θεοῖς σωτῆρσιν ἔθυον καὶ ἀναθήματα ἀνέθηκα

θεοῖς σωτῆρσιν ἔθυον καὶ ἀναθήματα ἀνέθηκα
θεοῖς σωτῆρσιν ἔθυον καὶ ἀναθήματα ἀνέθηκα

NOT IN THIS "NEW GREECE" - ΟΧΙ ΣΕ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΤΗΝ "ΝΕΑ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ"

NOT IN THIS "NEW GREECE"  - ΟΧΙ ΣΕ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΤΗΝ "ΝΕΑ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ"
NOT IN THIS "NEW GREECE" - ΟΧΙ ΣΕ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΤΗΝ "ΝΕΑ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ"

Monday, May 15, 2017

Η ΙΔΙΩΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ θα γίνει αγαθό μόνο για τους πλούσιους και τους ισχυρούς;

Will Privacy Become A Commodity Only For The Rich And Powerful?


 
Η προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων, η ιδιωτική και ψηφιακή ιδιωτικότητα έχουν συγχωνευθεί για να γίνουν μια μακρινή μνήμη για τις μάζες, έχουν όμως γίνει ένα προνομιούχο πλεονέκτημα για τους πλούσιους που μπορούν να πληρώσουν για να τα διατηρήσουν. Αυτός είναι ο πόλεμος της ψηφιακής κουλτούρας που αναπτύσσεται ανάμεσα σ' αυτούς «που έχουν» και σ' αυτούς «που δεν έχουν».
 

Personal and digital privacy have merged to become a distant memory for the masses, but has become a privileged asset for the rich who can pay to maintain them. This is digital culture war developing between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.  TN Editor
Recently I handed over the keys to my email account to a service that promised to turn my spam-bloated inbox into a sparkling model of efficiency in just a few clicks. Unroll.me’s method of instant unsubscribing from newsletters and junk mail was “trusted by millions of happy users,” the site said, among them the “Scandal” actor Joshua Malina, who tweeted in 2014: “Your inbox will sing!” Plus, it was free. When a privacy policy popped up, I swatted away the legalese and tapped “continue.”
Last month, the true cost of Unroll.me was revealed: The service is owned by the market-research firm Slice Intelligence, and according to a report in The Times, while Unroll.me is cleaning up users’ inboxes, it’s also rifling through their trash. When Slice found digital ride receipts from Lyft in some users’ accounts, it sold the anonymized data off to Lyft’s ride-hailing rival, Uber.
Suddenly, some of Unroll.me’s trusting users were no longer so happy. One user filed a class-action lawsuit. In a blog post, Unroll​.me’s chief executive, Jojo Hedaya, wrote that it was “heartbreaking to see that some of our users were upset to learn about how we monetize our free service.” He stressed “the importance of your privacy” and pledged to “do better.” But one of Unroll.me’s founders, Perri Chase, who is no longer with the company, took a different approach in her own post on the controversy. “Do you really care?” she wrote. “How exactly is this shocking?”
This Silicon Valley “good cop, bad cop” routine is familiar, and we spend our time surfing between these two modes of thought. Chase is right: We’ve come to understand that privacy is the currency of our online lives, paying for petty conveniences with bits of personal information. But we are blissfully ignorant of what that means. We don’t know what data is being bought and sold, because, well, that’s private. The evidence that flashes in front of our own eyes looks harmless enough: We search Google for a new pair of shoes, and for a time, sneakers follow us across the web, tempting us from every sidebar. But our information can also be used for matters of great public significance, in ways we’re barely capable of imagining.
When I signed up for Unroll.me, I couldn’t predict that my emails might be strategic documents for a power-hungry company in its quest for total road domination. Such privacy costs often become clear only after they’ve already been paid. Sometimes a private citizen is caught up in a viral moment and learns that a great deal of information about him or her exists online, just waiting to be splashed across the news — like the guy in the red sweater who, after asking a question in a presidential debate, had his Reddit porn comments revealed.
But our digital dossiers extend well beyond the individual pieces of information we know are online somewhere; they now include stuff about us that can be surmised only through studying our patterns of behavior. The psychologist and data scientist Michal Kosinski has found that seemingly mundane activity — like the brands and celebrities people “like” on Facebook — can be leveraged to reliably predict, among other things, intelligence, personality traits and politics. After our most recent presidential election, the company Cambridge Analytica boasted that its techniques were “instrumental in identifying supporters, persuading undecided voters and driving turnout to the polls” on Donald Trump’s behalf. All these little actions we think of as our “private” business are actually data points that can be aggregated and wielded to manipulate our world.
Years ago, in 2009, the law professor Paul Ohm warned that the growing dominance of Big Data could create a “database of ruin” that would someday connect all people to compromising information about their lives. “In the absence of intervention,” he later wrote, “soon companies will know things about us that we do not even know about ourselves.” Or as the social scientist and Times contributor Zeynep Tufekci said in a recent talk: “People can’t think like this: I didn’t disclose it, but it can be inferred about me.” When a peeping Tom looks between the blinds, it’s clear what has been revealed. But when a data firm cracks open our inboxes, we may never find out what it has learned.