Surveillance capitalism.

[DBT]

There certainly appears to be far more to it. Brushing the issue aside with a "selling toothpaste" remark is beyond absurd. The scope and scale of information gathering goes way beyond marketing needs, tailoring ads as a service, something done for our benefit, what a joke.

Thanks again grandpa,

No problem, Lumpen.

but I assure you, "talkies" will in fact replace silent pictures and TV won't replace "talkies," but you won't get a jetpack. We have them, but they're grossly inefficient.

Or maybe you should actually put your video game console down for a few minutes and read more carefully and objectively?

Which means taking off your patented marketeer spectacles that only allow you to see good things when it comes to surveillance of consumers (yes, Surveillance) and actually considering the issue of the right to privacy. That we should not need to search for options to opt out of every business that gathers and shares information about us, not to mention trying to find where it goes.

It should be an opt in service by default. There scope and scale of information gathering appears to go way beyond mere marketing needs, as already pointed out.

 

[DBT]

Holy bait and switch, Batman! A diabetes app is not telemedicine. There is no health care provider on the other end providing evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment.

Batman? Bait and switch? Nothing of the sort. The issue is about the scope and scale of information gathering in relation to the right to privacy.

This is what the article says:

'' We still want telemedicine, we still want those advantages for us, but here's what they found about diabetes apps. They examined 211 apps. And then some of them, about 70 of them, they selected for deep-dive analysis. What they found is that just by downloading the software for the app, it automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone.''

The issue in this instance being that by downloading the app the user has ''automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone'' - now that is something that can probably be fixed quite easily, but unless it is identified and the issue is raised most likely nothing would be done.

This is just one example, how many more do we not know about?

 

[ruby sparks]

It seems to me interesting that the USA, where individual rights are often held to be so important, has apparently had much more lax individual privacy laws than most other developed countries.

I don’t think I need the reasons explained to me though.

 

[DBT]

It seems to me interesting that the USA, where individual rights are often held to be so important, has apparently had much more lax individual privacy laws than most other developed countries.

I don’t think I need the reasons explained to me though.

Maybe you'll get a 'Holy Smokes, Batman.' Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which means taking off your patented marketeer spectacles that only allow you to see good things when it comes to surveillance of consumers (yes, Surveillance) and actually considering the issue of the right to privacy.

Unlike armchair amateurs that proudly spew their ignorance out their asses on a constant basis, I actually have to consider this issue on a daily fucking basis precisely because I am a marketer.

That we should not need to search for options to opt out of every business that gathers and shares information about us, not to mention trying to find where it goes.

Once again for auld lang syne, the second you enter a public space is the second YOU ARE IN A PUBLIC SPACE NOT A PRIVATE ONE. How the hell can't you understand that?

It should be an opt in service by default.

IT IS. YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE.

The fact that you don't actually READ--because "text" evidently terrifies you so--is not anyone's fault but your own.

There scope and scale of information gathering appears to go way beyond mere marketing needs, as already pointed out.

As I already pointed out, not you. YOU--along with ruby--got everything wrong because neither of you know what the fuck you are talking about. Clearly. Demonstrably. Yet you keep talking out your asses.

Much of the "private information" you listed isn't actually private. You may WANT it to be or think in your little head that it SHOULD be, but it actually is not. Your home address, for example, is NOT private information. It has always--ALWAYS, including "back in the day"--been a matter of the public record.

There are steps you can take, but if a BAD ACTOR is going to hack you or otherwise break the law then there's pretty muck fuck-all you can do about it, just as it was "back in the day."

Marketers like me don't need to buy ANY data about you. All I need to do is set certain demographic parameters and you will be automatically targeted. Why? BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO ALLOW FACEBOOK TO DO THAT THE SECOND YOU AGREED TO THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE.

You can change that. You have that power right now. If you are too ignorant to figure out how, then ask your great grandchildren or any grade schooler, as they all know how.

 

[DBT]

Unlike armchair amateurs that proudly spew their ignorance out their asses on a constant basis, I actually have to consider this issue on a daily fucking basis precisely because I am a marketer.

What you fail to consider is that this issue is not something I cooked up. I was not the first to consider the issue or wonder about what kind of information is being gathered, who has access or how it is used.

