Privacy? Who cares?

October 16, 2006 12:16 PM

Why don't Americans care about the loss of privacy? Give your SSN for a 50 cent coupon? Have your car tracked by EZ-Pass? Have a security camera on the corner? Who cares?
posted by SansPoint (112 comments total)

I've discussed this with coworkers who always reply with some variation on the "If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care?" angle. As frightening as that mindset is, I believe it is a prevalent one in our society.
posted by NationalKato at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2006

Who knows if rhetorical questions make a good FPP?
posted by fandango_matt at 12:31 PM on October 16, 2006

So where do I get this 50 cent coupon?
posted by zsazsa at 12:31 PM on October 16, 2006

You are dragging EZ-Pass into this? You can take my EZ Pass when you pry it from my cold dead hand. Limited time offer, free tinfoil hat for each SSN you give me.
posted by spicynuts at 12:33 PM on October 16, 2006

Ever tried to express your dislike? Ask "where is the statement document as to how you will use my SSN"? You are then told 'you don't like it...leave.'

Want to try and fight the city/power company over your unwillingess to give your SSN? Fine, but you can not occupy your home w/o a power connection to the electrical grid. (I'll fight that one once I have enough solar panels and batteries so I don't NEED the grid....the old rep said he'd help once I got to that point)
posted by rough ashlar at 12:35 PM on October 16, 2006

Who knows if rhetorical questions make a good FPP?

If you think it's a bad post, flag it and move on. Or are you worried that your flagging habits are being tracked?
posted by Urban Hermit at 12:36 PM on October 16, 2006

Why stop there? What about Google Toolbars, or Google Desktop? Don't peole voluntarily post personal information on myspace?

Can I move that every comment in this thread be phrased as a question?
posted by Pastabagel at 12:36 PM on October 16, 2006

It's also happened so gradually that each incremental tiny step hardly seems worth a complaint. The aggregate, of course, is disturbing, but it was a slow process.

Also, there's a mismatch between the actors and the protections offered. Most regulations, evidentiary rules, etc. are governmental: designed to consterain the behavior of the state. The majority of data-gathering, however, is conducted by private enterprise. Personal information has become a product: the focus of many businesses, the reason for many mergers.

I've been toying with the idea of asserting some form of intellectual property rights over my personal information. Other times I shrug.

Strange, I'm more of an AskMe guy but I feel right at home here.
posted by Phred182 at 12:37 PM on October 16, 2006

Who cares?
posted by fandango_matt at 12:37 PM on October 16, 2006

Wait a second, Knickerbocker Ave? Wha?
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 12:40 PM on October 16, 2006

Why should every comment on this thread be phrased in the form of a question?

I will never own an EZpass. They make it look like a step of convenience, attaching your credit card to your RFID device (or however EZpass works, I don't know). They even give you preferrential lanes to pass the tolls in.

Then all of a sudden your parking tickets are getting paid automatically. Or you're getting speeding tickets for getting between toll booth A and tool boot B at less than the minium prescribed time you should be able to make it in, by law. Who knows where from there...
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2006

I'd have clicked on the OP's link, but I'm afraid I'd get a tracking cookie.
posted by owenkun at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2006

I am not a number, I am a free man!
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 12:45 PM on October 16, 2006

It's all part of living in a modern police state. Get over it.
posted by crunchland at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2006

Is there an approrpriate punctuation mark I can use to show that a sentence is a question.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:48 PM on October 16, 2006

I am not a number, I am a free man!

Actually, you are user #43690. And I don't want to alarm you, but I think you might also be a lobster.
posted by Urban Hermit at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2006 [5 favorites]

And why should I care if I'm not doing anything wrong? Strangling small animals isn't wrong, right?
posted by Mister_A at 12:57 PM on October 16, 2006

"I've discussed this with coworkers who always reply with some variation on the 'If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care?' angle. As frightening as that mindset is, I believe it is a prevalent one in our society."

It seems to me to be that way as well, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to go about changing that attitude.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:09 PM on October 16, 2006

Strangling small animals isn't wrong, right?
posted by Mister_A at 12:57 PM PST

Your admission of chicken choking has been noted in the file.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:10 PM on October 16, 2006

First they came for the coupon clippers, and I did not speak out because I do not clip coupons...
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 1:12 PM on October 16, 2006

I'm sorry for this, but let's get it out of the way.

IM N UR EZ PASS TRAKKIN UR CAR
posted by jefbla at 1:17 PM on October 16, 2006

spicynuts writes "You are dragging EZ-Pass into this?"

It can track your movements, or even determine if you should get a speeding ticket (based on calculating time / distance).
posted by clevershark at 1:20 PM on October 16, 2006

Hey, I'm far further on the paranoia scale than the average bear, but even I'm not bothered by EZ-Pass.

See, there's this little baggie they send along with the magic plastic bits and when want to I can take the tag off my window and — stay with me — put it in the little baggie thus protecting myself from the evil gummint death belts lasers.
posted by Skorgu at 1:20 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

I love the E-ZPass conspiracies. (Yes, that is where the dash goes.)

Consider this: If you don't have E-ZPass and you use one of the lanes, they send you a ticket anyways, because they take a photo of your license plate. So they can clearly track your movement through tolls or anywhere else without needing a device in your car at all. And it would be silly to assume they don't have cameras on the manual lanes too. In the end, E-ZPass is just a red herring to make you think you're "invisible" if you don't have it.

The only real way to protect your privacy is to cover up your license plate. And wear a mask. And only use cash that you get by busking.
posted by smackfu at 1:24 PM on October 16, 2006

Give your SSN for a 50 cent coupon? Have your car tracked by EZ-Pass? Have a security camera on the corner? Who cares?

Perhaps no one cares because your second and third examples do not represent a loss of privacy. What's the difference between having the location of your car known by EZ-pass and the location of your car known by some guy who took a picture of it as you were passing--and for all you know, might be an FBI agent or government snitch. Same for the security camera on the corner. Yes, the information can be collected and analyzed more efficiently than it could many years ago, but whining about a "loss of privacy" in such situations only indicates that you are naive enough to believe that there ever was any privacy in such situations.

Or you're getting speeding tickets for getting between toll booth A and tool boot B at less than the minium prescribed time you should be able to make it in, by law.

And what does that have to do with EZ-Pass? Several states use the "take a ticket when you get on the tollroad, give it up when you get off to see how much you owe" model of tolling, under which it's just as easy to bust you for speeding regardless of whether you have a transponder or not, and is nothing new.

Not that I'm saying there aren't any privacy violations going on in today's society--there are. But throwing in lots of examples where one does not have an expectation of privacy in the first place only muddles the issues and tends to cause people to ignore you when you have real privacy concerns. (cf. The Boy Who Cried Wolf)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:31 PM on October 16, 2006

Using EZ-Pass at the Holland Tunnel is like traveling in an invisible motorcade. It's as close as I'll ever get to being President.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:33 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

See, the problem with giving out tickets based on EZ pass times is they can't tell if I'm just going 75 miles an hour the whole way or 65 most of the way, and then racing at 110 for the last bit. They'll need to install ezpass all along the highway to do that, and speed cameras seem easier and cheaper.
posted by Crash at 1:34 PM on October 16, 2006

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!"

