Comments on: Achieving true privacy

By: robojiannis

robojiannis — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:49:12 +0000

Rick, I agree that if there were no negative consequences privacy concerns would be unnecessary. Sadly it isn’t so.

Interesting points Paul. I had the impression that individual consumers are the target of the companies now, since they start to notice the impact of word of mouth marketing.

By: Paul M. Banas

Paul M. Banas — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:00:10 +0000

@robojiannis
I wasn’t thinking about shopper card data (versus simply register sales), but we can use that. Participation in shopper card programs is voluntary. In return for sharing some personal data, you can get additional money saving incentives or even a set of dishes. And yes, you may get targeted ads sent to you. Or you can opt out and remain virtually invisible. In the end, I can’t think of any company that has any need or interest to know you as an individual.

The fact is that individual consumers are simply too “individual” for most companies to care about. It is truly the crowds that make meaning in datasets. Most data miners would probably agree with all your points about k-anonymity.

PMB

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:55:32 +0000

robojiannis: I don’t really think about it that way. I am saying that if there is never going to be a negative consequence, there is little need for privacy. In reality, almost every situation can lead to negative consequences, even if hypothetical.

For example, many US citizens oppose gun registries, because if the government does go completely power-hungry or the US gets invaded, they will have a list of people who might oppose them readily available. Some feel they have already abused such lists, and believe that the government used those lists in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina to know where to focus firearm confiscation efforts.

By: robojiannis

robojiannis — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:00:17 +0000

@ Rick
On the one hand I understand what you are saying; if we are true to our decisions and ideas (politics, social life, etc) why keep them private. But on the other hand, it is a common secret that such information are used for several purposes, who might have nothing to do with our intentions. So I say keep them private and that’s where k-anonymity seems to be really helpful.

@PMB
I’ve heard about this grocery store tactic. I still don’t agree with this macro-research, but I think keeping data anonymous is surely a positive step. I wonder though if the data really remain anonymous;

We have here these grocery store cards. The consumer collects points when she shops and then after a certain amount of points, she gets a set of dishes or something.

I have the impression - correct me if I’m wrong - that all the information (what the consumer bought, when, etc) is actually stored in this grocery card. Does that remain anonymous, or do marketers target specific customers with specific ads?

By: Paul M. Banas

Paul M. Banas — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:33:00 +0000

I have been trying to understand where lines should be drawn on privacy and the net, and I think your post is really getting at the core issue.

As someone who analyzes large sets of consumer data as part of my day job, I realize the value that this information provides to advertisers and marketers, who, like it or not, provide all the cash (or potential of cash) that makes things like Google, Facebook, and many other parts of the web experience possible.

While most marketers want to know consumer information in aggregate, we could care less about knowing consumer information on an individual basis. Which is where your point on anonymity comes in.

A good example is grocery store sales data. Every purchase you make in a grocery store is compiled and sent to data clearinghouses like AC Nielsen or IRI, where it is analyzed by marketing researchers. The data is cut at such a macro level that your individual purchasing habits are never even seen. Your data is therefore public, but still anonymous.

Sorry for the long winded comment, but I think this is a very though provoking post.

PMB

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:57:46 +0000

Interesting post, and I always enjoy being linked too. Some thoughts:

In the political world, if there were no repercussions if I supported and voted for a particular candidate, then my privacy as a voter would not matter to me.

If I get divorced, it does not matter to me if my employer knew, so long as it did not affect decisions by the company that would negatively affect me or did not negatively affect my work environment.

I think that much of privacy/anonymity is about the negative consequences such knowledge would create if it is widely available. That’s not to say it is the only aspect, but it is the most troublesome. There is also, I believe, a human need to have a space that is one’s own, and a lack of privacy destroys the ability to feel like it’s yours.

Such knowledge doesn’t always have to be true or bad to negatively affect you.