With this sort of data-mining, the information flow is all one-way: if my ISP collects and sells my clickstream, I don’t get to see personal data about the ISP owners or board of directors, or personal information about the company that buys the clickstream and mines it for information, which it then sells to another organization that is protective of its “trade secrets.”

I hear “honest people have nothing to hide” a lot–often from people who would turn around and defend the government’s right to classify all sorts of information from the citizenry, and who aren’t about to publish their own phone numbers, let alone the complete list of who they spoke to in the last month, and what porn sites they themselves browsed.

I’m giving my ISP money for a service, not the other way around.

[Under the circumstances, it seems fitting not to put my actual contact info here.]

Screw Diebold, I vote with JavaScript. :-]

http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/01/30/flickr-pictures-web-beacons-and-a-modest-proposal/#comment-667

This is a pretty complicated question with many aspects. I think we’re more concerned with anonymity because there are more ways to breach it with machines, and they’re distributed unevenly. When your business was up for everyone, it probably wouldn’t travel very far even as it was pretty open. I think we’re just getting to the tip of the iceberg of being able to imagine what people can do with this data. It’s very important to note that once it’s out, there’s absolutely no way to contain it. It’s also very important to note that actions have and will continue to be taken on the basis that this information represents a deliberate intent – that is, that because a site shows up in your clickstream, that you visited that site. In many cases, that’s a false assumption, and is asking for trouble. We’re just starting to see how this can play out – for an extreme example, look at the Julie Amero case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Amero

In any event, it needn’t be that complicated. Who cares if it’s actually damaging? I have an expectation of privacy with respect to my online activities, and I have an expectation of a reasonable categorization of information as personally identifiable or not. My ISP’s privacy policy says that personally identifiable information that may be shared is limited to mailing address information. My point is that clickstream data (and IP address, and other) is often lumped in with non-personally identifiable information for the purposes of these agreements, even if that information can be used to identify you, or used as a significant piece of the puzzle in doing so. That is, in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation of the reality behind the intent of those agreements.

Tied to this notion of control is also the notion of context. Think of the things that you have clicked on or searched for, that if taken out of the context of the moment could give someone a significantly skewed version of who you are or the life that you live. What happens if a potential employer identifies that I have performed lots of searches on identity theft, insider threats to organizations, social engineering and the like. Am I a threat to that organization, or am I someone who is curious about this because I am a responsible member of society who wishes to contribute to the dialog involving these issues. Why ask for clarification when it is easier to just not bring me in for an interview. I get no opportunity to set the record straight, address the concerns or anything.

It would be similar to if all of your financial records were available, but you had no way to know what was there and no way to correct an inaccuracy. If a mistake or a legitimate disagreement were to make it on the record, you would have no dispute resolution process to turn to, you wouldn’t even know what happened, all you know is that you can’t even get a credit card or a loan secured by collateral. Not only that, but ANYONE can get access to these records if they pay 29.95. I dont’ know how you feel about the girl that you went out on a date with, or your neighbor, having access to all of your financial information, but that isn’t a particularly cheery thought to me.

D

I ask with this kind of mindset- My father has gotten a cell-phone. I don’t think
we suddenly have more to say to each other, we just now have a more readily available conduit for communication.
Sure we talk more, but what about? Why does he keep calling me? Was he this compelled to talk me before?
Which leads me to think why, with internet use, do I need to worry about anonymity? I didn’t before.
Before the internet, or mass communication and the like, your business was up for everyone. My grandmother
tells stories about party-line telephones, where anyone could pick up the phone and listen to whatever
conversation was going on. Why are WE so concerned about anonymity?

It’s something I’d really like to understand more. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the whole thing. Could you get
back to me if you get a chance? Thanks.