Uh. Dude. Coupon.

"Oh. Well. Yes. That. But I like Colonel Sanders!"
posted by ZachsMind at 1:39 PM on October 16, 2006

Armitage Shanks : No kidding. Two weeks ago it took me an hour to get into that thing without one.
posted by yeti at 1:41 PM on October 16, 2006

The conditioning of people to accept small gifts of convenience for large secessions of private information hit the high road in America with the widespread introduction of the ATM machine. Once banking transactions became commonplace through "computers" that supposedly are impersonal, infallible adding/subtracting automatons, most people were glad to give up the hated effort of maintaining a checkbook tally, or doing the monthly reconciliation of bank statements.

These days, more than 90% of people I ask (and because I'm interested in it as metric of social trust in the world around me, I ask a lot of strangers about this regularly) tell me that they see no need to balance their personal checkbooks, since the time they'd take to do so would cost them as much as any bank error they might discover would ever save them. That's fairly amazing to me, who last year found $80.10 in one check transaction and $100 in an erroneous ATM transaction, and got his money in each case. So, just for data points in my personal interest zone, and because it's in keeping with the spirit of this thread:

Common on, have you ever, or do you still balance your checkbook each month?
posted by paulsc at 1:42 PM on October 16, 2006

Er, uh...

Come on, have you ever, or do you still balance your checkbook each month?
posted by paulsc at 1:43 PM on October 16, 2006

See, the problem with giving out tickets based on EZ pass times is they can't tell if I'm just going 75 miles an hour the whole way

If the speed limit is 65 mph, why is that a problem? They know your minimum top speed, and if that's faster than the speed limit, you're busted.
posted by smackfu at 1:44 PM on October 16, 2006

To: Traffic Light Enforcement, Marietta, GA
From: Traffic Light “Violator”

As the driver of a vehicle that was recently involved in the issuance of a ticket for allegedly running a red light at the corner of Windy Hill Rd and Cobb Pkwy, Eastbound, in reference to citation number xxxxxxx, I would like to take a moment to write you a letter to explain my actions as well as express my frustration with the City of Marietta, GA. On October 11, 2006, I was driving eastbound on Windy Hill Rd, making a left turn onto Cobb Parkway. Traffic was moving at a moderate speed and according to your cameras, my vehicle was moving at a speed of 22 MPH. I had been sitting at the light for approximately 3-4 minutes. I proceeded through an intersection at a time I thought the light was yellow. Due to my speed, which was within the speed limit as well as the cars around me, I felt my actions were warranted in proceeding through the intersection. Traffic was very heavy that day and I wasn’t sure if a sudden stop could create problems for other drivers around me. Did the car in front of my vehicle also receive a ticket for this violation? This is a grey area that preys upon fractions of a second’s possible error. I will submit payment for this in the amount of $70 because, frankly, I don’t have the time to go to Marietta, appear in court on a weekday because I have bills to pay.

As a result of this payment, please also accept my resignation from all things that have to do with Marietta. I will no longer visit your “square” unless required by work, I will no longer eat at your restaurants, I will no longer buy gas and I certainly will not associate myself with any type of recreational event unless my job requires me. The photography of people supposedly “violating” the law is scary and one step closer to an Orwellian future where technology completely invades individual’s right to privacy. Had an officer been there, pulled me over, heard my side of the story, then issued me a ticket, at least I would feel comfortable that “judgment” was used rather than a photograph. No one issued me this ticket, I was not able to explain a situation to anyone, I was just simply told to “appear in court” if I want to appeal. How much does the city make off of these contraptions? Are all yellow lights within the city a standard amount of time or are they different in each intersection? As a first time “red-light” violator, these are questions I would ask if I had the time to appear.

Thank you for reading my concerns. No more Marietta for me.

Hey- At least it made me feel better-
posted by priested at 1:46 PM on October 16, 2006

I don't balance my checkbook each month. However, I do check my balance pretty much every day online-- I'll notice if there was a problem that way long before the end of the month.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:47 PM on October 16, 2006

Nice photo: #5 is alive.

Howzabout those police roadblocks, hey? Gotta enforce those seat belt laws and search your car...just in case. Same thing here. Once the drunk driving roadblock became ok - well, why not for other laws?
Is there some reason to believe EZ pass isn’t going to become another shoehorn into your privacy? Doesn’t bother me either, but why not simply attach it to your ignition system...in case your car is stolen? Why not have cameras everywhere, in case there is a crime?
I’d feel a lot better about these things if they pointed both ways. I’m irritated by EZ pass as a matter of principle, even though I do agree it’s fairly innocuous, simply because there is no reciprocity preventing it’s abuse.
When a police officer pulls you over, you know it’s officer badge #1453, you can explain your wife is pregnant or your late for work or something and he can decide if he wants to cut you a break or if you’re suspicious enough to search. In any case, the matter is settled on the scene and you don’t have to take time off work to go fight a ticket.
A cop pulled me over a bit ago for having a busted headlight. I was returning from the auto parts store having just bought the replacement headlight. I showed him the headlight and he let me go. Took two minutes. If a t.v. camera picked that up and I got a ticket for it, I’d have to go to the courthouse and prove I installed it. That’s an intrusion on my time. Which is another hidden economic boot to the winkies from all this surveillance crap.
I’ve never understood how self-styled conservatives (or anyone really) can be so pro-self determination, pro-capitalism, which is supportive of having as much right to do with your own time as you wish without government interference (thus the small government thing) and yet support these mechanized processes which eliminate more efficient and more accountable services.
What am I a friggin’ genius that I know this? No, I just avoided going to court for my headlight being out because I was able to talk to a cop. People spend enough damned time with machines on the phone trying to answer a question that would take 30 seconds with a human, you think they’d know better.
Now maybe EZ pass is more efficient and you pay tolls faster and the roads roll along better so you have more time for yourself....but there are hidden costs to anything.
Whether the benefits outweigh those costs is debatable (I think in that particular case, right now, they do), but it remains to be seen what will happen with the foundations laid here. Here in lovely Illinois, we’ve had scandal after scandal with our tollway service. Anything that delivers money into the hands of the state in a swifter, more automated method, I’m always a bit leery of.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:50 PM on October 16, 2006

Why don't Americans care about the loss of privacy?

This is outrag-

Ooh. Hey look, B-list celebrities dancing on tv!
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 1:54 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

"I've discussed this with coworkers who always reply with some variation on the 'If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care?' angle. As frightening as that mindset is, I believe it is a prevalent one in our society."

So, in honest curiosity, why exactly is that mindset a bad thing?
posted by jmd82 at 1:55 PM on October 16, 2006

If I am not already suspected to have done anything wrong, why do you or the government care what I'm doing?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:59 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

It can track your movements, or even determine if you should get a speeding ticket (based on calculating time / distance).

