From: Karee Swift (karee@tstonramp.com)
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 17:51:35 PDT
--- In fork@egroups.com, Kent Spaulding <kents@t...> wrote:
> What does the SUV example have to do with privacy issues? This is
a very different
> issue than allowing advertizing to intrude into all parts of our
lives... be it
> targeted or otherwise.
The SUV example does make sense. They're arguing that people negate
privacy for conveinience. Much as they will give up environmental
welfare to drive SUV's .. Its convenience and comfort. What they
will do however, is bitch about the lack of security, or bitch about
the polluting effects of SUV's , but are extremely reclient to give
those things up for those reasons. THey want the manufactuer to
build in the convenience and comfort into the thing they're crying
for. Here's how I see it: If the manufactuers of software, made
privacy a top priority and built it in, people wouldn't have to
complain. Its done for them, they don't need to put any effort into
securing their personal privacy. Since there is effort, and since
people would rather go to the website with the pretty pictures, or
order the nifty item online, they give up their privacy, and start
bitching when bad things happen (tm). Its laziness, and I fall prey
to it too. I think thats the main crux of what the article was going
after, and the SUV example holds. If they made SUVS just as powerful
and pretty and comfortable , but made them with a more efficent fuel
source, people would flock to them. Since they don't, they'll still
buy the SUVs and bitch about the shitty milage and polluting effects
to the environment.
-BB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 17:56:35 PDT