We have no privacy. It wasn’t taken from us, we gave it away. Well... we sold it. Imagine that you have a car that has the OnStar system installed, but you either can’t afford or have otherwise decided not to subscribe to their services. You drive around, going about your usual business. Did you know that you were being tracked? Your vehicle’s location and speed are being monitored and aggregated by OnStar and that data is possibly being sold.
Who would pay for this type of information? Perhaps law enforcement would be interested in knowing when and where drivers are routinely speeding. Is this an invasion of your privacy? We certainly reacted that way. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York recently “call[ed] that a blatant invasion of privacy and is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.” OnStar replied that this is a known part of the “service” and that all “customers” are informed. They clearly understood that this information belonged to them; they had paid for it. But in the face of governmental meddling, it is easier to just give it back: “We realize that our proposed amendments did not satisfy our subscribers,” OnStar president Linda Marshall said in a statement.
Where else have we used our private information as currency to purchase services? Almost every time you accept a free service online. Facebook has been free since the beginning. They obtain the most revenue from advertising, but guess what makes that advertising better for everyone? Your private data! The more they know about you, the more they can target the ads so that you are more likely to see things you will actually want. This allows them to charge more to the advertisers and give you more services for free.
"Could I live without all of the “free” conveniences that I use everyday? Perhaps. But it would be a miserable existence!"
This is a great business model, but remember what we are doing: We are selling our privacy. Just this week “Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.) wrote that Facebook’s use of “cookie” software should be investigated under the “unfair and deceptive acts” clause of the agency’s mandate.”
This problem has been plaguing us for years. Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Alex Kozinski wrote a eulogy for the Fourth Amendment’s protections this past summer detailing many ways that we have sacrificed our privacy for convenience. He thinks it started for grocery store customer loyalty cards. In that case, we sell our private information about where, when, and how often we shop. Oh, and exactly what we buy! What do we get in return? Ten cents off a jar of mayonnaise.
Could I live without all of the “free” conveniences that I use everyday? Perhaps. But it would be a miserable existence! I don’t advocate that we stop or even slow down this trade. For most of us it is a great bargain. But there is no way we can continue to get so upset when we finally realize what deals we have already made.
Comments
Post new comment