You know, I just don't understand why people have a problem with this idea. If it only takes you an hour to go 90 miles, why shouldn't you get a speeding ticket? If you think that it's safe to drive that fast, why not try to get the limit changed.

If you have a problem with laws being enforced, then the problem is the law itself, not the amount of enforcement. I think it would be a lot better if the risk were spread around to everyone who speeded, or did whatever, then singling out random people for stiff penalties.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on October 16, 2006

People: it's an ATM - Automated Teller Machine. ATM MACHINE is redundant. Likewise, I suppose you enter your PIN NUMBER to gain access?
posted by eatyourlunch at 2:01 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Maybe this loss of privacy thing is a nice way to piss and moan over pointless shit while over in the next room a writ of habeus corpus soon won't even suffice to wipe one's ass clean.
posted by docpops at 2:01 PM on October 16, 2006

because what is considered "illegal" is arbitrary and often fungible.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:04 PM on October 16, 2006

So, in honest curiosity, why exactly is that ["if you're not doing anything illegal, why do you care?"] mindset a bad thing?

26.5 million veterans weren't doing anything illegal, yet they are now at increased risk for identity theft.

eatyourlunch: Yes, it's redundant. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Language is full of redundancy. That's a feature, not a bug--it means that one's meaning can generally be gleaned even if one's spelling, grammar, etc. are not perfect. Vowels are largely redundant too, and yet I note you still used vowels in your comment.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:07 PM on October 16, 2006

People don't care because they are too busy watching American Idol on TV and working their asses off to buy that $50k SUV.

As long as the gov't doesn't interfere with those things, they'll consent to getting a tattoo of a barcode on their forehead.
posted by eas98 at 2:14 PM on October 16, 2006

'If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care?' angle. As frightening as that mindset is, I believe it is a prevalent one in our society."

So, in honest curiosity, why exactly is that mindset a bad thing?

See this discussion for some thoughts on that matter.
posted by odinsdream at 2:14 PM on October 16, 2006

'If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you care?' angle. As frightening as that mindset is, I believe it is a prevalent one in our society."

So, in honest curiosity, why exactly is that mindset a bad thing?

See this discussion for some thoughts on that matter.
posted by odinsdream at 2:17 PM on October 16, 2006

Camera Company Gets Cut From Red Light Fees
In return for paying to install the cameras and operate the system, Transol is to receive $48 of every ticket collected [in Berkeley, Calif.]

I have to say it's one thing for government to award contracts to private industry, but giving a company payouts on each traffic fine is just kind of stinky.
posted by chef_boyardee at 2:19 PM on October 16, 2006

Without the cameras how will ceiling cat be able to watch everyone masturbating?
posted by MikeKD at 2:22 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't consider E-ZPass a violation of my privacy because I give it up willingly. Plus, I have never in my time with E-ZPass had a trip that when through two payment points for them to get much information (here in the Bay Area they are only on the tolls into San Francisco).

The loyalty card isn't one because they don't have any requirement at all that you provide any kind of valid information when signing up for one. Neither my Albertson's nor Safeway cards have my real name attached to them. However, the fact that I pay with a credit card does attach my name to the transaction. But I'm not bothered by that either, since I do it willingly for the convenience.

The only time I care is when my personal information is taken without my compliance. If I am ok with whatever tradeoff there is, then I don't really care. Yes, there are some worries about how data might be used in the future in ways I can't envision now. But I'm not so bothered as to avoid it.

Everything we have ever done has left a transactional trail behind us. All the modern technology has done is make it easier to see that trail. It is harder now to assume that it will be lost in the noise of billions of transactions and interactions.

We are all mostly fine with a 65 mile per hour speed limit because we know that the odds of getting ticketed are roughly 0.0002% (or some really small number). Increase the ability to ticket speeders to even 1% and suddenly there'll be outrage about being spied on. My problem with automated approaches is not an invasion of privacy but rather it shifts the criminality from the driver to the vehicle owner.
posted by obfusciatrist at 2:24 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

People: it's an ATM - Automated Teller Machine. ATM MACHINE is redundant. Likewise, I suppose you enter your PIN NUMBER to gain access?

WTF Fuck?
posted by hal9k at 2:33 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

< playing devil's advocate>

Why don't people care about the loss of privacy? Perhaps because it has become such an amorphous concept that it's hard to figure out exactly when something has been 'lost,' what it really was, and whether it should matter. Witness the comments in this thread.

Much of what people are concerned about is not really privacy in the strictest sense. Identity theft is just that - theft - i.e. appropriation of proprietary information. The tracking of our purchases and movements through RFIDs and other means is, at least for the moment, mostly something that we must voluntarily participate in. If we don't want prospective employers to see our antisocial blog postings or drunken orgy flickr sets, then we act accordingly. If we don't want our communications to be intercepted, overheard, or used against us, then we should speak in person to people we trust. There is nothing new here.

From odinsdream's link:

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

I agree, but none of the aforementioned things are really threatened by the kinds of things we have been talking about.

In fact, in terms of genuine privacy - "being secluded from the presence or view of others" - it could be argued that we have much more of it here and now than any other place or time in history. And it could also be argued that this is a bad thing.

< /devil's advocacy>
posted by Urban Hermit at 2:34 PM on October 16, 2006

26.5 million veterans weren't doing anything illegal, yet they are now at increased risk for identity theft.

What's your point? The VA is basically just acting as a (former) employer in this case, and you have no choice but to trust your employer with your privacy. Or you could try to get a job without giving up your SSN, but good luck.
posted by smackfu at 2:34 PM on October 16, 2006

"...I'll notice if there was a problem that way long before the end of the month."
posted by InfidelZombie at 4:47 PM EST on October 16

If you're actually doing a daily reconciliation of a tally you independently keep against the bank's tally, 20+ times a month, I salute you InfidelZombie. But a suprising number of people who proffer this common response, and to whom, in conversation, I pose some additional questions, realize that they are actually only confirming transaction amounts posted to their account, and taking the bank's word for their balance.

That's a small, but important difference to doing a full independent reconciliation, on whatever period, as any computer programmer familiar with the fractional penny scam will tell you. If you always use the bank's adding machine, you miss any errors in their favor their adding machine creates. If you reconcile independently, you make them prove their adding machine is as good as yours.

But frankly, most people to whom I make this common sense, but pedantic point, get a little ticked with me, until I point out that computer hardware can't actually subtract, but relies on 2's complement arithmetic in on-board chip firmware to simulate subtraction in modern CPU's. Upon top of this, any software as complicated as bank systems have hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of invocations of math routines where cumulative programming errors can develop.

Whether it pays to check your bank statements is another calculation involving the worth of your time, and your relative hatred of math, I'll grant. But using the bank's adding machine is never risk free.
posted by paulsc at 2:37 PM on October 16, 2006

And, of course, the only reason I make my bank statement argument in this thread, is to illustrate that the basis of system trust in modern American society is pervasive. The trade off of convenience for responsibility, of ease for rights, was won long ago, and not by those on the side of individual rights and responsibilities.