It is not something I am making up or over blowing.

This issue has been investigated by people who are both qualified for the task and have the time and resources to investigate.

That is the source material I use, refer to and cite.

Now, you can ignore that and continue to try to make it personal, act condescending (grandpa, etc) or you can face the fact that there is the real issue of a threat to our right to privacy through advances in technology and an apparent lag in identifying the problems as they arise and passing legislation to protect our privacy.

So in the course of defending marketing and information gathering, your accusations and claims are pretty well wrong on all counts, sorry to have to inform you.

Five examples of Data Misuse

''Data misuse is the inappropriate use of data as defined when the data was initially collected.

Misuse of information typically can be governed by laws and corporate cybersecurity policy. However, even with laws and policies in place, the potential for data misuse is growing. The most common perpetrators? Your employees and third-party contractors, i.e. insider threats.

Insider threat incidents involving data misuse have serious implications, not least of which is the high monetary cost associated. And without the right people, processes, and technology in place for insider threat visibility, detection, investigation, and prevention can be near impossible to manage.



1- Uber “God View”

A high profile case of data misuse occurred back in 2014 when an employee at one of the world’s fastest growing companies; Uber; violated the company’s policy by using its “God View” tool to track a journalist who was late for an interview with an Uber exec.(If you are unfamiliar, “God View” allowed the company’s staff to track both Uber vehicles and customers.)The tool was unavailable to drivers, but was (at the time) apparently “widely available” at a corporate level. Tracking the journalist obviously flies in the face of Uber’s privacy policy at the time, which stated that employees are prohibited to look at customer rider histories except for “legitimate business purposes.”

2 - Minnesota Police Department

Back in 2016, state auditors in the state of Minnesota found that between 2013 and 2015 88 police officers in departments across the state misused their access to personal data in the state driver’s license database to look up information on girlfriends, family, friends, or others without authorization or relevance to any official investigation.Auditors said that this was not uncommon and that more than half of the police officers in the state made questionable searches in the database.

3 - Chicago Police Department

In 2016 a report by the Associated Press (AP) determined that police officers across the United States misused confidential law enforcement database information illegitimately, often looking into the personal information of people that they were close to. In many cases, the data misuse resulted in cases involving personal stalking, harassment, and even identity theft.

4 - AT&T Customer Information

The telecommunications company AT&T paid over $25 million to the Federal Communications Commission back in 2015, as a result of an investigation that discovered that employees at international call-centers illegally disclosed the personal information of upwards of 280,000 customers.The workers sold U.S. AT&T customer names and Social Security numbers to third parties who used it to unlock mobile phones, so the devices would work on networks other than AT&T’s. (Cell phone unlocking became legal in the U.S. in 2014.)

5 - Morgan Stanley Clients

Morgan Stanley discovered in 2015 that a financial adviser downloaded account data on 10% of their wealth management clients – about 350,000 people. 900 of those client accounts later showed up on the anonymous text sharing site, Pastebin. This is a textbook example of an insider threat incident.



''As these examples show, insider threat-based data misuse by employees and third-party contractors within an organization is widespread and can occur anywhere. Though an organization may have tools in place to prevent data loss, oftentimes these tools only help you see data movement – not the user activity or context behind insider threat interactions.''

Marketers like me don't need to buy ANY data about you. All I need to do is set certain demographic parameters and you will be automatically targeted. Why? BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO ALLOW FACEBOOK TO DO THAT THE SECOND YOU AGREED TO THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE.

I'm not necessarily talking about 'marketeers like you' - In case you haven't noticed, the issue is wider and deeper than you or your own marketing practices. As for Facebook, it they who rig the rules and conditions to suit their own needs, wants and aims...and many consumers may not be aware of what exactly they are signing up for....how many read all the fine print and legal jargon.

 

[DBT]

...

 

[KeepTalking]

So, you chose to respond to this post, and not the one that came immediately after it where I deduced what private information you might have been thinking about given a subsequent post of yours, and attempted to engage you in a discussion about that private information. It was not my intention to be silly, and my subsequent post should have demonstrated that. But, I will give it another try, please take a look at post #85 and respond to that one, rather than dismissing my posts as "silly".

