Are new technologies sacrificing privacy?是新技術而犧牲隱私？

Are companies being fair with what they do with the data they collect. 是公司被公平與他們做什麼，與所收集的資料。 If they aren’t, then we need some rules in place. 如果他們不是，那麼我們需要有一些規則到位。

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.馬克rotenberg ，執行董事，電子隱私信息中心（ EPIC ）的，但他採取對青少年如何查看隱私，並討論了隱私權的影響商場禮貌卡，無線射頻識別（ RFID ）標籤和條形碼駕駛執照。

Some privacy advocates argue that the younger generation of Internet users — the Facebook and MySpace users — are less guarded about data privacy. 一些隱私倡導者認為，年輕一代的互聯網用戶-在F acebook和M ySpace用戶-警惕性較低有關資料私隱。 Is this younger generation in the vanguard of a new way of thinking about privacy, or are they just naïve? 這是年輕一代的先鋒隊一種新的思維方式有關隱私的，或者他們只是天真？

Younger people today have a different way of thinking about privacy.年輕的人，今天有一個不同的思維方式有關隱私的事情。 I think it’sa mistake to believe that they value privacy less [than other users do].我認為這是錯誤的，相信他們的價值隱私少[比其他用戶做] 。 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.而且在許多方面，這實際上是經驗，我們往往在這個國家：觀念的隱私演變基於技術創造可能。 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.不過，我覺得錯的人，有時是相信這一說法，因為孩子們有不同的期望，隱私，這在某種程度上削弱了期望。

Do you think, though, that young users are sharing more information about themselves in public environments than they should be? 你認為，雖然年輕用戶分享更多的信息，在公共環境比他們要？

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.我覺得有趣的問題，並在其隱私辯論開始之際，是當資料，他們提供給他們的朋友-例如，對一個社會性網絡站點-聚集詭秘，並用於商業用途。 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，我認為有真正是一個[有效期]討論是否人，和孩子們，尤其是明白是怎麼回事，如果它的實質公平。

The courtesy cards that retailers issue to customers to qualify for discounts can be used to record everything that someone like me buys. 出於禮貌卡零售商問題，以客戶的資格折扣，可以用來記錄每件事有人像我一樣買。 How can that information be used? 如何才能將這些資料用於？ And as a consumer, should I worry about it? 作為一個消費者，我應該擔心嗎？

I generally think that being worried is a helpful way to talk about privacy.我大致認為，目前擔心的是一個有用的方式談論的隱私。 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.無論在企業如何收集和使用個人信息，正確的做法是真的想問問題， "是公司的公平與他們做什麼，與他們收集到的信息？ ： "如果他們不是，那麼我們需要有一些規則到位。

Do you think that retailers are being fair about how they use the purchasing information they collect? 你認為零售商是否公平，如何利用採購信息收集？

I think it’sa very serious issue.我認為這是非常嚴重的問題。 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].其中一個大的悖論關於隱私的是，該公司收集和使用了這麼多的信息，消費者也往往是很神秘的對自己的做法，因此，這只是個很困難的人真正知道究竟發生了該數據是提供給[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.所以通常情況下，當我們談論的隱私法，其中一個主要的東西，我們正在爭取的，只是使公司更負責任，在數據的收集和使用他們蒐集。

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的招待會上說，我是在最近，身分證，出席者包括RFID標籤的自動跟踪什麼屆人出席了會議。 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的會議組織者進行了合理的解釋：不是掃描人的胸卡，因為他們走進會議，他們只rfid'ed他們。 But where can this all go if things like driver’s licenses or library cards get RFID tags? 但是，在哪裡可以這都去，如果事情如駕照或圖書證，得到RFID標籤？

Your story is very interesting, and in fact, [IBM’s] analogy is imperfect.你的故事是很有趣的問題，但事實上， [ 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.當你掃描卡，還有的時候，卡移走後，它的轉交給了讀者和網站負責人是知道的事實，那就是卡正在閱讀。 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.這個問題，當然，隨著RFID標籤是，它可以閱讀，在任何時候任何人士藏有一個讀者-有沒有人知道他們的卡是被掃描。 And this is precisely the debate we are having right now with the Department of Homeland Security over many of the identity schemes.這也正是辯論中，我們有權利，現在與美國國土安全部的許多身份計劃。

How do you think the DHS is going to use RFID tags? 你怎麼想留宿準備使用RFID標籤？

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.我們知道他們正採取一種標準，很多人，不僅在社會上的隱私，而且在安全共同體，是不是感到非常高興。 It’s the so-called vicinity read or contactless read RFID tag.它的那些所謂附近閱讀或接觸式閱讀RFID標籤。 It’s designed precisely to prevent the ability of people to know when the data on the tag is being read.它的設計正是為了防止能力的人，知道什麼時候該數據對標籤正在閱讀。 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.違反中央校長[個人]安全，這是最基本的訪問控制-你想要讓民眾知道的時候，有關他們的資料是被要求別人，如果沒有其他原因，而不是能確保它的正要求一個合適的宗旨和不是目的，這可能會造成一個問題。

Comment on 'Are new technologies sacrificing privacy?' : 評論'是新技術而犧牲隱私嗎？ ' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相關新聞：