And I do apologize to eatyourlunch for being redundant in my use of the ATM initialism.
posted by paulsc at 2:45 PM on October 16, 2006

But a suprising number of people who proffer this common response, and to whom, in conversation, I pose some additional questions, realize that they are actually only confirming transaction amounts posted to their account, and taking the bank's word for their balance.

And the two errors you caught which you mentioned in an earlier comment--were those errors in the transaction amount, or were they errors in arithmetic?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:47 PM on October 16, 2006

Identity theft is just that - theft - i.e. appropriation of proprietary information.

What? No, someone impersonating me using my publically available name, address, phone number to sign up for credit cards (some of which use nothing but ANI for verification (!)) nowhere involves proprietary information.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2006

someone impersonating me using my publically available name, address, phone number... nowhere involves proprietary information.

Granted, but I think this only reinforces my general point that what we are talking about is not loss of privacy per se. In your example, it is fraud, and the primary victim is not you (though you may of course be inconvenienced), but the issuing financial institution.
posted by Urban Hermit at 3:02 PM on October 16, 2006

That's a small, but important difference to doing a full independent reconciliation, on whatever period, as any computer programmer familiar with the fractional penny scam will tell you. If you always use the bank's adding machine, you miss any errors in their favor their adding machine creates. If you reconcile independently, you make them prove their adding machine is as good as yours.

But frankly, most people to whom I make this common sense, but pedantic point, get a little ticked with me, until I point out that computer hardware can't actually subtract, but relies on 2's complement arithmetic in on-board chip firmware to simulate subtraction in modern CPU's. Upon top of this, any software as complicated as bank systems have hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of invocations of math routines where cumulative programming errors can develop.

As a computer programmer, and as someone who used to write banking software for a living, I can say with authority that you're full of shit.

First off, it's not like debits and credits are cumulative over the lifecycle of an ATM.

Second, lots and lots of bank transactions are actually done in hundreths of a dollar: i.e. cents. That way, you're only ever adding and subtracting integers.

Also, rounding errors pop up when you're doing multiplication and division. Your ATM isn't calculating the continually-compounded interest on your Super-Saver savings account.

Lastly, do you really think that bank software isn't scrutinitzed many many many times for errors exactly like this?

If what you're worried about is rounding errors, then you should really get a hobby, because these errors are never going to affect you.
posted by bshort at 3:08 PM on October 16, 2006

i think the reason people don't worry about privacy so much is simply that they cannot see that it will affect them directly...the same reason for poor voting turnout and support for a war in which there is no necessity for personal sacrifice (excepting those fighting it, or close to them)...

...i've been frustrated seeing how this plays out in california with the change in workers' compensation laws, which has seen much praise given to arnold s. for successfully turning it all around; the problem, of course, is that the system has stopped providing essential care to injured workers (from what i've seen, if i were ever injured on the job, i would lie and say it happened at home--you would be surprised at how often treatment is withheld, even from police and firefighters tragically affected)...the success of a program like that counts on the fact that the affected population is so fractured (not to mention most often broke) that they cannot mount a sufficient voice of opposition--and of course, if they could, they are hampered by the general impression that injured workers are fraudsters...it's another situation in which, if one is not directly affected, one does not see that a problem exists...

...the examples of tv thrown out here are part of it, i think...we're more and more a culture of individuals, particularly as marketing becomes more targeted...organized groups are distrusted anymore, and agenda is a dirty word...corporations have tested the limits and are emboldended, having found them incredibly easy to surpass, resistance weak and intermittent...so i pretty much expect more of the same...
posted by troybob at 3:11 PM on October 16, 2006

Why don't Americans care about the loss of privacy? Give your SSN for a 50 cent coupon? Have your car tracked by EZ-Pass? Have a security camera on the corner? Who cares?
-----------------------

I think it fairly speaks for itself, 'muricans have devolved into a nation of contented cows chewing their cuds out in the fields. They've pretty much forgotten about any rights or duties as citizens and have happily bought into the replacement for citizen: consumer.
I'm just waiting for the day when farmer whomever wanders into the fields and starts seperating out those to be spayed and neutered versus those who will be put out to stud. . . 'liberals over heah, real 'muricans over theah.'
posted by mk1gti at 3:22 PM on October 16, 2006

The massive increase in snooping is due to (you can write this down) one factor: massively increased snooping ability. Period, full stop.

If Queen Elizabeth I's court magician, John Dee, could actually have given her a spell that allowed her to spy on her subjects, would she have hesitated for as much as a heartbeat? Of course not. The single most important protection for privacy until recently (recently=the electronic era) was not laws, not constitutional protections, but physics. It was that spying was hard and labor-intensive and expensive, and required a lot of spies, and hence it wasn't massively done.

The magicians of this era have cooked up spells that work, and anybody with the bucks to hire a few magicians (e.g. the government; e.g. telemarketers) can find out pretty much anything they want to know about you with hardly any effort. Hence, y'know, it happens a lot. The main protection, namely physics, has been negated. At this point passing a law against electronic snooping makes almost as little sense as passing a law against gravity. Other comparisons that occur to me are the Eighteenth Amendment, the treaties against nuclear proliferation, and King Canute ordering the tide to stop rolling in. (As I'm sure most of you know, Canute did that as an object lesson to his courtiers, to illustrate that some things don't pay any attention to commands.)

Davy Crockett didn't like neighbors. According to him, as soon as you can see the smoke from your nearest neighbor's chimney it's time to move farther into the wilderness. That was pretty extreme even for Davy's time. Today a fair degree of privacy is still avalable but only for Crockett-level extremests. You've got to want is badly enough to make it your first priority. You must, as best you can, stop living in the electronic world, because that's the same as walking around in your front yard naked. That means no credit card (pay cash), no ISP account (browse the web at the library and hope for the best), no auto registration (ride the bus, hitchhike, walk), and so on. There are damn few people willing to defend their privacy at that price.

I certainly don't like this, I hate it in fact, but when you conclude that a certain aspect of life is beyond your (or anyone's) control, that's going to look a lot like "don't care."
posted by jfuller at 3:24 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

People: it's an ATM - Automated Teller Machine. ATM MACHINE is redundant. Likewise, I suppose you enter your PIN NUMBER to gain access?

I went on a bit of a Monday Mini-Rant today about "SN#" being used for a serial number notation (or "SSN#" for a social security number, which I see a lot and is probably more relevant here.)

But it was early and I hadn't caffinated yet.
posted by Cyrano at 3:24 PM on October 16, 2006

troybob : "the change in workers' compensation laws...counts on the fact that the affected population is so fractured (not to mention most often broke)"

Were either of those intentional, or just serendipity?
posted by bugbread at 3:27 PM on October 16, 2006

Well, my answer to the question in the FPP, is that Americans have rarely been particularly concerned about privacy as an absolute value. There is a long tradition of busybodies and gossips in American culture. What Americans are bothered by is some of the more extreme invasions of the home or the possibility of fraud.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:29 PM on October 16, 2006

"... Lastly, do you really think that bank software isn't scrutinitzed many many many times for errors exactly like this? ..."
posted by bshort at 6:08 PM EST on October 16

Let me just say off the top, that bshort is not a sock puppet of paulsc, invoked to toss me softball questions.

