Perhaps I am obsessive about privacy. It seems likely that this is the case, based on the articles that I read about the world’s interest in things that I seriously consider to be none of their business. To no small degree, the recent hassle over non-profit organisations in the territory is a prime example.
The August issue of PC World, a relatively conservative computer magazine, published an article titled “Data Snatchers.”
“Make no mistake, your personal data isn’t your own,” the article begins. “When you update your Facebook page, ‘Like’ something on a website, apply for a credit card, click on an ad, listen to an MP3, or comment on a YouTube video, you are feeding a huge and growing beast with an insatiable appetite for your personal data, a beast that always craves more. Virtually every piece of personal information that you provide online (and much that you provide offline) will end up being bought and sold, segmented, packaged, analysed, repackaged and sold again.”
I find that both intrusive and frightening.
Yesterday, I transferred some funds from a savings account to a chequing account at a local bank. The teller, as she completed the transaction, asked me if I ever used the electronic banking systems that the bank has available. I responded in the negative and will admit to being horrified that any sane person would allow information on their personal finances to be available for public perusal on the Internet. I politely told the young lady that my personal information was private and that, within my limited ability, it was going to stay that way.
Information sources
The article goes on to list several sources of personal information. The industry that has developed now has a cash turnover certainly in the millions (and quite possibly in the billions) of dollars. And it is only going to get bigger as time goes on.
Recently, my credit card agency requested that I get in touch. An apparently fraudulent charge had shown up on my card. (A hint to hackers, if you are going to attack my card, at least make it at a store where I shop routinely, and make it for an odd amount: $99.95, perhaps, instead of $100.) But anyway, the end result was new credit cards for both my wife and myself and the inconvenience in changing all the accounts that maintain my credit card numbers so I don’t have to put them on the net each time I buy from them. I don’t know how the company picked up the bogus charge, but it was indeed a scam.
There are now companies (Albine is one) that can be used to block tracking efforts on the Internet. The programme is called Do Not Track Plus (DNT+). It is available for download.
It was bad enough when the election polls managed, prior to an election, to fairly accurately predict the probable result. As their accuracy improved, it became questionable why we bothered to go to the expense of having an election. Why not just apply the poll results?
With the upcoming United States elections, the data that are being gathered from all the various sources will most certainly be used to produce election policies that are “guaranteed” to appeal to a majority of the electorate. Whether such promises are applied after the election is another question. But there are gullible people born every minute, and broken election promises seem to have no effect on them.
Biwater
For example, the current government promised to take a serious look at Biwater SA and its contract. To date, action seems to be minimal, and we still have seen no water. Biwater would seem to be far into the penalty phase of at least the original contract. But the public goes on accepting the lack of action. The public is all too often found in the “ostrich mode:” If we ignore it long enough, maybe it will go away. By the way, if Biwater could not find any substantial supply of well water on site (no surprise there), where is the environmental impact assessment to allow it to build a water intake and transmission system to Paraquita Bay, presumably disrupting a protected mangrove area? Or do they have a special exemption?
The current government made much of the fact that only the 2008 audit had been submitted — and that it was neither debated nor published. And the excuses from the then-finance minister were frankly a bit weak. But now there are apparently audits available for 2009, 2010 and possibly 2011, and the public has heard exactly nothing about them.
Transparency
The National Democratic Party promised in the 2003 election campaign that, if elected, there would be a substantial increase in transparency in government. That lasted for a month or so, and quietly died.
The scenario repeated itself in the 2011 campaign. And now transparency in government is evidenced by the deputy premier’s suppression of the report on the runway extension options and quite possibly the one on the environmental impact assessment for the same project. It will be interesting to see how much we are told about the response to the request for prequalification of contractors and the financing sources for the project.
The same thing is true for the new cruise ship dock. Remember the statement, “If a thing seems too good to be true, it generally is.”
But this article started out on privacy, or the lack thereof. It seems that, if we value our privacy and do not wish to be controlled like a bunch of robots driven by an invasion of privacy, we are going to have to take a lot more action with a view towards protecting ourselves.