Comments on: WSJ rolls back privacy and nobody cares. They should.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:07:58 +0000

Hmm, maybe nobody seems to care because nobody actually cares. Other than the author’s outrage and poor grammar, the story gives no reason why this is so “amazing”, “seemingly” or otherwise.

By: Abine, Inc.

Abine, Inc. — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:47:56 +0000

People aren’t sufficiently worried about these things because they think, “I have nothing to hide; I don’t care about privacy.” This mindset is based on the faulty assumption that privacy is all about hiding negative things. It’s about positive rights, too: the right to live and speak freely without outside scrutiny. When we feel we’re being watched, we censor ourselves. Thus, tracking and surveillance have chilling effects on freedom of speech, freedom of association, self-expression, and other celebrated, protected activities. Simply put, we aren’t ourselves when we think others are watching. This is the privacy violation with which we should concern ourselves. This is the risk.

By: Mary Ludloff

Mary Ludloff — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:10:33 +0000

I agree–privacy policies are so bloated that if I remember correctly, it would take most people 200 hours per year to read (and understand) what information is being collected about them and what it will be used for. While “privacy” in terms of personal information may be difficult to legislate and enforce, the use of opt-in for any kind of data collection and usage is not. But that, of course, would limit the amount of data collected. More damning (at least in my mind) is that the WSJ is known in privacy circles for its continuing series on “What They Know” which covers privacy issues centered around most of the big data collectors and government. I took a cursory look this morning–no mention of WSJ’s policy change which certainly has an impact on all its subcribers (paid or not). I consider myself to be pretty dialed-in with regards to privacy but still have a problem keeping track of all the policy changes. How about a boilerplate privacy policy where companies must explain where they deviate from it (in non-legal jargon) and always present any data collection “change” or “usage” as an opt-in?

By: Sophy Bot

Sophy Bot — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:04:21 +0000

This is a great point. Companies are constantly challenging the privacy of individuals, and the burden of tracking those changes is on the latter. And you’re right, why are there more fart apps than privacy-tracking apps?

By: sdfdsf

sdfdsf — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:39:31 +0000

I care…I had already un-bookmarked Marketwatch.com! :) Course I’m one of those freaks who never understood why people would make a Facebook account…

By: guest

guest — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:09:48 +0000

Ordinary people cannot keep up with every single privacy threat. There needs to be a privacy consortium, like W3c that is the central repository of all alerts, information and watchdog.
Such a service could even warn you when you reach a website that rates high on their watchlist so people are informed at the moment it happens. People cant keep up with all this information, we need a service to do this automatically for us. Isint there an app for that? There are fart apps, beer apps….

By: Greg Knieriemen

Greg Knieriemen — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:01:32 +0000

I agree with you – it’s a fair point for discussion and reasonable people will disagree on it.

I’m looking at it through a different lens – is what the WSJ doing any less intrusive than Gmail? There are occasional grumblings around gmail, but generally people understand and accept that the content of their personal communication on gmail will be used to generate relevant ads.

Based on your description, the WSJ looks less intrusive than gmail.

By: Derrick Harris

Derrick Harris — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:31:49 +0000

The data is different, but that’s in part because FB is designed as a platform to share information. One could argue that tying PII to what you read is equally invasive, especially if the authorities start asking around. But my main concern is that we rarely have these discussions outside of FB or Google even though there’s a whole world of potential privacy issues that exist outside those two companies. If we view privacy through FB-colored glasses, we miss a lot of the issue.

By: Barb Darrow

Barb Darrow — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:37:04 +0000

I agree w/ Dan Gillmor’s comment (in one of your links) This is a crappy move. Nobody gets the WSJ for free….the price of “free” pubs is some of your info.

By: Greg Knieriemen

Greg Knieriemen — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:32:57 +0000

APPLES AND ORANGES

There’s a world of difference between a social network site tracking your all of your activity (including pictures and status updates) inside AND outside it’s own web property (like Facebook does) and a media company matching your personal information with the content you read within their properties.