No, the equivalent is you walking into a store to buy DVDs, and the store manager keeping a record of what sells well, and what you show interest in, etc. to drive decisions about what to stock next.
> It makes any "video tape service provider" that discloses rental [or sale] information outside the ordinary course of business liable for up to $2500 in actual damages.
It's crazy, we understand that libraries should be barred from handing over our book checkout histories but somehow we allow corporations to do that and much more.
... and then cross-referencing your purchase with everything else you ever purchased. And also every article you ever read. And then selling that information to others.
... and claiming it's not a privacy violation because they don't let the others search for martingoodson, they just offer selection criteria including your age, gender, geographical location, inferred income, inferred religion, inferred skin color, and of course interests.
That analogy only works if its only the store manager keeping the records. Whats really happening is the store manager is outsouring his record keeping to a 3rd party who has full access to the data from his store and data from millions of other stores too.
- the user didn't leave his home
- he has an 'expectation of privacy' because the tracking is covert
- he can't go to a different 'store'... the same covert tracking is in all of them pooling the information
No, the equivalent is you walking into a store to buy DVDs, and the store manager of a nearby store keeping a record of what sells well, and what you show interest in, etc. to drive decisions about what to stock next.
> It makes any "video tape service provider" that discloses rental [or sale] information outside the ordinary course of business liable for up to $2500 in actual damages.