|
|
|
| Authored by: coats on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Some of us still are keeping Cisco on our "don't buy" lists. The basic idea
behind the "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus" legal principle is that if they
did it once they may well do it again. They've poisoned the well of trust.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
... is the way that, in the age of "Big Data", we have all made a seamless
transition from being "valued customers" to being exploitable commodities whose
only purpose in life is to act as a transitory conduit of wealth as we pass it
from one corporation(our employer) to other corporations (everyone else).
IMHO, whilst it's not unreasonable to call out Cisco for this
disgraceful act, there are many, many more out there too. But perhaps the most
scary part is that a growing brand of "law enforcement" and vaguely
government-aligned organisations all seem to be able to demand the right to
access data from private companies.
Although many people today are
comfortable with technology, few of us [I include myself with the majority in
this second example] can truly say that we understand or know just how visible
we are thanks to "Big Data"?
Our Credit Card companies know our
spending habits so well that if we use a different store for groceries, or buy
something unexpected, we'll get a phone call.
Our browsers carry so
many "bits" of information that even with AdblockPlus, BetterPrivacy and the
like, we can still be tracked. (If you are running Firefox, check out the
plug-in "Collusion" and scare yourself witless).
Our cell providers
know our contacts, our movements, our spending habits.
We might wonder
why there are so few voices speaking out against this ceaseless erosion of
privacy [and perhaps a similar erosion of personal freedoms]. I certainly can't
claim to know the answer to that question.
What I do know [because
details have been published] is the incredible surge in governmental requests
for data from these private data trawling organisations. So maybe the reason
that we don't see governments seeking to limit, license or legislate the
activities of "Big Data" agencies is because it's too convenient. Maybe
government has realised that they can outsource a comprehensive domestic spying
program [which their targets willingly subscribe to] because it's easier to get
companies to pay for the infrastructure so all government has to do is sit back
and issue subpoenas and gagging orders?
"Get a stingy discount when you
shop with us!" [Just give away all your personal shopping habits]...
"3
months free when you take out Internet Package!" [We'll just spy on you, and
sell your data to other people].
"Pay by credit card, and earn
point..." [ Because we've got a deal with your card provider to get lots of
juicy data on your spending habits ].
And on, and on...
And
though we might think governments have lost interest in giving themselves more
powers to spy on us, we'd be wrong. Very wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
