Hi figment88
You said:"Sure adults can read TOS and agree to it, but can anyone understand the full ramifications of these new more powerful personalization systems. Basically I am wondering if these new services represent a fundamental new direction in Internet privacy standards or are they simply a continuation of existing trends. "
Now that I understand the thrust of your question, I am even less capable of answering it. You've hit a raw nerve as a lot of confusion surrounds our rights and responsibilities with regard to our internet usage. I haven't a clue of the answers,and, more worryingly, I haven't a clue of where to start looking for the answers. With respect to email, I have the following queries.
Firstly, if I live in Europe and choose to use an Australian-based freemail service, which laws apply when I send an email? Australian law, EU law or the law of my particular country? Secondly, who owns the content of a private email? If I send an email to Marcia, does she own it, do I own it, or do we both own it? With emails from a particular company, the company has to determine its own policy as far as I know, but with private emails I am getting conflicting answers. So if anyone knows the answers to these questions, please put me out of my misery.
Personally I think the bespoke advertizing aspect of gmail "represents a fundamental new direction", but I don't want to enter into further detail.With regard to the search services proposed, I don't think they signal anything radically new. Toolbars have previously been able to track much of that information - that doesn't make it right or wrong, but people hadn't paid as much attention to these privacy issues before. The crux to me is what they do with the information. I do think that to get a better service, sometimes it is necessary to trust people more (a case in point is the fact that we all trust Brett not to read through our stickymail,and lets face it he probably has better things to do with his time than snooping!). If A9 is using the information provided to give us a better service and help us with searching, that is a boon. If they just use it for advertizing purposes or to give to a third party, I would take a dimmer view of it. That is just a personal view.
Now for the "Sure adults can read TOS and agree to it, but can anyone understand the full ramifications of these new more powerful personalization systems" bit. Whose responsibility is it anyway? If people read the terms, understand the words, but not the full implications of what they're signing into, who will protect them, or are they simply responsible for themselves? Do the search engines have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the subscriber knows what they are signing away? With medicines, for instance, a pharmaceutical company has to detail potential side-effects as well as benefits of the drugs, and it would go a long way to instilling a sense of public confidence, if internet companies did something similar by educating users as to what they are subscribing to. It is unlikely that they will follow this path, but it's just a thought.
Sorry that I've given you more questions than answers, but these services have thrown a sharper focus on my ignorance in these matters.
With Kindest Regards
Please Be Gentle