I think DBT is from Australia, so he may be talking about their Privacy Act.

Presumably, he would also be complaining about lack of privacy protections inAustralia, the same jurisdiction where that law applies. I freely admit that there is a horrendous lack of privacy protection in North Korea, and would be all for any plan to correct that state of affaires.

I don’t think he can be talking about the US Privacy Act, because as far as I know there isn’t a national one.

While there may not be a singular law that covers all privacy protections, there are multiple laws at the federal level that likely cover most of what is in the Australian law, if not all of the same information. There are also more stringent laws enacted in many States.

I read that new updated individual state legislations are either in the pipeline or on the horizon.

Here in the U.K. there has been one, since the late 90’s I think, but many would say it was ineffective, lagging behind technological developments and not enforced.

The EU last year brought in new, updated legislation, and it is starting to be implemented this year. It covers Britain at the moment, but Brexit may change that.

Whether any laws at local, state or even national level can work well remains to be seen, given that the issue may cross international borders quite readily.

The EU GDPR law has had an impact on businesses in the US, as any entity that wants to do business in the EU has to comply with that law. GDRP has affected the some of the apps I develop, as we are required to comply with it for those apps we make available internationally. We also have to keep EU data separate from US data because of retention policies.

And I do take your later point that a lot of the time, such activity is used for legitimate and benign business purposes, and furthermore my understanding is that data collection often generates the revenue that enables many online sites and services to be accessed free of charge.

Our data does not directly generate any revenue for the company, but we are also a multi-billion dollar a year company without having to monetize the data. We only use the data for supporting and improving our apps, as well as our own internal marketing. I'm not in marketing, but my understanding is that the marketing data use is fairly generic, like determining which which geographical areas to target ads, or where to run pilot programs and finding out how well those pilots are doing.

 

[ruby sparks]

While there may not be a singular law that covers all privacy protections, there are multiple laws at the federal level that likely cover most of what is in the Australian law, if not all of the same information. There are also more stringent laws enacted in many States.

It's my impression from reading around that State Privacy Laws in the US are generally less stringent than here.

... but my understanding is that the marketing data use is fairly generic, like determining which which geographical areas to target ads, or where to run pilot programs and finding out how well those pilots are doing.

Do you mean in your company? I think you might, because I have read of individually-targeted ads and propaganda elsewhere.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here in the UK, a fairly recent development (I'm presuming it comes from the new EU GDPR laws) is that it is now much easier to 'switch off' one's personal data being used for marketing purposes, for targeted ads and on some sites (I think) the data being collected at all. One doesn't have to read through a lot of small print now in order to opt out. It only takes a couple of clicks. As far as I am aware (I haven't been monitoring even my own habits) one only has to do it once, when one first visits a website. Some sites say that withdrawing consent may affect using the website in question.

 

[KeepTalking]

Holy bait and switch, Batman! A diabetes app is not telemedicine. There is no health care provider on the other end providing evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment.

Batman?

My apologies if I offended you. I was just trying to introduce a little levity through a pop culture reference. The Batman TV series aired in the 1960s, and I thought the "Holy ___ Batman!" would be a fairly well known reference, even down under.

Bait and switch? Nothing of the sort. The issue is about the scope and scale of information gathering in relation to the right to privacy.

The bait and switch comment was directed at the article, which started out talking about Google and their research into telemedicine, but then switched to an examination of diabetes apps which are neither telemedicine, nor developed by Google.

This is what the article says:

'' We still want telemedicine, we still want those advantages for us, but here's what they found about diabetes apps. They examined 211 apps. And then some of them, about 70 of them, they selected for deep-dive analysis. What they found is that just by downloading the software for the app, it automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone.''

A perfect example of the bait and switch being performed in a single sentence. Diabetes apps are not telemedicine.

The issue in this instance being that by downloading the app the user has ''automatically authorized the collection and even the modification of sensitive personal information on your phone'' - now that is something that can probably be fixed quite easily, but unless it is identified and the issue is raised most likely nothing would be done.