And let me also say I like IBM, and have a healthy, professional appreciation for their many fine products, and use and program them myself. But it's axiomatic that in any system of sufficient complexity to be broadly useful, nasties are alive, sometimes for many years.

But bank software isn't the point of this thread, privacy in a pervasively technological society is, I think. I don't mean my personal example of bank statements to be anything but an illustration of a common tradeoff of convenience to personal security/privacy/fraud.

If I'd wanted to derail, I could have brought up voting machines.
posted by paulsc at 3:34 PM on October 16, 2006

If what you're worried about is rounding errors, then you should really get a hobby, because these errors are never going to affect you.

see how easy that is! we're so accustomed to being berated when we pose a question or raise a doubt, we hardly notice when it is happening anymore...

You must, as best you can, stop living in the electronic world, because that's the same as walking around in your front yard naked.

i'm wondering if there's going to be a stage in which we intentionally start mucking up the information...one of the grocery stores here has a discount card system...you sign up fora card and have to swipe it to get the lower prices...i'll often trade these cards with friends and family to throw off the scent...maybe it has no effect anyway, but if i can mess up the database at all, i'm happy to oblige...i used to do this kind of thing in focus groups, but that takes so much time...

bugbread: hehe, i couldn't do that intentionally if i tried
posted by troybob at 3:38 PM on October 16, 2006

troybob : "i'm wondering if there's going to be a stage in which we intentionally start mucking up the information"

I...wait...don't most people do that already? Is everyone filling their real names, phone numbers, and the like into all the useless forms we have to fill out? I haven't in years, and I'm no privacy nut, I just reflexively give my real info to people who I think need it, and random info to places that don't.
posted by bugbread at 3:56 PM on October 16, 2006

“People: it's an ATM - Automated Teller Machine. ATM MACHINE is redundant. Likewise, I suppose you enter your PIN NUMBER to gain access?”

I always enter my PI number into the AT machine. LO loud.

I like jfuller’s physics explanation. I’d add there has often been a cheap(er) economic countermeasure as a counterbalance as well. Firearms f’rinstance, in case joe lawman came snooping around on your property without a warrant. But there currently isn’t any deterrant or way to make it hard on the feds if they want to (illegally) spy on people in the ”Enemy of the State” sort of sense. Certainly not the kind of check on abused power a bullet is. The spirit of the 2nd amendment, that ultimate check on the power of the government by breaking the monopoly of violence from the hands of the elite, has been skirted not by legislation or naked force, but by technology.
Certainly speaks to the need for encryption, etc.
But they’ve already made it illegal to wear a mask of any kind in Chicago. (Sorta wondering what I’m going to do with some of my full face cold weather gear). Which would seem to be one of the most elementary checks. I wonder if it will ever become illegal to wear a disguise?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:22 PM on October 16, 2006

No PayPal account, no drapes here. Plus you can lie about everything to get a grocery store card. Or just tell the cashier you forgot it and s/he'll swipe his/hers.
posted by DenOfSizer at 4:26 PM on October 16, 2006

Well, my answer to the question in the FPP, is that Americans have rarely been particularly concerned about privacy as an absolute value. There is a long tradition of busybodies and gossips in American culture.

I'll go further than that: privacy is often feared. What's that neighbour doing all night in his garage? Why are those kids walking the lane again? I don't like the look of those packages arriving for Mr. so-and-so. I'd sure feel better if I knew what was going on.

Ask the question honestly, total awareness or total privacy, and I bet you'll get an even split, and not just from people who have never thought about it (sadly).
posted by dreamsign at 4:28 PM on October 16, 2006

And let me also say I like IBM, and have a healthy, professional appreciation for their many fine products, and use and program them myself. But it's axiomatic that in any system of sufficient complexity to be broadly useful, nasties are alive, sometimes for many years.

My point, which I thought I stated simply and succinctly, was that your examples of rounding errors and two's-complement are stupid. The counter-example you posted doesn't appear to be either of those error types.

And, the word you're looking for is "common," not "axiomatic." There's a difference.

But bank software isn't the point of this thread, privacy in a pervasively technological society is, I think. I don't mean my personal example of bank statements to be anything but an illustration of a common tradeoff of convenience to personal security/privacy/fraud.

They were irrelevant examples that you stated incorrectly. If you're interested in making a point it helps to know what the hell you're talking about.
posted by bshort at 4:32 PM on October 16, 2006

"And the two errors you caught which you mentioned in an earlier comment--were those errors in the transaction amount, or were they errors in arithmetic?"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:47 PM EST on October 16

The $80.10 error was a keying problem with one of my written checks, and you're right in saying that a simple scan of daily transactions would probably have caught it. The $100 problem was more insidious, and I never actually got a detail explanation on it that was technically satisfactory, and it was never charged back to the local merchant account from which the transaction originated. It appeared to be a tranaction commitment error in the bank software where my ATM card had a hold amount processed, that was subsequently erroneously charged. Not an uncommon source of processing errors, I was told.
posted by paulsc at 4:34 PM on October 16, 2006

See Also: David Brin's _Transparent Society_. No talking dolphins, but still.
posted by absalom at 5:01 PM on October 16, 2006

"...My point, which I thought I stated simply and succinctly, was that your examples of rounding errors and two's-complement are stupid. The counter-example you posted doesn't appear to be either of those error types. ..."
posted by bshort at 7:32 PM EST on October 16

Eh, "stupid" is kind of in the eye of the beholder. But, you're right about my counter-example not being rigorously tied to the simple method problems I used. The size and number of errors that had survived in as well commercialized a product as DB2, kind of was. Sorry if we're going too fast here. Here's a cite for rounding errors in Euro conversion formulas used by banks because of initial regulation, that is, subject of some European banking journal papers in 1997.

As for axiomatic, I was making a reference to my loose restatement of Godel's incompleteness theorems. Again, I wasn't being technically rigorous, and you're free to snark for the enterntainment of the audience.
posted by paulsc at 5:20 PM on October 16, 2006

DB2 isn't nearly as bad as WebSphere, though.

Wait, what are we talking about?
posted by synaesthetichaze at 5:25 PM on October 16, 2006

But, you're right about my counter-example not being rigorously tied to the simple method problems I used. The size and number of errors that had survived in as well commercialized a product as DB2, kind of was. Sorry if we're going too fast here.

So, then why did you bring up rounding and two's-complement in the first place? What's wrong? Can't come up with even a single example?

As for axiomatic, I was making a reference to my loose restatement of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

There's a massive difference between provable theorems and programming errors and they have nothing to do with each other. There are no computer bugs that arise because Goldbach's conjecture hasn't been proved one way or the other.

Again, I wasn't being technically rigorous, and you're free to snark for the enterntainment of the audience.

