Tag Archives: privacy

Things I Learned this Week

Among the things I learned this week:

* The US Open is fun, as are any of these events-as-parties-if-you-have-the-correct-ticket things such as the Preakness (alternatively, I just like wearing seersucker). Also, Congressional Country Club members intensely dislike Tiger Woods, all the while being super kind hosts. (Courtesy: Congressional Country Club)

* Social sites are mined by background check companies, the records of which may be kept for seven years according to the Federal Trade Commission based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This is neither surprising nor unexpected and fits nicely with my counter to people who say that they post nothing on social networking sites that matter: But how do you know it won’t matter in the future? In any event, I could not find any articles that clearly explained and explored the FTC decision, but this Wall Street Journal blog post is more or less all that is out there. (Courtesy: WSJ)

* I am surprisingly excited to play putt-putt golf this weekend as part of a friend’s birthday festivities. I haven’t played in years. (Courtesy: HD)

* Collabtive, at least on first install and play around, is a nice albeit basic project management tool. I’m using it for a specific set of projects I’m working. (Courtesy: Collabtive)

Beating a Dead Horse: NYT Article on Collecting Phone Data to Track Public Services is a Press Release

A June 6, 2011, article by Joshua Brustein in The New York Times read as a press release for the private corporations wanting to use cell phone data to monitor and track public services. The article outlines companies that want to collect and data mine behavioral information from cell phones that have those companies’ apps. For example, you have the FPrivacy app by LastLaugh, Inc., and LastLaugh collects your cell phone location and activity, and then uses that data to monitor travel times between different points (e.g., traffic reports, determining when a given subway train will reach its destination). While the idea is interesting, the article essentially regurgitates company press releases and fails to look critically at the idea in at least three simple areas: the role of the public sector, alternative ideas, and privacy. In the eyes of the Facebook generation, an even graver mistake is that it is old news!

Missing Item 1: Where is Local Government?
The article did not even tease the reader with the notion that the local government, through the various agencies that manage public transportation, ought to be providing services that increase our understanding of public transportation, including when to expect the next train. The combination of the right’s dismissal of government having a legitimate place in our lives and the left’s inability to firmly push government agencies to smartly and quickly adopt useful technologies means that we do not think of the government as being an appropriate actor for these types of initiatives.

Missing Item 2: Alternative Ideas
Somewhat related to Missing Item 1 is the fact that the article fails to suggest alternative ideas, whether those ideas are real or on e-ink. Furthermore, we have an incredibly inelegant solution (for these types of problems) in the use of tens of thousands of cell phones as data collectors. For example, there is a significant imputation problem in that for many commutes, “the system” has to make a(n educated) guess about which train or mode of transportation the phone took. Even the article mentions this:

If a phone located near Times Square suddenly loses service and reconnects at Prince Street and Broadway 15 minutes later, then it has almost certainly traveled there using the N or R trains.

A specific cut at this imputation issue is the fact that the approach aggregates very general/inexact data when what is desired is very precise data. This is because what matters is not the activity of an individual psuedo-anonymous cell phone, but the activity of an individual known public transportation vehicle. As a result, the data demands a host of assumptions that fight against the wall of ecological fallacies and other methodological issues.

An alternative idea is to simply equip public transportation vehicles with tracking equipment. At that point, the most precise data possible is collected and aggregating up to more general levels becomes easier. Furthermore, there are no privacy concerns. Even better, many public transportation systems already have this capability!

Missing Item 3: Privacy
Okay, privacy is mentioned, but only in the final sentence of the article:

This could be a challenge, as it is clear that many people are uncomfortable with technology companies or government agencies tracking their every move.

Perhaps I should be thankful, since Brustein finally brings the public sector into the discussion. Instead, though, I ask myself, “That’s it?” The article talks about (admittedly, opt-in) methods for tracking every location and travel route a person’s cell phone takes, as well as every conversation one has*, but the only love privacy is shown is a single sentence that reads as if it was written by a junior-high student.

* One company wants to use phones’ microphones to identify locational atmospherics, a method that is smeared with a smile by phrasing it as a way to determine whether you are on a bus.

Consumer Privacy And Inane Data Collection

Yesterday, I picked up a couple items from the local Bed, Bath, and Beyond. As most companies do now, they asked me for my zip code. As I do now, I told them no. Most of the time, the cashiers do not react much and either enter all zeros or the zip code the store is in. The person helping me this time, however, chuckled in a you’re-an-idiot sort of way and then made some jab as I was leaving. Oops, I’m so sorry for personally inconveniencing you–I know how that data personally helps you collect your well-deserved paycheck–and I am sorry for taking a stand against the continued encroachment on personal privacy!

Today, I made another stop at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, to return an item I bought the day before. While doing my exchange, the cashier asked me for my name. I asked her why and she said it was part of the exchange policy. What makes this unusually strange is that I paid in cash, so there is no need to check the name I tell her with the name on the card used. I gave her a fake name (John Smith) and there were no problems. So why bother asking for a name for a return? Especially if you are not checking to ensure it is legit?

I intensely dislike this nonsense.