Monday, December 31, 2007 

Vol. 3 No. 29

HAPPY HOLIDAYS & HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Thought I’d close Out this the 2007 with a Clever Car Quiz, Brought to You with the Help of My Home Town Philadelphia Library Staff & My Home Town Paper (Now Owned Locally by Brian Tierney, Publisher and Real Estate Mogul and Car Dealer, Bruce Toll, I Might Add), “The Philadelphia Inquirer”…


No matter how you look at it, I think this has been kind of a rough year for everyone (unless maybe you are a property foreclosure lawyer), so I thought I’d close out the year with a this clever quiz about cars and the things people do in them. See how many you get right…answers at the bottom.

1. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, what is the record time for a dog to unwind a non-electric car window? (Hint: its faster than some people I know…)
a. 9.88 seconds
b. 10.01 seconds
c. 11.34 seconds
d. 12.9 seconds
e. 16 seconds


2. A famous film and TV star is now in jail, serving inmates meals as part of his jail duties. Who? (Hint: it’s ironic that the sentence is 48 days)



3. A Philadelphia TV news anchor started a vacation last Monday, somewhat early. Who? How does this relate to our topic? (Hint: the incident did not occur in Philadelphia, but in New York City)

4. We all know it is unwise, illegal, irresponsible and lethal to drive intoxicated. But Joe Cullen, assistant coach of the Detroit Lions of the National Football League, did much more than that. What did he do?

5. What famous actor and director got in so much trouble in July 2006 that the head of the Anti-Defamation League had to accept his apology?


6. In a 2006 film, an Aston Martin set a record for car stunts on film, rolling seven times in one take – and rolling into the Guinness Book of World Records. What film? (Hint: the car is a clue)

7. What do media celebs Hilary Swank, Bobby Brown, Tyler Perry and Jewel have in common?

8. The 2008 Guinness Book of World Records will include Mathew McKnight who set a car-related record near Monroeville (Pittsburgh area) in 2001. It is not a record he hopes anyone ever has to match or break. It hurt. What was it?


9. About 11,000 people a year submerge their cars in bodies of water, either by or not by design. If your car starts to sink, you should, according to the Web site Everything2, lower the windows but not try opening the doors. How come? And what is the first thing you should do?

10. What did Isadora Duncan, Albert Camus and Jayne Mansfield have in common?

Answers –

1. c. This was achieved by Striker, a border collie owned and trained by Francis V. Gadassi (Hungary). The record was set on Sept. 1, 2004, in Quebec City, Canada.

2. Kiefer Sutherland, who plays Jack Bauer in “24.” Earlier this month, he reported to the Glendale City Jail to begin a 48-day stay for DUI arrest while under probation for another DUI.

3. Alycia Lane of Philadelphia CBS 3 started her vacation Dec. 17, instead of Dec. 23 as scheduled, because of her arrest in connection with an altercation in New York for which she was arrested. She and friends were in a cab and got out of the cab at the time.

4. Cullen drove through a late-night Wendy’s drive-through while naked. Eight days later, Cullen was arrested for a DUI.

5. Mel Gibson, who allegedly hurried anti-Semitic epithets while being arrested for a DUI infraction.

6. “Casino Royale”

7. All have said that, at one time or another, they lived in their cars for some period of time.

8, According to the Guinness Book of World Records, he flew the farthest after being hit by a car. A car going 70 m.p.h. hit McKnight and launched him about 118 feet in the air. He’s okay now…

9. Water pressure from outside makes it too hard to open the doors. Opening the windows, however, allows water inside, and once the water comes inside, opening the doors will be easier. The first thing, though, is to take off your seat belt.

10. Each took a final car ride to the other side.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 

Vol. 3 No. 28

Make No Mistake: FLEET STILL RULES

At Least for Detroit Automakers, Fleet Sales Still Represent a Make or Break (the Company) Percentage of Sales…and If Toyota Really Wants to be the #1 Automaker in the World, Fleet is Critical to them as Well…


A recent article last week in Automotive News, the weekly automotive trade newspaper that is mostly targeted to manufacturers and dealers, ran a story on page three, that very clearly identified the market power and effect fleet sales still have on the Detroit “Big Three” and even their Asian brethren these days. Program rental car sale buybacks may have been replaced by “risk” cars by Ford, GM and Chrysler, and, may have been reduced, in general, from 2006 numbers, but the first 9 month total sales results for 2007 indicate that the combination of retail sales falling farther and faster than fleet sales totals, and an increase in the commercial sales sector, served to actually increase the total percentage that fleet sales represent for most US vehicle manufacturers, especially the Detroit big three.