I'll be glad to do that as long as you keep spouting nonsense.
posted by bshort at 5:32 PM on October 16, 2006

"These unintended, unpredictable consequences that flow from simple actions make privacy issues difficult to grasp, and grapple with."

This is obviously untrue. Ask the same person giving their personal information to get a milk discount if they believe this information is NOT being used for marketing, tracking, do you believe they are going to play dum? No.
posted by xtian at 5:32 PM on October 16, 2006

Somewhere I read that people who believe that privacy no longer exists, or who think that "people have something to hide", should be made to take a dump in the middle of a crowd of people watching. Maybe I read it here... hmmm....
posted by malaprohibita at 5:47 PM on October 16, 2006

"...Can't come up with even a single example?..."
posted by bshort at 8:32 PM EST on October 16

Can't you click a link? Hint: following sentence to your selective quote.

"...There's a massive difference between provable theorems and programming errors and they have nothing to do with each other. ..." They absolutely do when the time required for testing of large systems bumps its programmers heads against P=NP. And that's why banks have lawyers, insurance and account agreements, which limit their liability for programmer errors. You know, bankers are parsimonious folk, unlikely to spend money on business process protections like errors and omissions riders, if you bank system programmers could ever convince them they didn't have to.

But let's return this thread again to privacy concerns, and take your objections to my comments to email, if we must.
posted by paulsc at 5:50 PM on October 16, 2006

Only people with a life care about privacy?

Oh, oh, oh, I see ... that was a rhetorical question.
posted by Twang at 5:51 PM on October 16, 2006

Davy Crockett didn't like neighbors. According to him, as soon as you can see the smoke from your nearest neighbor's chimney it's time to move farther into the wilderness.

So *that's* why he never hung out with Henry Thoreau.

Man ... now there'd be an odd couple.

posted by Twang at 5:55 PM on October 16, 2006

Man ... now there'd be an odd couple history's most famous hunting accident waiting to happen.
posted by Urban Hermit at 6:02 PM on October 16, 2006

Can't you click a link? Hint: following sentence to your selective quote.

Yeah, I read your link, and it had nothing to do with errors in rounding because of errors in computation. Those rounding errors are entirely a result of an ill-conceived rounding system.

There's a certain type of rounding error that arises because you can't represent certain fractions in binary notation without truncating at a certain decimal place. I thought that's what you were talking about, but since you're grasping at straws to come up with any rounding error you can, I guess you'll now claim that this satisfies your original statement.

Of course, unless you're doing massive amounts of FOREX trading, this example doesn't apply to you and wouldn't be a reason for you to double and triple-check your bank statement.

You still haven't come up with a two's-complement example, though. Even one as marginal as your rounding example.

They absolutely do when the time required for testing of large systems bumps its programmers heads against P=NP. And that's why banks have lawyers, insurance and account agreements, which limit their liability for programmer errors. You know, bankers are parsimonious folk, unlikely to spend money on business process protections like errors and omissions riders, if you bank system programmers could ever convince them they didn't have to.

P=NP has nothing to do with computer bugs, either. Your mention of Godel and P=NP problems are complete non-sequiturs. A process taking a highly variable number of cycles has absolutely nothing to do with the number of bugs in the system.

Stay on topic for one goddamn second.
posted by bshort at 6:09 PM on October 16, 2006

And just to be clear - those errors would have arisen even if the conversions were computed by hand.
posted by bshort at 6:18 PM on October 16, 2006

I saw the comedian Brian Posehn a few weeks ago. He said it best for me, I think. "I'm not doing illegal. I really have nothing to hide. But there are things that I'm ashamed of."
posted by solid-one-love at 6:27 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Like most people, I routinely give up my privacy for small advantages like a discount on a purchase or a faster way through a toll plaza. And I agree with the point all these minor intrusions add up to larger erosions of our privacy. But I think that there are two arguments.

There are many times where we willing sell our private information for convenience. We're able to buy the things we want by only seeing things we might want. We're able to get to where we want to get quickly and without bothering with loose change.

Things like aerial surveillance and the collection of unlisted numbers without consent are examples of someone else taking our private information. Yes, privacy may be bought cheaply. But when it is taken, most people object.

Lumping E-ZPass and coupons with stolen cell phone records and surreptitious collection of phone numbers invites the apathetic response. If you asked those same people who gave the "nothing-to-fear-if-you-didn't-do-anything-wrong" response if they wanted strangers to know their medical history or everyone they spoke to on their cell phone, I think you'd get a different answer.
posted by sourmike at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2006

But they’ve already made it illegal to wear a mask of any kind in Chicago.

Including Halloween and if you're an Islamochick? Bummer.

I'll be glad to do that as long as you keep spouting nonsense

Hyperbole isn't nonsense, it's my entire raison d'etre!
posted by Sparx at 7:13 PM on October 16, 2006

All I have to contribute re:privacy is this:

If you are shopping at a grocery (or other store) with a loyalty card that allows you to enter a phone number, some smartass will have ALWAYS registered (xxx)-867-5309.

I'm Jenny as far as every loyalty program out there is concerned.
posted by oxonium at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2006

"And just to be clear - those errors would have arisen even if the conversions were computed by hand."
posted by bshort at 9:18 PM EST on October 16

I completely agree that it is possible to make by hand the same mistakes that have been made in bank system software. Leaving aside, of course, any discussion of why someone would want to do so.

"...Stay on topic for one goddamn second."
posted by bshort at 9:09 PM EST on October 16

I'm trying to. The topic of this thread is "Privacy? Who cares?"

What I've been trying to point out is that in a technologically based society, the individual quickly learns that it takes far more effort to check and monitor even the systems upon which he voluntarily depends, than what it may be worth economically. That positions people to trust such systems unduly, in exchange for convenience, or even for small rewards.

But worse, I think such experiences contribute to consumer tolerance that there is no national umbrella for the protection of individual privacy, even in the wake of broadly reported problems like the ChoicePoint case mentioned in the FPP, the result of which, to consumers, has been basically nothing, in terms of additional protection of their privacy. Despite a slew of bad press over its sales of consumer data to fraudulent interests, and a number of investigations by state and federal bodies, ChoicePoint continues to accumulate consumer data, and to package and sell it to businesses, governments and private individuals, without any responsibility to the individual people whose data it trades, to even verify that the information it sells is generally accurate. At a March, 2005 California State Senate Banking Committee hearing about sales by Choicepoint of records containing personally identifiable consumer information, Senator Jackie Speier remarked that the identifiers were "indeed sensitive to most people in this nation...[the commercial data brokers' definition of "sensitive"]...doesn't reflect reality."

The hearing began with testimony from Elizabeth Rosen, a California nurse whose information was sold to criminals by Choicepoint. Rosen explained in detail her frustration with Choicepoint, because the company would not provide her with her full profile. A portion of her file that she did receive had errors on almost every page, including multiple incorrect addresses; that she owned companies, including a deli; and that she maintained a box at Mailboxes Etc. Senator Lowenthal asked Choicepoint why the company wouldn't give Rosen the same information the company sold to criminals, but the Choicepoint representative wouldn't directly answer the question.

