Ordering Pizza in 2010

Sun

Apr 16
2006

listen

Edie Freedman just sent me a link to a thought-provoking ACLU video from 2003 about the demise of privacy. While I'm not a fan of many ACLU positions, and the video may seem far-fetched to some, I've personally had a few brushes with credit card companies that make this video seem less over the top. One time, when I'd just spent a large amount on some antiquarian books, my credit card was declined at a second antiquarian bookstore down the street not fifteen minutes later. I called to say that yes, I was in Bath, England, while my wife was making other charges in California (assuming that that was the reason for the decline), and was floored to have the person on the other end of the line add, "and it seemed odd that someone would be spending so much money on used books."

The "Take Action" link at the end of the video takes you to a page entitled Urge Congress to Defang the Matrix, so this video was obviously inspired by Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program, which was nominally scrapped after public outcry, but I believe that the trend does continue. (O'Reilly published Simson Garfinkel's book on the subject, Database Nation in 2000. While the book sold some 30,000 copies, it didn't have the Silent Spring effect that we hoped for.)

P.S. I'm actually a big fan of data mining for business intelligence. I'm even a fan of systems that know a lot about their users. But we need to understand how to make these systems serve our human goals, and not become tools of oppression.

tags: | comments: 6 | Sphere It
submit:

Previous | Next

0 TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4580

Comments: 6

John Dowdell [04.16.06 10:45 AM]

Awhile back only a few, large groups, were able to pull together varied data on our viewable activities.

Now anyone can do so, through WWW search engines, deepweb searches, and financial/records services.

In Tim O'Leary terms, as the planetary nervous system starts to develop, we'll all have to come to terms with having our viewable activities immediately and perpetually accessible by others, and develop ways to assure the integrity of data we once contracted to remain private (consider "china buys google", eg).

Rephrased, I think it may be more "us vs us" than "them vs us".....

Chris Charlton [04.16.06 01:10 PM]

Us vs. us; scarry.

Thomas Lord [04.16.06 04:32 PM]

It's a hard problem to reconcile the obvious utility of data mining with the obvious (and actual) ...er... unintended consequences. Especially in our contemporary dangerous age where there are legitimate questions about where and when those "unintended consequences" are worth it to capture criminals and fight wars. Did you ultimately get to buy your book? Was an hour or two of your time your only cost? (If so, consider it a tax on being rich. If not, yes, something went wrong. If you gave up early -- well, your choice.)

If yr worried about unintended consequences and outright abuses -- I think you (as leader) have to take a less faith-based approach in Web 2.0. Someone once said: "Don't confuse power with progress."

I know yr intentions are fantastic and I respect that,
-t

(I also enjoy and benefit from many of yr on-line and in-print publications. Raising my hand has a fan-boy here, even if I do try to contribute critique.)

rupert [04.16.06 08:16 PM]

Uh, Tim,
P.S. I'm actually a big fan of data mining for business intelligence. I'm even a fan of systems that know a lot about their users. But we need to understand how to make these systems serve our human goals, and not become tools of oppression.

Is there a difference? I mean, is it not human to want to aquire more power and wealth? To me the difference between 'tool of oppression' and 'human goals' is which end of the stick you are on. And if the potential to abuse power is there, history suggests it will be abused.

Tim O'Reilly [04.16.06 09:17 PM]

Tom -- I totally agree that there are pluses and minuses to all these technologies. That's why a lot of my approach is just "news from the future." We can see what's going to happen, and we can sometimes influence it a bit. But understanding the pattern will at least help us think how to respond.

Rupert -- You're right that the will to power is as human as the will to love and nurture. But we can recognize that one is "better" than the other. Aristotle defined virtue as control of the appetites by right reason. So understanding what kind of world we want to see can help us at the very least to regulate our own behavior, and to the extent that we still live in a democracy, hopefully regulate the behavior of our government. And by our interactions with businesses, we also regulate their behavior. (See for example, my piece Buy where you shop.) One test of what is good is reversibility. If two parties to a transaction would be willing to reverse the transaction were the shoe on the other foot, it's usually OK. This is often referred to as the "golden rule."