So here are the numbers: in the first 9 months of 2007, through September, Ford reduced fleet sales by 17.3% from the prior year, General Motors cut fleet sales by 5.7%, and Chrysler reduced fleet by 3.6%... On the other hand, Detroit’s retail sales fell by 7.4% in aggregate, so as it spins out, through September 2007:

- 31% of total Ford vehicle sales were to fleet buyers
- 30% of total Chrysler vehicle sales were to fleet buyers
- 27% of total General Motors sales were to fleet buyers


And, other manufacturers with significant fleet percentages:

- 21% of total Kia vehicle sales were to fleet buyers
- 11% of total Nissan vehicle sales were to fleet buyers
- 9% of total Toyota vehicle sales were to fleet buyers
- 3% of total Honda vehicle sales were to fleet buyers


Note: by definition, fleet is defined as any sale to an organization that buys ten or more vehicles at a time.


So Doing the Math…

Fleet sales still account for almost a third of everything Detroit sells in the US, which, to me indicates that fleet customers - commercial, rental, government sectors- large fleet buyers, small fleet buyers and everything in between, are vitally important tothe very survival of the automotive industry in the United States. Let me say that again, just because the impact of the statement, though rarely expressed in national financial publications, is so overwhelming – CONTINUED FLEET SALES SUCCESS IS VITAL FOR US AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS TO SURVIVE….

Now, I’m not saying that any manufacturer needs to do the silly, downright ruinous sub-vented guaranteed buy-back programs Detroit offered rental car companies throughout the last fifteen years or so… Those programs, in fact, were an unnatural market budget, killing creation first driven by misguided internal bureaucratic political motivations (see my blog entry on… for details), and then propagated and expanded through even more misguided union contract prescripts.This basically kept the expense of having plants running, whether or not there was any demand for vehicles. No, instead I’m talking about good old commercial, rental, and government buyers negotiating quantity vehicle multi-year purchases… If this group for some reason, in aggregate, decides one day to not “buy American,” and moves suddenly to Asian vehicle manufacturers to satisfy their transportation needs, unless Ford, GM & Chrysler can survive selling 1/3 less than their already reduced vehicle sales totals, well then, they collapse, right?

Why do I identify this, well, because I’ve been watching trends in this business for over 20 years, and I think I see a pattern here…and I also think that some misguided folks at the highest levels in the US manufacturer’s executive suites don’t realize how important their fleet clients are, and do not give them the attention they deserve as Detroit’s most important sector. So follow history and my reasoning here: in the late seventies and early eighties Detroit’s refrain to the Asian import/manufacturer threat was that, “they are good at building small cars but will never dominate the mainstream US car market.” Then later on in the eighties, it was a variation of, “they are doing well in small and midsized vehicles, but could never be taken seriously for luxury car sales by the American consumer” (I have to say the Europeans were echoing that sentiment as well). Then, somewhere around the time the eighties turned into the nineties, there was an echo of how the Asians couldn’t transplant their success using American
factories and American workers (somehow that their success was due to lower labor costs alone and so not a growing threat). Then finally, after the US manufacturers all but gave up, or more accurately, abdicated the car market in exchange for dominating and making all of their money in lucrative truck sales, it was, “well the Asian’s don’t want to and never will enter the US full size truck market.” That last one was the latest refrain, still faintly echoing now while the newly introduced full-sized Toyota Tundra, made in the US, has a better than excellent chance of hitting its first year sales goal in 2007 of 200,000 units… Okay, so the Ford F-Series sales, in aggregate, will still blow the doors off of the Tundra in total sales this year, but can anyone out there be trulyoblivious to the overpowering direction of the trend?


And Speaking of Trends…


…Getting back to issue of recognizing the value of “precious” fleet customers for the Detroit’s Big Three, judging from the chart that Automotive News posted in this article, I’m not the only one that has noticed the trend this year of Honda, Nissan and Toyota in total aggregate unit sales to fleet buyers in the US through September. Partially masked by their increased market share in retail sales, when you look at these manufacturers’ total increased unit volume to fleet buyers this year, the trend is clear and not accidental. Specifically, while the Big Three reduced the aggregate total number of sales to fleet buyers, the Asians increased them significantly: Toyota with a 31% fleet sales volume increase (an additional 42,000 units in 9 months), Nissan with 67% sales volume increase (an additional 37,000 units in 9 months), and Honda, which historically has done very, very little volume to fleet buyers at all, booked a serious 118% increase in fleet sales volume (an additional 19,000 units in 9 months).

