic slightly onto data capture by commercial organisations (e.g Facebook) which purport to offer a 'free' service but (in my opinion) exist in order to harvest and resell personal data to those who can make use of it.

My bank has an elaborate and recently improved system for protecting the privacy of customers, and I trust it - not least because the bank has a mutual structure, i.e. no shareholders.

I trust that Wigmore Hall, South Bank et al do not resell the data that they may obtain in the course of my making a booking.

And I agree that if one decides not to use an online service, one has to live with the consequences. (I have yet to resolve how worthwhile it is to deprive myself of YouTube.)

[MrGongGong]

I was aware that my post wasn't quite a direct answer to the OP, but I was shifting the topic slightly onto data capture by commercial organisations (e.g Facebook) which purport to offer a 'free' service but (in my opinion) exist in order to harvest and resell personal data to those who can make use of it.

Why are people surprised by this ?
Facebook has ALWAYS been a data capture company, that's the gig, you agree to them having your "data" (which is for the most part pretty trivial information about cat videos, noise music and bowing preferences in romantic music) in exchange for the benefits of communication with communities of interest.
What exactly is the DATA that people object to FB having ?
It's not bank or medical records.

[Dave2002]

I have avoided nearly all social media: never on Facebook, though I was briefly, but no longer, on Twitter. I have never bought from Amazon. In all cases because I dont want to have my data captured. I am currently trying to avoid using Google by instead doing searches on DuckDuckGo, which doesn't retain search records and proves adequate for most purposes. I've occasionally been encouraged to use Whatsapp, but as it's now owned by Facebook, I resist. My private firewall is not complete or consistent: for example, searching the Guardian automatically takes one into Google.

Not using Amazon means I pay more for some purchases of books and records. As far as possible I use local retailers or smaller specialist online retailers like Presto Music. I am currently depriving myself of the use of YouTube (but occasionally cheat my own rules by using the private window facility on Firefox, my preferred browser).

I do use Amazon quite extensively. This might be foolish, but I do.

Re DuckDuckGo - I use that too, but sometimes it doesn't find things that Google does - which can be a nuisance. Also - just because DuckDuckGo says it doesn't track you etc., doesn't mean it actually doesn't. I can't say whether it does or not, but you do still have to trust that a service does what it claims re privacy. This is a point which others seem to miss. If you don't want your data generally known, do not post it in emails, or put any details on websites, or even in the hands of supposedly "private" storage sites.

Similar considerations apply to Firefox. I tend to prefer it to Google Chrome, which I'm sure must follow my every key stroke with avidity, but to say that Firefox is going to keep your data more private is still an act of faith. It may - but it may not. Also, even systems which are well behaved right now may change their behaviour over time, for various reasons.

[MrGongGong]

I'm still wondering exactly WHAT data people want to keep private ?
(there are things that obviously DO need to be kept that way)

[Frances_iom]

I'm still wondering exactly WHAT data people want to keep private ?
(there are things that obviously DO need to be kept that way)

until the 1940s I doubt if Dutch Jews felt that their religion, tho noted on census data etc, would be of such significance;
Until the mid 60s or much later unless you were one of the 'establishment' (to whom a blind eye was turned towards their 'cottages') any indication that your sexuality differed from the majority had rather strong repercussions.
Also until recently (and possibly still ongoing) members of unions would find it difficult to get or keep jobs in some industries.

Farcebook collects data on all who brush in contact with it - you may be happy but are you happy relying on others (eg tagging of photos taken at private occasions)

Android + Google - just treat as a permanently on spy in your home, bedroom etc as to allowing an on microphone in bedrooms to which staff at these companies have access ...

[MrGongGong]

until the 1940s I doubt if Dutch Jews felt that their religion, tho noted on census data etc, would be of such significance;
Until the mid 60s or much later unless you were one of the 'establishment' (to whom a blind eye was turned towards their 'cottages') any indication that your sexuality differed from the majority had rather strong repercussions.
Also until recently (and possibly still ongoing) members of unions would find it difficult to get or keep jobs in some industries.

Farcebook collects data on all who brush in contact with it - you may be happy but are you happy relying on others (eg tagging of photos taken at private occasions)

Android + Google - just treat as a permanently on spy in your home, bedroom etc as to allowing an on microphone in bedrooms to which staff at these companies have access ...

Ok
So what data would you be happy to share ?
Don't get me wrong i'm not at all happy for large corporations to own everything (though this is hardly new as William Dalrymple's rather excellent talk I went to last month in Jaipur demonstrates) are they any more trustworthy than governments ?

Many of our rights have been happily given away years ago ... "public space" and so on.

[Frances_iom]

The key difference since the advent of very cheap digital storage as compared with old card based systems is the extremely low cost of adding trivial details on everyone and then using this mass of data to derive probabilistically likely expectations

[Sir Velo]

I do use Amazon quite extensively. This might be foolish, but I do.

