Are new technologies sacrificing privacy?是新技术而牺牲隐私？

Are companies being fair with what they do with the data they collect. 是公司被公平与他们做什么，与所收集的资料。 If they aren’t, then we need some rules in place. 如果他们不是，那么我们需要有一些规则到位。

Patrick Thibodeau帕特里克thibodeau

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), gives his take on how young people view privacy and discusses the privacy ramifications of shopping courtesy cards, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and bar-coded driver’s licenses.马克rotenberg ，执行董事，电子隐私信息中心（ EPIC ）的，但他采取对青少年如何查看隐私，并讨论了隐私权的影响商场礼貌卡，无线射频识别（ RFID ）标签和条形码驾驶执照。

Some privacy advocates argue that the younger generation of Internet users — the Facebook and MySpace users — are less guarded about data privacy. 一些隐私倡导者认为，年轻一代的互联网用户-在F acebook和M ySpace用户-警惕性较低有关资料私隐。 Is this younger generation in the vanguard of a new way of thinking about privacy, or are they just naïve? 这是年轻一代的先锋队一种新的思维方式有关隐私的，或者他们只是天真？

Younger people today have a different way of thinking about privacy.年轻的人，今天有一个不同的思维方式有关隐私的事情。 I think it’sa mistake to believe that they value privacy less [than other users do].我认为这是错误的，相信他们的价值隐私少[比其他用户做] 。 And in many respects, that’s actually the experience we’ve often had in this country: notions of privacy evolve based on what technology makes possible.而且在许多方面，这实际上是经验，我们往往在这个国家：观念的隐私演变基于技术创造可能。 But I think the mistake that people sometimes make is to believe that because kids have a different expectation of privacy, somehow it’sa diminished expectation.不过，我觉得错的人，有时是相信这一说法，因为孩子们有不同的期望，隐私，这在某种程度上削弱了期望。

Do you think, though, that young users are sharing more information about themselves in public environments than they should be? 你认为，虽然年轻用户分享更多的信息，在公共环境比他们要？

I think the interesting issue, and where the privacy debate begins, is when the information that they make available to their friends — for example, on a social network site — is gathered surreptitiously and used for marketing purposes.我觉得有趣的问题，并在其隐私辩论开始之际，是当资料，他们提供给他们的朋友-例如，对一个社会性网络站点-聚集诡秘，并用于商业用途。 And there, I think there really is a [valid] debate about whether people, and kids in particular, understand what’s going on and if it’s really fair.因此，我认为有真正是一个[有效期]讨论是否人，和孩子们，尤其是明白是怎么回事，如果它的实质公平。

The courtesy cards that retailers issue to customers to qualify for discounts can be used to record everything that someone like me buys. 出于礼貌卡零售商问题，以客户的资格折扣，可以用来记录每件事有人像我一样买。 How can that information be used? 如何才能将这些资料用于？ And as a consumer, should I worry about it? 作为一个消费者，我应该担心吗？

I generally think that being worried is a helpful way to talk about privacy.我大致认为，目前担心的是一个有用的方式谈论的隐私。 In terms of how businesses collect and use personal information, the right approach is really to ask the question, “Are companies being fair with what they do with the data they collect?” If they aren’t, then we need some rules in place.无论在企业如何收集和使用个人信息，正确的做法是真的想问问题， "是公司的公平与他们做什么，与他们收集到的信息？ ： "如果他们不是，那么我们需要有一些规则到位。

Do you think that retailers are being fair about how they use the purchasing information they collect? 你认为零售商是否公平，如何利用采购信息收集？

I think it’sa very serious issue.我认为这是非常严重的问题。 One of the big paradoxes about privacy is that the companies that collect and use so much information about consumers tend to be very secretive about their own practices, and as a result, it’s just very difficult for people to really know what’s happening to the data that is provided to [the companies].其中一个大的悖论关于隐私的是，该公司收集和使用了这么多的信息，消费者也往往是很神秘的对自己的做法，因此，这只是个很困难的人真正知道究竟发生了该数据是提供给[公司] 。 So typically, when we talk about privacy laws, one of the main things we’re arguing for is simply making companies more accountable in the collection and use of data that they collect.所以通常情况下，当我们谈论的隐私法，其中一个主要的东西，我们正在争取的，只是使公司更负责任，在数据的收集和使用他们搜集。

At an IBM conference that I was at recently, the ID badges for attendees included RFID tags that automatically tracked what sessions people attended. 在IBM的招待会上说，我是在最近，身分证，出席者包括RFID标签的自动跟踪什么届人出席了会议。 IBM’s conference organizers had a reasonable explanation: instead of scanning people’s badges as they went into sessions, they just RFID’ed them. IBM的会议组织者进行了合理的解释：不是扫描人的胸卡，因为他们走进会议，他们只rfid'ed他们。 But where can this all go if things like driver’s licenses or library cards get RFID tags? 但是，在哪里可以这都去，如果事情如驾照或图书证，得到RFID标签？

Your story is very interesting, and in fact, [IBM’s] analogy is imperfect.你的故事是很有趣的问题，但事实上， [ IBM的]比喻是不完美的。 When you scan a card, there’sa moment when the card is removed, it’s turned over to a reader and the person is aware of the fact that the card is being read.当你扫描卡，还有的时候，卡移走后，它的转交给了读者和网站负责人是知道的事实，那就是卡正在阅读。 The problem, of course, with an RFID tag is that it can be read at any time by anyone who is in possession of a reader — whether or not the person knows that their card is being scanned.这个问题，当然，随着RFID标签是，它可以阅读，在任何时候任何人士藏有一个读者-有没有人知道他们的卡是被扫描。 And this is precisely the debate we are having right now with the Department of Homeland Security over many of the identity schemes.这也正是辩论中，我们有权利，现在与美国国土安全部的许多身份计划。

How do you think the DHS is going to use RFID tags? 你怎么想留宿准备使用RFID标签？

We know that they are adopting a standard that a lot of people, not only in the privacy community but also in the security community, are not very happy about.我们知道他们正采取一种标准，很多人，不仅在社会上的隐私，而且在安全共同体，是不是感到非常高兴。 It’s the so-called vicinity read or contactless read RFID tag.它的那些所谓附近阅读或接触式阅读RFID标签。 It’s designed precisely to prevent the ability of people to know when the data on the tag is being read.它的设计正是为了防止能力的人，知道什么时候该数据对标签正在阅读。 That violates a central principal of [personal] security, and that is basic access control — you want people to know when information about them is being requested by others, if for no other reason than to be able to make sure that it’s being requested for an appropriate purpose and not a purpose that might create a problem.违反中央校长[个人]安全，这是最基本的访问控制-你想要让民众知道的时候，有关他们的资料是被要求别人，如果没有其他原因，而不是能确保它的正要求一个合适的宗旨和不是目的，这可能会造成一个问题。

Comment on 'Are new technologies sacrificing privacy?' : 评论'是新技术而牺牲隐私吗？ ' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相关新闻：