One thing to note about this quote is that they use the term "sensitive personal information" rather than "private data". That seems to be a tacit admission that the data being collected might not be what most people would consider to be private.

Regardless, what good would it do an application to modify your personal information (not private, but personal, mind you)? The only reason I could think of to do that would be to obfuscate certain details to make it harder to determine who that personal information is regarding. That seems like something a person who is concerned about their personal data getting out would want them to do, and that privacy laws would mandate that they do.

But you also forgot about this additional quote from the article:

And then they figured out that 64 percent of those apps secretly modify or delete your information.

So they are deleting the information that you are concerned about them retaining, and that is somehow supposed to be a problem as well? That also seems like something a person who is concerned about their personal data getting out would want them to do, and that privacy laws would mandate that they do.

This is just one example, how many more do we not know about?

It's not a very good example. We don't even know if the information is anything that anyone would consider private, and the things they are accused of doing with it, modifying it and deleting it, seem like things that good privacy laws would require them to do.

 

[KeepTalking]

While there may not be a singular law that covers all privacy protections, there are multiple laws at the federal level that likely cover most of what is in the Australian law, if not all of the same information. There are also more stringent laws enacted in many States.

It's my impression from reading around that State Privacy Laws in the US are generally less stringent than here.

No doubt. As far as I know, GDRP is the most stringent privacy law enacted anywhere.

... but my understanding is that the marketing data use is fairly generic, like determining which which geographical areas to target ads, or where to run pilot programs and finding out how well those pilots are doing.

Do you mean in your company? I think you might, because I have read of individually-targeted ads and propaganda elsewhere.

Yes, I am referring to my company.

I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding of how targeted ads work in many situations. For example, one thing the marketing department does using our data is to buy Adwords on Google in target geographical areas. Ads for our products and services will then come up if someone in that area searches on Google for specific keywords. At that point, our company knows nothing else about you other than that you are in one of the target locations, and that you are currently searching for a keyword related to what we offer. The individual was not targeted, we know nothing about them other than that they possibly wanted to know more about things related to our line of business, so they might be interested in our products or services.

 

[ruby sparks]

For example, one thing the marketing department does using our data is to buy Adwords on Google in target geographical areas. Ads for our products and services will then come up if someone in that area searches on Google for specific keywords. At that point, our company knows nothing else about you other than that you are in one of the target locations, and that you are currently searching for a keyword related to what we offer. The individual was not targeted, we know nothing about them other than that they possibly wanted to know more about things related to our line of business, so they might be interested in our products or services.

One can't really complain too much about that.

I read of a case where Facebook (a) did experiments on users (without the users knowing) to determine if certain things displayed in content could affect the mood of the user. Three years later, apparently, they (b) were claiming to be able to highlight to an advertiser if and when a user (specifically teenagers as I recall) were in a 'vulnerable' mood.


(a) https://www.theguardian.com/technol...y-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say (2014)

(b) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens (2017)

From the latter:

"The internal report produced by Facebook executives, and obtained by the Australian, states that the company can monitor posts and photos in real time to determine when young people feel “stressed”, “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless” and a “failure”."

Again, I am not saying that this represents the face of pure evil. It may not even be true, it may be just something Facebook claimed. Nor is it likely to be new. I'd guess that salespeople in the past were adept at reading and trying to take advantage of a customer's demeanour and body language.

If there's a difference now, it may only be in terms of scale and sophistication. Another difference nowadays might be summed up by saying, 'The reason Facebook doesn't charge you is because you are the product'.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not necessarily talking about 'marketeers like you' - In case you haven't noticed, the issue is wider and deeper than you or your own marketing practices.

So, you mean the same knife that cuts your cake can also slit your throat? Then, like I've been repeating a thousand times already, I think the focus should be on bad actors, don't you?

Wait, maybe this is a cultural thing. Do you think I mean actors as in theatre folk? Is that it?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding of how targeted ads work in many situations.

Understatement of the year.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I read of a case where Facebook (a) did experiments on users (without the users knowing) to determine if certain things suggested (eg words) could affect the mood of the user.

You're probably referring to this study: Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media.

And it's not just a person's mood that can be manipulated. There is another study that was conducted on some 61 million Facebook users back in 2012 without their knowledge that managed to get something on the order of 340,000 friends of users to actually get out to vote who otherwise would not have.