Not quite sure how Amazon's profiling differs from what other retailers have been doing for generations, albeit with less sophistication. I'll admit I find the complete order history of everything I've purchased on Amazon extremely helpful. When I'm trying to buy something I ordered ten years's ago and have forgotten the name or the price - there's good old Amazon to fill in the missing gaps! Allows me to compare prices on items I've previously purchased etc. Quite frankly if they think I'm a 50 something classical music groupie who spends his time buying mail grooming products, while dyeing his hair every couple of months I can live with that!

[Dave2002]

until the 1940s I doubt if Dutch Jews felt that their religion, tho noted on census data etc, would be of such significance;
Until the mid 60s or much later unless you were one of the 'establishment' (to whom a blind eye was turned towards their 'cottages') any indication that your sexuality differed from the majority had rather strong repercussions.
Also until recently (and possibly still ongoing) members of unions would find it difficult to get or keep jobs in some industries.

Farcebook collects data on all who brush in contact with it - you may be happy but are you happy relying on others (eg tagging of photos taken at private occasions)

Android + Google - just treat as a permanently on spy in your home, bedroom etc as to allowing an on microphone in bedrooms to which staff at these companies have access ...

Absolutely!

There were "problems" with both Russia and Germany, and no doubt other countries as well. Some states may keep extensive files on their citizens, possibly "for their own good" but not always.If one country gets invaded by another, the invaders may find it very easy to eliminate members of the population they don't like - this has happened - and it's a lot easier if the state being taken over has kept extensive records. The Germans were in the past so fanatical about keeping records that they were able to commit all sorts of undesirable acts, but their record keeping came back to bite them towards the end of WWII because they actually kept detailed records of the horrendous crimes they had committed.

Now, in the internet age, people should not assume that it's only their own country which is keeping tabs on them, but just about every other technically advanced country in the world. Some of these are definitely not benigh.

One might imagine that nobody really cares about what kind of toothpaste I use, or what car I drive or a whole bunch of other things, but some of the data will have been gathered for commercial purposes, and some of it by companies such as Amazon which use servers based in the USA. There is little doubt now that much of this data can be used in ways which are adverse - so the big questions are - "will it be?" and "can I trust this company enough?" etc.

Some countries, such as the UK, will keep extensive data about their citizens, but with so much additional data being generated for commercial purposes, there is perhaps little need for further state collection and management of data, as it might be very easy for the state to gain control of the commercial data, and use it for whatever purpose it felt fit.

[MrGongGong]

Absolutely!

There were "problems" with both Russia and Germany, and no doubt other countries as well. Some states may keep extensive files on their citizens, possibly "for their own good" but not always.If one country gets invaded by another, the invaders may find it very easy to eliminate members of the population they don't like - this has happened - and it's a lot easier if the state being taken over has kept extensive records. The Germans were in the past so fanatical about keeping records that they were able to commit all sorts of undesirable acts, but their record keeping came back to bite them towards the end of WWII because they actually kept detailed records of the horrendous crimes they had committed.

Now, in the internet age, people should not assume that it's only their own country which is keeping tabs on them, but just about every other technically advanced country in the world. Some of these are definitely not benigh.

One might imagine that nobody really cares about what kind of toothpaste I use, or what car I drive or a whole bunch of other things, but some of the data will have been gathered for commercial purposes, and some of it by companies such as Amazon which use servers based in the USA. There is little doubt now that much of this data can be used in ways which are adverse - so the big questions are - "will it be?" and "can I trust this company enough?" etc.

Some countries, such as the UK, will keep extensive data about their citizens, but with so much additional data being generated for commercial purposes, there is perhaps little need for further state collection and management of data, as it might be very easy for the state to gain control of the commercial data, and use it for whatever purpose it felt fit.

Indeed
So what data ARE you happy sharing ?
I'm not planning on retreating inside and pulling up the drawbridge just yet

[Frances_iom]

On-line shops like Amazon need to keep your name, delivery address etc - this data should be deleted after say 3-5 years unless the customer explicitly asks for it to be kept (after all the Tax man only requires most docs to be kept for 7 years.
Farcebook is very different - there is a social attraction in having an electronic notice board (eg replaces all those notices that in past centuries were handled by parish notices, very regular + cheap post, party telephone lines etc) but this should be a subscription model (low cost possibly bought as part of ones ISP) , preferably local in nature with sponsorship needed to enter a group and any out of area transmission requiring regular approval by other members of the group and with no storage beyond say 2 months or less and no commercial posts allowed.
Twatter should be treated as exactly equivalent to a Gossip magazine (eg Hello ?is this still going) - a demonstration of poor education and social class but again subscription with no commercial selectable mass tweets except to a specific + large region - the subscription to be paid by the recipient on the basis of twits received.

[MrGongGong]

Farcebook is very different - there is a social attraction in having an electronic notice board (eg replaces all those notices that in past centuries were handled by parish notices, very regular + cheap post, party telephone lines etc) but this should be a subscription model (low cost possibly bought as part of ones ISP) , preferably local in nature with sponsorship needed to enter a group and any out of area transmission requiring regular approval by other members of the group and with no storage beyond say 2 months or less and no commercial posts allowed.
.

Nonsense
What I like about Facebook is that I can meet all the other people in the world with the same niche interests in boring musics.
SO, NOT local .... I go to the pub for that

You seem to be rather keen on insisting on what you think should happen