Internet monitoring: ethical?

[igotrhythm]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

A certain amount of monitoring is essential for internet service providers to cover their asses. If they see someone is using their services to perform illegal activities (torrenting copyrighted material being the most obvious example), then they are on the front lines to stop it and deny future service to the customer, as well as hand over records of the illegal activity to the authorities as evidence. They provide an important service to their customers, and as such the ISP companies have a responsibility to ensure that their customers use their services in accordance with their end user license agreements. (Even though no end-user actually takes the time to read them since it's in so much legalese.)

So let's take this tack: Any amount of monitoring is a bad thing. If so, then we can't have our browser remember our password--that's a security risk! We can't have Google suggesting things for us as that uses tracking cookies. We can't have Facebook suggesting people to add to our friends list and pages to follow because it sees what we're interested in and comes up with others along similar lines. We can't even have FFR remember what our favorite settings are--again, cookies.

So you see, a certain amount of tracking is necessary and useful to the smooth functioning of a person's relationship with the Internet. There does, of course, come a point where tracking gets excessive and invasive, and this is where I think the trouble starts with ethical, moral and legal arguments over where exactly that border should exist.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by igotrhythm

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

A certain amount of monitoring is essential for internet service providers to cover their asses. If they see someone is using their services to perform illegal activities (torrenting copyrighted material being the most obvious example), then they are on the front lines to stop it and deny future service to the customer, as well as hand over records of the illegal activity to the authorities as evidence. They provide an important service to their customers, and as such the ISP companies have a responsibility to ensure that their customers use their services in accordance with their end user license agreements. (Even though no end-user actually takes the time to read them since it's in so much legalese.)

So let's take this tack: Any amount of monitoring is a bad thing. If so, then we can't have our browser remember our password--that's a security risk! We can't have Google suggesting things for us as that uses tracking cookies. We can't have Facebook suggesting people to add to our friends list and pages to follow because it sees what we're interested in and comes up with others along similar lines. We can't even have FFR remember what our favorite settings are--again, cookies.

There's a big difference here, though, and it doesn't boil down to a spectrum-style argument of "how much?"

It's much, much, much, much harder to offer a legitimate explanation as to why you were downloading illegal shit vs. giving an explanation for why you decided to Google "how does chloroform work" one day. The former is a very clear-cut illegal activity, whereas the latter is just a data point that isn't illegal in itself, but can be abused.

The problem is data mining. With enough data you can pretty much find any relationship that you want. For example, if I look at enough sets of data (in general -- just any arbitrary sets of data from anything you can think of), I can find something that has accurately predicted every single Presidential election, to date. Of course, that sort of thing will come up by chance alone with sufficient data, and the relationship won't actually exist when you look at the probabilities on-margin going forward.

In other words, if I were to know every single bit of information about your life, I can find and string together whatever bits and pieces I want in order to support the narrative I wish to push forward, no matter how circumstantial the evidence may be.

And so by allowing third parties to milk your data, you're granting them the power to fuck with you if they see fit.

[Dynam0]

On some level, privacy is a must in order to have any sense of dignity.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

The problem is data mining.

This is grounds for a much more interesting discussion imo. With the incredible volume of information there is on the internet, it's so easy to come up with conspiracies and basically any 'narrative' as you see fit. Issues like climate change for instance will constantly be debated since there are vast amounts of supporting evidence for either side. Obviously there is more credibility from one side but let's not get into that. Point is, it will be interesting to see how the digital era will play out in creating a damaging image of government.

[DossarLX ODI]

How does it not make sense?

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

And so by allowing third parties to milk your data, you're granting them the power to fuck with you if they see fit.

Anyone who gets a hold of your data can twist it any way they want if it will give them an advantage.

[infinity.]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

How does it not make sense?



Anyone who gets a hold of your data can twist it any way they want if it will give them an advantage.

mostly because utilitarianism is an ethic

and because when a maxim is willed in such a way that is believed to have the greatest overall benefit i have a hard time seeing that as greed or power but more as a protection and a governing body's duty.