It's a very powerful medium--when applied to large populations so that the small percentage variants have more impact and why Russia's efforts likely tipped the scale on the tiny percentages we saw in certain key counties--but it is so primarily when used clandestinely (i.e., when the user does not know they are being manipulated). When the user knows they are being or can be manipulated, the effectiveness plummets to near zero.

Which is why caveat emptor is such a crucial component to all of this. There is no way to stop bad actors from acting badly, no matter what the technology (or lack thereof for that matter).Which means that it is absolutely crucial for people to educate themselves on exactly how this all works.

And that was the biggest problem I found with what you and DBT (primarily) were posting. You kept focusing on the marketing--the white/gray hats--and how we operate (getting it consistently wrong, no less) and not on the black hats and how they operate.

As I noted with the Koch brothers, that perfectly suits their purposes. You understand, at least, that the knife that cuts the cake can also slit a throat. They want you to focus on the people cutting the cake so they are free to slit your throat.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[DBT]

The bait and switch comment was directed at the article, which started out talking about Google and their research into telemedicine, but then switched to an examination of diabetes apps which are neither telemedicine, nor developed by Google.

I know that you were referring to the article. I then pointed out that it was not a case of bait and switch because the topic is about systematic gathering of personal, private and sometimes sensitive information, who gets access to it and how it is used.

The article simply identified a potential problem with an Med App and described it in relation to a possible breach of privacy.

That is the topic. It's not just about marketeers and targeted ads. The issue is far wider and deeper. How far it goes has already been cited too many times to repeat.

Just to add another summary of the issue in case it isn't yet clear:

''Human beings value their privacy and the protection of their personal sphere of life. They value some control over who knows what about them. They certainly do not want their personal information to be accessible to just anyone at any time. But recent advances in information technology threaten privacy and have reduced the amount of control over personal data and open up the possibility of a range of negative consequences as a result of access to personal data. In the second half of the 20th century data protection regimes have been put in place as a response to increasing levels of processing of personal data. The 21st century has become the century of big data and advanced information technology (e.g. forms of deep learning), the rise of big tech companies and the platform economy, which comes with the storage and processing of exabytes of data''

Personal Data

Personal information or data is information or data that is linked or can be linked to individual persons. Examples include explicitly stated characteristics such as a person‘s date of birth, sexual preference, whereabouts, religion, but also the IP address of your computer or metadata pertaining to these kinds of information. In addition, personal data can also be more implicit in the form of behavioural data, for example from social media, that can be linked to individuals. Personal data can be contrasted with data that is considered sensitive, valuable or important for other reasons, such as secret recipes, financial data, or military intelligence.''

 

[DBT]

I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding of how targeted ads work in many situations.

Understatement of the year.

Targeted ads are probably the least of the problem. Personally, any ads that are targeted at me are ignored...no possible sale to be made. The issue, in case it's not yet clear is that there is far too much private and sensitive information being acquired and too little control on where it goes or how its used.

Now you as a Marketeer can wail and gnash your teeth, do your head banging like as if you know it all and anyone who disagrees is clueless, but a threat to privacy has been identified and concerns have been raised.

In this article, Standford expresses the moral side of it (something that Marketeers may not be aware or, or even care).

Moral reasons for protecting personal data

''The following types of moral reasons for the protection of personal data and for providing direct or indirect control over access to those data by others can be distinguished (van den Hoven 2008):

Prevention of harm: Unrestricted access by others to one‘s bank account, profile, social media account, cloud repositories, characteristics, and whereabouts can be used to harm the data subject in a variety of ways.

Informational inequality: Personal data have become commodities. Individuals are usually not in a good position to negotiate contracts about the use of their data and do not have the means to check whether partners live up to the terms of the contract. Data protection laws, regulation and governance aim at establishing fair conditions for drafting contracts about personal data transmission and exchange and providing data subjects with checks and balances, guarantees for redress and means to monitor compliance with the terms of the contract. Flexible pricing, price targeting and price gauging, dynamic negotiations are typically undertaken on the basis of asymmetrical information and great disparities in access to information. Also choice modelling in marketing, micro-targeting in political campaigns, and nudging in policy implementation exploit a basic informational inequality of principal and agent.

