When reading how companies track Internet users' online activity, I think it strikes an eerie feeling into a lot of people's minds, including my own, especially when people believe that deleting their search history can wipe out any track or trace of what they have browsed and searched for. As an avid Internet user, I do feel that this practice is unnecessary because I would rather my activity to be kept private.
According to the article by Julia Angwin, "The information that companies gather is anonymous, in the sense that Internet users are identified by a number assigned to their computer, not by a specific person's name." I feel that, unless the FBI was watching my every move for criminal reasons, I'd feel that this was an unethical way for other companies to make some profit.
In another sense, I wouldn't completely call it an invasion of privacy, but more of a Peeping Tom-like tactic where the Internet user is exposed and can be seen from a distance even though the watcher has not violated their "jurisdiction." Angwin says that, "Lotame, for instance, says it doesn't know the name of users, only their behavior and attributes, identified by code number. People who don't want to be tracked can remove themselves from Lotame's system."
In other words, these companies are not trespassing but merely watching you through an "open window." It does make me feel a little safer because companies like Lotame are unable to discover a person's name, but anytime someone is being watched and doesn't know it, a strange feeling of creepiness begins to settle on the surface.
Angwin adds that tracking isn't new, but the technology is growing so powerful and ubiquitous that even some of America's biggest sites say they were unaware, until informed by the Journal, that they were installing intrusive files on visitors' computers. I disagree with this sentiment because I feel that companies always attempt to cover up the fact they like to spy on users. The files don't get put on visitor's computers out of nowhere, so that must mean there is a cyberhacker of some sort in these companies who secretly creates these decoders and such.
As for the Big Brother effect, I'd only want websites that I visit daily to track any activity of mines, like ESPN, but I'd only want them to track my responses on articles, videos, or any other form of media they offer. I wouldn't want them keeping personal records of who I "might be" or what I "might like" but to merely get a feel of my taste in sports. That's one way I'd appreciate a website for looking out for me. For example, if I posted a comment on ESPN.com saying that ESPN needs to include videos with better resolution, then I would be ok if they tracked or reviewed my comment and made the neccessary adjustments for the betterment of the site.
All in all, I guess it just depends.
The peeping Tom analysis is very clever and brings up a good point. Like you said, we are identified by a number, not our names. And while they do know quite a bit about us, they really know quite a bit about our computers. Multiple people using the same computer, for example, makes it impossible to tie most given clicks to any individual person.
ReplyDeleteAgree that the Peeping Tom comparison is quite interesting - perhaps what we will see evolve is a new definition of - or variation of - what it means to be "private." Certainly, in public life, you are allowed to photograph others through their windows if you are doing so from a public street. And, as you argue here, perhaps corporate tracking online isn't so different.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about your peeping Tom idea, I kept thinking that it is akin to clouded glass. They know where you are, but cannot make out your face. Nice idea!
ReplyDelete