I’m currently reading Bruce Schneier’s book Data and Goliath, on which he argues that technology advances of recent years have sprouted unprecedented surveillance by both corporations and government and that these developments are highly detrimental to individual privacy.
The book has definitely changed my view on this subject, from “what is the problem, really?” to “this is outrageous!”. The problem, as I see it now, is that today’s invasion of privacy is largely invisible and has advanced by taking advantage of our vulnerabilities as a species.
I’m also writing this after having read through a couple of Privacy Policies for online services I use, to make an assessment of how much information I’m giving away. My feed reader’s (Feedly) privacy policy, at one point, surprised me with this:
Pixel Tags. In addition, we use “Pixel Tags” (also referred to as clear Gifs, Web beacons, or Web bugs). Pixel Tags are tiny graphic images with a unique identifier, similar in function to Cookies that are used to track online movements of Web users. In contrast to Cookies, which are stored on a user’s computer hard drive, Pixel Tags are embedded invisibly in Web pages. Pixel Tags also allow us to send e-mail messages in a format users can read, and they tell us whether e-mails have been opened to ensure that we are sending only messages that are of interest to our users. We may use this information to reduce or eliminate messages sent to a user. We do not tie the information gathered by Pixel Tags to our users’ personal information.
Basically, they insert a unique, invisible image, into email sent to you, that works as a read receipt the sender can use to measure engagement. You have no explicit option to send or not to send that receipt, even if you’d prefer to refuse the email (as you can with regular mail). Your email client might block the image but, even then, there is nothing telling you “The sender requires you to send a read receipt in order to access this content” but instead the more obscure “Images have been blocked, to show images click here”.
A quick search for “Pixel Tags” lead me to this 2011 article where the author (arguing for the harmlessness of pixel tags) writes:
From “junk” mail to commercials you have to sit through before your favorite TV drama returns, advertising is something people love to hate, or at least complain about. But this attitude clashes with the reality of our actions. We may not admit it or be aware of it, but in general, we like advertising; if we didn’t, we wouldn’t buy things someone advertised to us.
In part, I understand the author’s point that targeted advertising is more useful than generic advertising. However, the argument completely misses the point that advertising’s direct goal is to sell and not necessarily serve the customer’s need. What I mean by this is that the line between simple advertising and manipulation is blurry. Someone who has intimate knowledge of my tastes is much better positioned to convince me to spend my money, even against my own well-being. Here’s a quote, from no retailer, ever:
We’ve blocked access to our store because our data says you’re spending way beyond your financial means.
Of course this doesn’t mean that retailers are evil, it simply means they will try to convince you to buy at every turn because it’s in their best interests while, on the other hand, your overall well-being has no concrete impact on their bottom line.
Schneier’s book is definitely an interesting read that has changed my view on online privacy (or lack thereof) and its implications. I will also continue to investigate my online footprint, which might be foundation of a future post.