Informational injustice and discrimination: Personal information provided in one sphere or context (for example, health care) may change its meaning when used in another sphere or context (such as commercial transactions) and may lead to discrimination and disadvantages for the individual. This is related to the discussion on contextual integrity by Nissenbaum (2004) and Walzerian spheres of justice (Van den Hoven 2008).

Encroachment on moral autonomy and human dignity: Lack of privacy may expose individuals to outside forces that influence their choices and bring them to make decisions they would not have otherwise made. Mass surveillance leads to a situation where routinely, systematically, and continuously individuals make choices and decisions because they know others are watching them. This affects their status as autonomous beings and has what sometimes is described as a “chilling effect” on them and on society. Closely related are considerations of violations of respect for persons and human dignity. The massive accumulation of data relevant to a person‘s identity (e.g. brain-computer interfaces, identity graphs, digital doubles or digital twins, analysis of the topology of one‘s social networks) may give rise to the idea that we know a particular person since there is so much information about her. It can be argued that being able to figure people out on the basis of their big data constitutes an epistemic and moral immodesty (Bruynseels & Van den Hoven 2015), which fails to respect the fact that human beings are subjects with private mental states that have a certain quality that is inaccessible from an external perspective (third or second person perspective) – however detailed and accurate that may be. Respecting privacy would then imply a recognition of this moral phenomenology of human persons, i.e. recognising that a human being is always more than advanced digital technologies can deliver.

These considerations all provide good moral reasons for limiting and constraining access to personal data and providing individuals with control over their data.''

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, let's go through this again, but we will start with your quote's last line in regard to "Personal Data" (from the post before the one directly above as you evidently posted yours at the same time I was crafting this one):

Personal data can be contrasted with data that is considered sensitive, valuable or important for other reasons, such as secret recipes, financial data, or military intelligence.

So, on to what your source is calling "personal data":

Personal information or data is information or data that is linked or can be linked to individual persons. Examples include explicitly stated characteristics such as a person‘s date of birth, sexual preference, whereabouts, religion, but also the IP address of your computer or metadata pertaining to these kinds of information. In addition, personal data can also be more implicit in the form of behavioural data, for example from social media, that can be linked to individuals.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, marketers don't ever see--or need to see--such data, much less buy it. Nor, for that matter, do service providers like Facebook or Google. They don't give a flying fuck about YOU personally; they only care about you in the abstract; in the data, in the demographics.

Are you over 65? You go into that part of the Venn diagram. Are you male? That part. Do you live in X town? That part. Do you like fishing? That part. Do you buy a lot of fishing equipment every year or just look? That part.

Then I come along and I buy an ad on Facebook for a new type of fishing rod. So I am offered a whole host of demographic check lists from Facebook so that I can choose men, over 65 that live within a mile radius of X town who like fishing and buy a lot of new equipment.

Again, I don't give a flying fuck about who you are as a human being walking the earth; I only give a shit about my target demographic data selections. Likewise Facebook. I'm not out to brainwash you or read your thoughts or in any way invade your privacy--because, once again "personal data" does not just axiomatically mean it also not PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data. Hence your own source making distinctions about what is and is not "personal data."

If I had the time and the inclination, I could very easily find out how old you are; what town you live in; whether or not you fish; and even what kind and amount of fishing gear you purchase. I could do ALL of that without a super computer or any more technology than a car, a pencil and my eyeballs without ever once invading your privacy.

Your age could easily be guessed by just looking at you. Same with the town you live in. By finding out the best fishing holes in the area and spending some time fishing them, I could then see whether or not you fish and what equipment you own (and its condition). This would tell me more than enough to know whether or not you buy high end/new or old. By striking up a friendly conversation while we both fish, I can then just ask a simple question about whether or not you're looking to buy something new as I was thinking of doing the same, but I wasn't sure what to get, could you recommend a particular brand you like or were thinking of getting yourself, etc.

