posted 08-27-2001 11:47 PM               

There was a page on the Brunching Shuttlecocks comedy website a few months ago that generated a Mr. T name for users, which asked for different pieces of information to be typed into fields. The joke was that no matter what you typed into the fields, your Mr. T name came up as "Sucka." Now, Shuttlecock humor is generally aimed at an audience that's moderately web-savvy and grounded in modern popular culture. But because one of the fields asked for the user's social security number, the site was flooded with emails berating the creators for asking for such a vital piece of information. Some of these emails accused the creators of intending to use the information to take advantage of people. (The 'cocks responded by explaining that none of the information was recorded, and that you could type in "Secretariat" or "Froot Loops" or "Nov. 22, 1963" in the SSN field and still get the same results from the generator.)

As a former journalist (or, at the very least, someone doing a very good job of pretending to be a journalist) I have a lot of appreciation for the exchange of free information; I spent more than enough time on the phone with PR hacks trying to get a nugget of real information. If not for sources of free information, I never would have discovered the local man who donated a quarter million dollars in soft money to the George W. Bush campaign, and I never would have found the speed traps set by police around my home. I got the first piece of information from "official" sources; I got the second from a more informal source, but one that was no less useful to myself or my readers. So I can get behind such methods of documenting public information, even if it means a few people get embarrassed or are inconvenienced for the greater good.

posted 08-27-2001 11:48 PM               

One woman I know was adamant about not answering the income question on the 2000 Census because she felt "that was her business" (I guess she forgot that she had given the government that information in April) but she was pleased that the four women's magazines she subscribed to kept her informed about products she might like to buy. Of course, how else would the publishers know how to market to her if they didn't have a pretty good idea about how much she made? This is information they had bought from her supermarket chain, her credit card company's her mortgage company, or just about anyone else she did business with. This is reality and far too few people realize it. Is it dangerous? Probably not, since most of the data is aggregated by age, sex, or zip code. Most companies that do this type of research would rather know whether or not the typical 25-year old woman living in a given area would be inclined to buy peach lip-gloss than if Pattie Gillett would buy peach lip-gloss. (For the record, I wouldn't).

As a marketer in financial services (and having spent a year in market research) I am torn on this issue. I fear transparency because of the potential that criminal acts can wreak on one's financial future. There is also the potential discrimination problem that Dave mentioned. However, I do think that people need to put a little more thought into the information they hide and the information they will readily part with.

Frankly, we appear to be moving towards a time where someone may be able to justify demanding more and more personal information from us. Many employers already run credit checks on potential employees arguing that this cuts down on employee theft. Insurance companies use credit ratings to set rates because they say there is a correlation between low credit scores and reckless driving. If this trend continues, I see myself moving more towards Brin's camp because at some point the system should have to bend the other way.

posted 09-04-2001 08:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pattie Gillett:

I fear transparency because of the potential that criminal acts can wreak on one's financial future.

---