[LINK] Another phone tracking story

[Steven Clark]

On 25/04/11 09:35, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-tracking.html
>
> the end of the article makes an interesting observation:
>
> The government prohibits telephone companies from sharing customer 
> data, including location information, with outside parties without 
> first getting the customer's consent. But ****those rules don't apply 
> to Apple and other phone makers.**** Nor do they apply to the new 
> ecosystem of mobile services offered through those apps made by 
> third-party developers.
this is a major problem of the piecemeal approach to privacy - and
regulation (of technology) in general ...

> What's more, because those rules were written for old-fashioned 
> telephone service, it's ***unclear whether they apply to mobile 
> broadband service at all*** - even for wireless carriers that are 
> also traditional phone companies, like AT&T Inc. and Verizon.
again, piecemeal leaves open many gates.

> Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade 
> Commission have said they are looking into the issue. But for now, 
> it's up to smartphone users to decide: Is it privacy they are most 
> concerned about, or convenience?
this assumes that endusers get that choice. android and ios both retain
data that could be used to backtrack phone locations. no indication yet
whether symbion does, but it's probable it does. the opportunities such
data affords to 'app developers' alone makes it worthwhile - apple (and
others) with control over the tranche of data can sell access to the
data that's *already* available, but is sequestered - and that
sequestration is (r)enforced by 'privacy' laws [which in practice
operate as 'data value' laws: much of the value of such data lies in it
only being available form *one* source, with *one* entity as the
gatekeeper.]

we don't get to choose between privacy and convenience. convenience is
what is on offer, privacy is an afterthought - and increasingly one
that's more of a marketing positional 'configuration option' than a
serious architectural - more symbolic than substantial.

casting privacy as some kind of 'consumer choice' issue about 'sharing
data' sidelines privacy as something that only prudes and paranoids
bleat about ... there is far, far too much money to be 'made' through
aggregation and manipulation of data about 'consumers' for any serious
corporation to blithely pass over.

facebook is 'valued' at ~us$50BILLION by people who can see potential
return on that investment form the vast collections of personal
information fb has amassed - a far greater planetary population sample
than any government - even the usa - possesses.

'consumers' only get to consume. we're not 'deciders' or 'partners' in
this world view :( we don't get a say in what is available for us to
choose between - which is a significant flaw in a lot of economic
modelling of producer-consumer relationships. we have some say over what
we choose to buy - dependent upon supply, and affordability. [we're
increasingly getting *less* say in *how* we use things we consume, and
for *what*.]

*data* is more important than we are. look at where the investment in
time, capital, and regulation lies ... the bulk of 'privacy' law focuses
on about data, not people...

while there is a lot of bashing of apple, they've managed to more
successfully capture userbase value than perhaps any other tech company
(perhaps even than facebook) through usable, useful devices tied to a
tightly controlled marketplace of extensions and media. that control
allows apple to extract significant rents from other parties seeking
access. this is the holy grail of market dominance. they have an
effective monopoly over their userbase: for others to 'compete', they
must pay apple to enter.

but then, this is the same model microsoft uses ...

-- 
Steven