Big Business Knows Us Too Well

Cthippo · 6 Jul 2007

Business Week Online said:

It has been more than two decades since 1984 and still we have no Big Brother. Even with the state-sponsored snooping that followed September 11, the idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing government is still far-fetched. Think of how easily Andrew Speaker, a man with a drug-resistant version of tuberculosis, was able to slip past alerted officials on the U.S.-Canadian border in May.

But before you relegate your well-thumbed Orwell to the conspiracy stack, keep a weather eye out for a related threat: Corporate America. Although the private sector can't take away your life and liberty the way that the public one can -- it's more Big Bother than Big Brother -- it can annoy and embarrass you, and rob you of some key rights just the same.

Large companies are an ever-increasing threat to individual privacy because many of them are in the business of selling information, and our personal data is a valuable commodity. Computer makers, media corporations, and telecommunication giants are assuming new roles as infomediaries, making money not only from providing information to consumers but also selling information about consumers.

Consider the Evidence

The scope of privacy abuses only increases as more personal information comes under the control of Corporate America and companies use that data for internal marketing, sales to third parties, or by acting as an ad hoc regulator for a business partner.

Consider Exhibit A, Exhibit G, and Exhibit T: Apple, Google, and AT&T.

As Apple (NasdaqGS:AAPL - News) changes from a computer hardware to a media sales company, it is amassing ever more valuable consumer data. The company hasn't shown a strong predilection toward protection of consumer privacy, especially when it comes to the wishes of well-heeled industrial partners -- notably the music industry -- whose interests are often inimical to those of Apple's end users.

In February, Chief Executive Steve Jobs published a memo called "Thoughts on Music" that advocated discontinuing the copyright-protection software that limits what users can do with music purchased from Apple's iTunes digital music store. Not long afterward, Jobs announced that, thanks to a deal with British music publisher EMI (AMEX:EMI - News), Apple would indeed begin offering unprotected music from the online iTunes store. But soon after the release of these songs, advocacy groups discovered that buyers' names and e-mail addresses were hidden in the music downloads.

An Abuse of Trust?

I don't see the inclusion of a name and e-mail into a purchased song as a huge privacy intrusion, especially considering the song is supposed to be used only in your own digital environment. Yet the episode does call to mind scarier future scenarios in which Apple might take a more active role in helping big media stop piracy.

We Mac users have been trusting Apple with our personal information for years, giving them registration information when we bought a computer or an iPod, financial information when we wanted to buy an iTunes song, and computer configuration and document data when we used the .mac service. We have always trusted Apple, and for them to abuse our faith in this way is disturbing, to say the least.

Apple knows little about us compared with its Silicon Valley neighbor Google (NasdaqGS:GOOG - News). The master of Web search gleans a great deal of data on users based on how they search and surf online. And what Google does with that information could put privacy in jeopardy, says Britain's Privacy International. In its annual privacy ranking report, the advocacy group dropped Google into the lowest possible category, reserved for those companies with "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."

Google Has Its Eye on You

Why does don't-be-evil Google merit such a lousy ranking? For the same reason so many privacy advocates and reporters watch it like a hawk: What it might do. Google is ranked at the bottom because it has the potential to do great evil against consumers and has been reluctant to make a meaningful commitment to consumer privacy.

Case in point: The company's new Street View feature that incorporates high-resolution drive-by photography into Google Earth and Google Maps features. The pictures are so detailed you can read license plates, see girls sunbathing, or watch men going into an adult store. Useful? Perhaps. Scary? You bet.

Which brings me to AT&T, a company with a long history of anticonsumer behavior, especially when it comes to privacy. The telecommunications provider cooperated with the National Security Agency in possibly illegal spying, and it's the target of an EFF class-action lawsuit alleging that it gave the NSA unrestricted access to the phone calls and Internet communications of millions of Americans.

Nothing to Hide

This month AT&T (NYSE:T - News) announced it would be developing a technology that would scour its networks for pirated content, assisting the entertainment industry in finding, stopping, and punishing illegal music and video copying. It's hard to believe AT&T can carry out this bold plan without violating our privacy.

Apple, Google, AT&T -- all are among new Nanny Corporations. These are information companies that believe they have the right, if not the obligation, to snoop through your e-mail, show everyone what your house looks like from the street, and catch you if you infringe a music company's copyright.

Such corporate privacy violations are different from governmental ones because of the immediacy of the consequences. When a government attacks our privacy, it's often carried out over time. But information companies move much faster. Not only do they invade our privacy, but by operating in a legal and sometimes ethical vacuum, they apparently feel justified in doing so, whether it's purportedly for our own, their own, or someone else's own good.

Brings Back Memories

Whenever I hear one of these stories about a snoopy company, I feel like I did when I was 15 and found out that my parents were listening to my phone calls or rifling through my sock drawer to see if I'd discovered pot yet.

If Apple wants to sell me DRM-free music, fine. It's my choice to pay the surcharge if I want. But it has to be an informed choice. If Google wants to be as cool as it thinks it is, it will make a public commitment to protect my privacy instead of engaging in surveillance that, if carried out by a person, would be considered stalking.

As for AT&T, it's planning the electronic equivalent of Marriott (NYSE:MAR - News) searching my room and luggage to see if I stole ketchup packets from McDonald's. I wouldn't accept that behavior from the hotel where I sleep and I shouldn't have to take it from the company that connects my calls.
Click to expand...

Firehed · 6 Jul 2007

An interesting view that I find a little bit flawed, at least in the case of Google. AT&T's description is probably spot on, but then again they're a much older company with an accompanying much older business model. Google certainly data mines like no other (well, besides Amazon), but I don't think we've yet to see any real evidence that this is being used anywhere other than internally. If they can cobble together my search history and better target ads, it's really better for everyone all around - they get more ad revenue, as do the sites I frequent. I find deals that might be better on products I'm already interested in, or find alternatives or new ideas (along the lines of Amazon's product recommendations).

At the end of the day, it's really just wise business decisions (read up on CRM), at least until third parties get involved. Once that happens, all bets are off.

Log in or Sign up

Big Business Knows Us Too Well

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Big Business Knows Us Too Well

Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

Share This Page

Useful Searches