| > In the real world, it's not your data, it's my memory. This is where there's been a divergence on thought. In the real world you have limited capabilities to collect and store the data that is currently being collected. You're physically limited in how much you can retain and retrieve. In your old timey example I assume the diary to be sitting there in the back of the shop just being a record of my name and what I bought, but that's not how a lot of data is being used or being collected online. The equivalent would be you making the diary automatically write down a potential unlimited amount of data on me and then using it to sell advertising the moment I enter the shop. If I went past your store and it automatically retrieved physical details about myself, what I'm wearing, my interests, hobbies, location and you then built a profile and then sold this information to advertisers there absolutely would be regulations regarding this in the real world. A better example: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23425297 Privacy limits
As retailers trial such tech they are well aware there is a risk of a privacy backlash. Clothes store Nordstrom recently cancelled a scheme which tracked customers' movements through its stores using their phones' wi-fi signals after complaints. "Are we willing to accept our everyday movements being monitored and analysed, not to keep us safe but purely to allow advertisers to target us? I think people will start to say no, our privacy is worth more than a few advertising dollars." -- You say shop with a diary to present the most innocent of examples but for every shop with a diary there's billions of stalkers following people everywhere they go to learn as much about them as possible in order to sell them products and influence how they think which they never agreed to. |