Other than my asking you an innocent question and initially asking you if it's ok that I join you fishing, I have in no way unduly harmed you or discovered your deep dark most secret of all private thoughts, but even if you had immediately told me to fuck off and I didn't get to ask you a simple question, I'd STILL be able to take your reaction as an indicator of how to market my new brand of fishing rods to you.

And that is the full extent of my interaction with your "personal data."

Now, instead of me and what I do, Putin shows up in your town. He's going to want a very different set of data concerning you--the kind I don't have or give a shit about. The kind of data Facebook possesses, but does not give out or sell, so he--being a bad actor--is going to have to find other ways to harvest that information. And he's going to use that information for a very different purpose that could not have less to do with "capitalism" than is possible to express, unless you're talking strictly metaphorically.

He's not trying to sell you--or anyone else in your town--a fishing rod; he's trying to push you off a cliff. Or, more accurately, off a fence, since we're talking metaphorically. He DOES want to read your deepest darkest thoughts and invade your most private of all privates (though, judging from the way you expose your thoughts on a site like this, clearly you aren't all that concerned).

Tl;dr version for morons: What Putin wants to do and what I want to do have almost nothing in common, other than, once again, we are both using the same knife (aka, "personal data"). I am using that knife to cut some delicious cake (that I hope you will enjoy and want more of); he is using the knife to slit your throat.

As to your above post, we'll conclude with:

These considerations all provide good moral reasons for limiting and constraining access to personal data and providing individuals with control over their data.'

For the last time, you already have the ability to limit and constrain access to such data.

 

[DBT]

Ok, let's go through this again, but we will start with your quote's last line in regard to "Personal Data" (from the post before the one directly above as you evidently posted yours at the same time I was crafting this one):



So, on to what your source is calling "personal data":



As has been repeatedly explained to you, marketers don't ever see--or need to see--such data, much less buy it. Nor, for that matter, do service providers like Facebook or Google. They don't give a flying fuck about YOU personally; they only care about you in the abstract; in the data, in the demographics.

By now you should know that its not just about marketeers. It is about systematic gathering of information, up to and including information that is defined as personal, private and sensitive, by various organizations, Facebook, Google, etc, and sold off and shared to who knows who by brokers. This has all been posted with citations. Including examples of breaches and leaks.

You seem to be deliberately focusing on one aspect of the issue while ignoring both the overall picture and, essentially, the issue of the right to privacy itself.

''On the internet, the personal data users give away for free is transformed into a precious commodity. The puppy photos people upload train machines to be smarter. The questions they ask Google uncover humanity’s deepest prejudices. And their location histories tell investors which stores attract the most shoppers. Even seemingly benign activities, like staying in and watching a movie, generate mountains of information, treasure to be scooped up later by businesses of all kinds.''


As for Marketeers:

Covert Marketing Strategy and Techniques

''Growing rivalry has increased the tendency of firms to use messages to persuade consumers, more intensively. However, as the consumer is exposed to more messages every day, this has resulted in insensitivity on the part of customers towards commercial messages. Traditional marketing communication has failed to solve this problem. New models and strategies are needed. Under these conditions a new strategy, covert marketing has emerged. In this strategy, commercial messages are transmitted to consumers using unexpected times and styles so that they are not even aware of it''


And the right to Privacy by default;


Online Privacy Is a Right, Not a Luxury

The tech industry is finally waking up to the fact that people care about their privacy. But current solutions all come at too high a cost in money or time to the end user, according to security expert Max Eddy.

''Apple has a hard-earned reputation for security and privacy, particularly on iOS. Despite that, the company long shied away from making privacy and security a major talking point. It would come up now and then, an ad or billboard here and there, but the Apple event in March, 2019 changed that. Privacy was a key talking point for each and every product. I have a collection of screenshots on my desktop of the black screens and white text that read out proclamations like "Apple doesn't allow advertisers to track you" and "Apple doesn't know how much you paid for it."

That's good. I don't want Apple to know those things or let advertisers track me. The implication is, however, that only by paying for Apple products can I access this lifestyle where I'm not tracked and profiled constantly. If I can't afford an iPhone, then I don't get privacy. Or rather, if I can't afford $699 for a now-dated iPhone 8 or (god help me) $999 or more for an iPhone XS, I don't get privacy.''