This. While in general privacy is definitely a concern, I see "don't give your information" way too often and it's becoming sort of a cliche.
How might the fact that I like some certain artists affect me in the future? No one is going to blackmail me for the fact that I liked Wu Tang Clan. I won't get denied some visa or whatever because I liked Donnie Darko movie.
Privacy is important but let's stop from making it a cliche or some 'easy win'.
We do not, with respect to clean air and clean water, set the limits of tolerable pollution by consent. We have socially established standard of cleanliness, which everybody has to meet.
Environmental law is not law about consent. But with respect to privacy we have been allowed to fool ourselves.
What is actually a subject of environmental regulation has been sold to us as a mere matter of bilateral bargaining. The facts show this is completely untrue" -- Eben Moglen
In one scenario, you have full control over when you signal that information and when you stop. In the other, once you send out the signal... congratulations, you're now in several databases and have opened yourself to all sorts of soliciting.
Once it has been on the internet, it is forever.
Not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it is exactly the same.
Maybe tattoos?
If that were truly the case, we wouldn't be so worried about NSA retention of data.
If you commonly display $information in all sorts of settings, then $information is not ipso facto private and leaking that information further is not a privacy threat.
(Of course, it can be used as an input to deanonymize you in some data-mining system, so there's that...).
Constellations of consumer interests might be enough to create a high likelihood that you're gay, a drug user, sympathize with anti-tax protesters, or with anti-globalization protests. The next algorithm to be run over your profile might benefit greatly from this initial filtering, and depending on the distinctness of the constellation, may not result in very many false negatives.
The second algorithm auto-authorizes full text email and full audio telephone collection and review. </dystopia>
That does not mean we must treat every single personal preference as top secret material.
What if the FBI decides to categorize your band fandom as a form of gang affiliation?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/08/showbiz/juggalo-gang-lawsu...
I feel like this could very much be a case of http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fa...
US spending on science, space, and technology has a 0.992 correlation with suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation
Public interest is probably best served by making sure that lending markets are healthy enough that making meaningless distinctions based on silly data is not a viable practice (rather than fretting over exactly what data is allowed to be considered).
I see how they would know that you like Bob's Burgers, but how would they know that you dislike The Family Guy? Or, were you saying that they know you haven't declared you like Family Guy at this point in time? I ask is cause I was missing a way they could track the former, and also because I think Facebook is missing the boat by not having a way to dislike something.
If I were looking to by Brand A and saw a lot of my negative sentiment for that brand Brand B would need less positive sentiment for me to be sawed to it. In that scenario they start to displace services like Yelp.
I really want all ad platforms to give me the choice to opt out from some advertisers -- especially from alcohol and gambling.
Also: 99.9% of people who use Facebook don't think at all about how much information they're giving Facebook. They don't care. So Facebook knows I like Bob's Burgers but not The Family Guy. And?