And that brings up the frustration of many such as Rosen to these largely unregulated, unsupervisable data resellers. Not only is there no way for the individual to know what information is being collected about them, because it is far more than just personal credit history, but there is no way, at present for them to correct mis-information, or to challenge the results of decisions made by third parties on the basis of such information.

My own opinion is that there is no practical way to enforce responsible action on the part of commercial data collection organizations, whose largest customers are sometimes Federal government agencies buying information under contract that would be illegal under Federal law for those same agencies to collect and store themselves, so long as the will of the majority of individuals isn't clearly expressed that they want serious regulation about this, as has been made evident in the EU. I simply don't think the political will exists in the U.S. to regulate this trade in lies, and I feel certian it will not be shut down by the current generation of politicians at either the state or federal levels.

And that failure of individual indignation is reinforced by our everyday experiences with ATM's, with security cameras in more public places, with intrusive airport "security" measures, and with more of our transactions taken under various forms of electronic scrutiny each day. You can't be mad about everything, and every one, and so I see things like I saw at a local convenience market today, where a guy in front of me wanted to pay for $30 worth of gas, a pack of cigarettes and drink with a $50 bill, and was thumb printed and photographed, and his state driver's licensed scanned before his chemically-tested-on-the-spot $50 was accepted and $14 change made.

And he didn't say a word, or even shake his head.
posted by paulsc at 8:33 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

Paulsc, I feel you. To get back to your original arguement, Im lazy. I used to keep my own book but my math is just as lazy. What I do is check online from time to time.

I have caught a couple of errors within my Wells Fargo online bank. A couple of times I was charged fees erroniously and once other, there was an incorrect debit. Just this morning, I may have found an incorrect credit to my account. Most of the time, the bank fixes them on their own, on both sides. Sometimes they dont. Do I care? Not really. If Im so inclined, I may call the customer service and complain until they give me back my 33 dollars for a aggregious fee. Most of the time, I dont care. Ive had it both ways with my bank in 10 years. They leave me alone, I leave them alone. I just have faith that it will all work out.

Add to that the fact that I ignore everything unless it is from someone I know. If I get mail that I dont recognize, It goes in the shredder. If I get an email I dont recognize, I delete it. If I get a phone call from someone I dont recognize, I ignore it. If someone stops me on teh street to tell me something, Ill probably ignore them. If the Police sit outside my house and try to watch, Ill ignore them. If they spy on me, Ill bring it up with the appropriate authorities. The recent ruling in favor of freedom for the press makes me have faith that the system can work.

My point is, Ill take advantage of some conviences because I dont care what someoen does with my information. Ive even had my information taken and had credit cards opened in my name. I called the credit bureaus and had the information removed. Sure, it was a minor inconvienance, but it didnt really hurt me. Nobody knows how often I masturbate or that I have a secret crush on someone at work because of it. I dont care.

I work in IT and I know that EVERYTHING on the internet is tracked. Nothing on a computer is private. I use a computer because its the most beneficial tool ever created.

I do have problems with red light cameras, speed traps and other intrusions in my privacy. I do not have issues with purchasing history or credit information. ITs all bull shit anyway. As long as I can get in my car and drive to the beach and stare at the ocean and be alone, Im happy. They cant take that away from me... yet. When they try, Ill leave the country.
posted by subaruwrx at 8:56 PM on October 16, 2006

Long story short, there are so many issues with this bull shit country and economy, that "information sharing" does not rank high on my list. Getting out of this country does.
posted by subaruwrx at 9:03 PM on October 16, 2006

I completely agree that it is possible to make by hand the same mistakes that have been made in bank system software. Leaving aside, of course, any discussion of why someone would want to do so.

Gah. No no no. That's not what that article was about, and that wasn't my point. The errors in the Euro conversion were there as a result of the conversion rules, not the problems arising from decimal to binary conversion or from errors in the software. If you gave the conversion recipe to a human he'd make those exact same errors. The problem lies in the recipe, not in the machine.

I'm trying to. The topic of this thread is "Privacy? Who cares?"

Well, then bringing up your irrational fear of bank software was completely useless, wasn't it? You made some points, I'm arguing against those points, and in the process of trying to shore up your original argument you continue to say very very incorrect things.

It's like you've heard these concepts, and possibly even read very high-level summations of them, but you don't really understand the concepts at a very deep level, and certainly not at a level where you're able to use them as foundations of an argument. Throwing around Godel, P=NP, and "axiomatic" as conceptual hand-grenades, when you have no understanding of their actual meaning, is just begging for someone to throw it right back at you and point out your errors.

The two's-complement and rounding points you made initially never cause problems in today's banking applications. I guess it's possible that there's some crufty old code out there somewhere that wasn't written very well, and somehow makes errors involving two's-complement because it was crafted out of assembly code, but definitely not any software I've seen.

And I've seen a lot of this software. Feel free to actually try to dig up an example, but I'd be shocked if you could find even one.

So stop telling people that two's-complement is this big bad boogey-man. It's not. You're just misleading people and trying to appear smarter than you actually are.
posted by bshort at 9:05 PM on October 16, 2006

But bshort, the question is really, why do you care?
posted by stenseng at 9:14 PM on October 16, 2006

"...The two's-complement and rounding points you made initially never cause problems in today's banking applications. ..."

I said 2's complement math simulated subtraction on modern CPUs. You're the party saying I said it's some kind of "bogey man" that causes problems in today's banking applications. But I didn't. Period. Go fish.

It's true that early Intel Pentiums had problems with some higher performance algorithm substitutions for pure 2's complement arithmetic in division operations, that were highly publicized at the time. But if your program didn't use the on chip FPU, and you did your math operations correctly in assembler on the main CPU core, or the library functions you more likely called did, you didn't see these problems. Major software vendors like Microsoft implemented patches for this, to enable their products to run on defective chips, and Intel eventually offered to replace defective chips.

So, be shocked that I found this example. I'm not. But it does illustrate why your suggestion I find examples to quote back to you is a fool's game. Companies that release chips with errata want to fix them very quietly, for good reason, as Intel tried to do. Companies that make hardware, operating systems, and products for non-consumer businesses, like banking, frequently cover their products in maintenance agreements and IP disclosure protections to prevent such problems from ever becoming publicly discussed. If you run your bank on IBM iSeries hardware, you're responsible to keep your machine patched with current cumulative Program Temporary Fixes (PTF's), but IBM by policy doesn't disclose the nature of the problems patched by cumulative PTF's, and they are not alone in this method of operation. But let's carry on, for the folks at home, shall we?

Most "modern" programs don't actually do much math, they call routines in math libraries instead to do the heavy lifting. Open source projects are sometimes pretty open about known errors in math libraries (in this case, GNU C), but for commercial products, it's often a "patch as problems found" strategy. In my previous example of DB2 problems at a bank, that's exactly what happened, albeit not in math libraries, for that particular situation. But it also happens in basic function libraries when new roll outs of operating systems are made, covering new hardware, as when IBM moved from 48 bit CISC chips to 64 bit RISC chips in iSeries machines. And I saw a few math problems until the bugs were patched by PTF's, as did other operators of such systems. One of whom happened to be the operations manager of a regional bank in the Southeast U.S. running on iSeries hardware, that I had a disaster assistance agreement with, who happened to see some math problems too, which I personally know about. Happens. Some. Times. And it gets fixed, by PTF's and application vendor patches, after maybe some bad statements are run and mailed, and those who complain have adjustments made to their accounts. What planet are you living on where bank systems never have problems? 'Cause I wanna move there, if it supports human life.

As for the P=NP reference, my point was simply that of most people who have ever written or maintained software in large systems, and been responsible for testing. You can't possibly test to certianty for a system of anything more than trivial size and function. You always ship bugs. Always. You generally ship undiscovered errors, too, which become bugs when they're reported. Ideally, if you're freezing product cycles, and continuing to work on the product in maintenance, you get to clean up your bugs, but no product team I've known has cleared 'em all. Customers, especially bankers, won't pay maintenance fees that high.

So, you wanna troll, roll. Game over for me.
posted by paulsc at 10:54 PM on October 16, 2006

It's frightening when the Secret Service starts visiting 14 y.o. Myspace Members. Where do they draw the line?
posted by spacelux at 10:59 PM on October 16, 2006

The constitution says nothing about privacy. Why do people assume they have any sort of right to it?
posted by blue_beetle at 11:18 PM on October 16, 2006

"... Why do people assume they have any sort of right to it?"
posted by blue_beetle at 2:18 AM EST on October 17

The Ninth Amendment, for starters.
posted by paulsc at 11:43 PM on October 16, 2006

That, and the Fourth Amendment—"security" means privacy.
posted by oaf at 12:33 AM on October 17, 2006

So, in honest curiosity, why exactly is that mindset a bad thing?

Retorts to this mindset discussed here.
posted by chillmost at 1:42 AM on October 17, 2006

I am one of those not worried about the loss of privacy.

I am worried about the increasing power of the executive branch, the endless restraint of our choices by expanding government, and the maniacal "Will to Illegalization" that many religious based groups demonstrate.

Privacy is a concept that will, IS, changing in the digital age. What remains the same is that the state's authority over the individual should be constantly... oh, wait:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance against tyranny over the mind of man.
posted by ewkpates at 3:48 AM on October 17, 2006

until I point out that computer hardware can't actually subtract, but relies on 2's complement arithmetic in on-board chip firmware to simulate subtraction in modern CPU's.

That's absurd, man. x - y = x + -y. That's all that's going on. You might as well say that computers can't do addition, because they rely on AND and XOR logic to simulate it.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:30 AM on October 17, 2006

“Including Halloween and if you're an Islamochick? Bummer.”

Indeed. That’s what makes the law weird. My thought was - what if you’re a burn victim? That and bandannas are completely legal and you see folks (and people) wearing them on their heads and one around their neck. Good thing they outlawed ‘masks,’ yeah? Stupid law. But the stupider something looks, the more important it probably is.

“You can't be mad about everything, and every one...”

Oh, really? Is that a challenge?
*raises hackles*
Dammit! Grrrrrr!
Phew. Ok, yeah. I guess not.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:25 AM on October 17, 2006

I think it's a simple matter that people have, largely, given up. Resigned.
I honestly believe that, if you polled however-many people you wanted, you'd find an overwhelming majority would express the belief that they are powerless to enact any influence or change on the direction government or corporations want to take. They they are stuck on the ride with no control. It's that whole "you can't fight city hall" meme taken to new heights to include "You can't fight the boardroom."

Are they concerned about their privacy? Yes, in fact, they are. Do they believe there is a damn thing they can do about their concerns? No.

I sometimes believe that the "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?" mantra is as much a defense mechanism as it is an honest value/opinion. Maybe more-so. I mean, if you are powerless to change things, you probably need to feel as if you aren't a target in the first place.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:08 AM on October 17, 2006

Just as an aside, you don't have to give your SSN to utility companies. years ago I learned that the only reason they really need it is so they can bitchslap your credit report. I'm against the entire credit reporting system the way it is now, so I refuse to give up my SSN for utilities/etc.

Some of them simply charge you a small deposit, which is refunded after a year.
posted by drstein at 11:40 AM on October 17, 2006

Paulsc, the pentium divide bug has NOTHING to do with two's complement arithmetic. I can't imagine how you might have gotten the impression they were related. In fact, Google(pentium "divide bug" "two's complement") returns only a single hit. Please, stop making up shit about things you don't understand.
posted by ryanrs at 1:15 PM on October 17, 2006

"I can't imagine how you might have gotten the impression they were related."
posted by ryanrs at 4:15 PM EST on October 17

What part of "higher performance algorithm substitutions for pure 2's complement arithmetic" didn't you understand?
posted by paulsc at 3:19 PM on October 17, 2006

I actually don't understand that sentence at all. The pentium bug only affected floating point math. IEEE-754 floating point doesn't use two's complement numbers. Did you mean that floating point math can be used as a substitute for two's complement integer math? That really isn't the case, especially for division.
posted by ryanrs at 3:57 PM on October 17, 2006

“What part of "higher performance algorithm substitutions for pure 2's complement arithmetic" didn't you understand?”
“Did you mean that floating point math can be used as a substitute for two's complement integer math?”

So....youse guys work with computers?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:18 PM on October 17, 2006

You're the party saying I said it's some kind of "bogey man" that causes problems in today's banking applications. But I didn't. Period. Go fish.

So then why did you say "But frankly, most people to whom I make this common sense, but pedantic point, get a little ticked with me, until I point out that computer hardware can't actually subtract, but relies on 2's complement arithmetic in on-board chip firmware to simulate subtraction in modern CPU's. " ?

What is your point in telling people that? Because from what you said it sounds like you're trying to give the impression that somehow two's-complement is inherently different from subtraction, and therefore, bad.

And yeah, Intel had some problems with division in the early Pentiums. That sucked. But, like others have pointed out, that's not a two's-complement error, despite your efforts to gloss over it and conflate the two.
posted by bshort at 8:19 PM on October 17, 2006

What planet are you living on where bank systems never have problems? 'Cause I wanna move there, if it supports human life.

A planet where software is properly designed and sufficiently tested. And yeah, I got paid very well, so it supported human life with no problems at all.

I think maybe half your problem is that you don't write very good code, and therefore assume that everyone writes not very good code.
posted by bshort at 8:22 PM on October 17, 2006

Over in the UK, loss of liberty is less accelerated and more insidious. The phenomenon where a population will bend over and unclench seems to be quite common here, with most people making the occasional grumble and nothing more. At least your country has whiners. We pretty much don't.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 1:19 AM on October 18, 2006

I think maybe half your problem is that you don't write very good code, and therefore assume that everyone writes not very good code.

Zing!
posted by pracowity at 3:10 AM on October 18, 2006