It’s true the Asian manufacturers are starting from a much smaller base of initial fleet sale units, and yes, they may simply be “picking up the slack” of the buyer’s needs given the Detroit Big Three’s cut backs, and yes this could only be a “seasonal blimp.” On the other hand, it seems to me these same “explanations” could have been (and in many cases were) used to rationalize their initial success in their US car market in the ‘80’s, or their success in the luxury segment of the market in the ‘90’s, or their current infiltration of the full size truck market this year. The difference here, of course, is thatit would certainly seem that in the condition Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler are in today, there is not much more ground they can give up before they can’t “downsize” their way out of the problem. If the Big Three lose any significant fleet volume, given the lack of growth in the retail marketplace and the challenging economic times projected over the next year or two, it could truly lead to dire consequences. If I had any influence on the top brass of the Detroit manufacturers, I’d make sure they would be focusing their attention on fleet clients like never before, as if survival itself depended on it. I think preserving the market share in this, Detroit’s last market dominant stronghold, is no less than a necessity for self preservation.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 10, 2007 

Vol. 3 No. 27


“I Spy”…A Follow-Up as Recent as Today’s Headlines…

Joseph White’s “Eyes on the Road” Column in the Wall Street Journal this Week Provided a Timely Report on “Big Brother”


So last week we went from simple fleet telematics, to the new movie “Look,” to the new Facebook software Beacon, all in the name of privacy, or what doesn’t pass for it these days. This week Joe White’s “Eyes on the Road” automotive column in the Wall Street Journal provided yet another example of automotive surveillance, aptly entitled, “Here’s Looking at You, Kid.” It was so interrelated that I had to add an update blog comment on it.

It seems that there is now a new device that many insurance companies are offering, which monitors how a car is being driven. Just as with the fleet telematic devices outlined in the last blog entry, these systems use global positioning systems (GPS) to gather and transmit information about a vehicle’s location and speed, and go one step further to offer detailed driving patterns, (breaking,) and even video record the drivers and passengers. While offered as a way to keep tabs on newly licensed drivers, that is, so parents can watch their teens driving, which I guess has some merits one would think, these devices certainly aren’t limited to that function, and word is some insurance companies may even offer discounts for usage, although that’s not been adopted now by most and even any formal roll out is controversial, for privacy reasons.

You see, the economic issues relating to privacy are very real. If one of these “back seat driver” camera and monitor things is installed, controlled, or available to insurance companies, the very real worry is that insurance companies can and will begin to deny accident claims where they can, where there is evidence, through these devices, to identify negligent or gross negligent driving which lead to the accident. As Joe White aptly observes in his article, when he quotes Roger Parker, the Assistant Vice President of Consumer Driven Innovation for Allstate Corp., “Parents may want to know what their teens are up to in the car, he says, but they probably don’t want the insurance company to know or to have the power to use information to penalize them by, for instance, denying a claim based on video-recorded stupidity.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Parker says that Allstate plans to offer several different products to consumers as well as commercial accounts within a year, and, Joe White transcripts, “As insurers develop solutions to the privacy issue and the cost of hardware goes down, Mr. Parker expects on board vehicle monitoring will get big fast...We think it could be huge,” he says.

An in-car camera installed near the rear-view mirror to record unsafe "events" when a teenager drives.

Well, that may be true, and I enjoy those gecko and cavemen commercials as much as the next guy, (and just was enlightened to find out that it’s actually Talia Shire, Mrs. Rocky, that plays the analyst in cavemen commercials), but if anyone really believes that the insurance industry will push these devices on folks for the good of humanity and not as a method to save a buck and deny a claim, or that the Facebook folks introduced Beacon as a device to help their members, well, let’s just say those are probably the same people that believe in talking lizards…


And Developments on the Facebook “Beacon” Front (a ‘beacon’ is a warning, right?)

Apparently lots of others feel the same way as I do about Facebook’s Beacon, by the way, as last Wednesday it was reported that the advertising platform has, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, “prompted a user backlash so severe it has sent advertisers running.” This major controversy comes “as Facebook struggles with the huge valuation a handful of new investors have placed on the firm.” That valuation tops $15B, not too shabby considering its revenues are expected to total $150M and come mostly from Microsoft, its primary investor for a few hundred million. It seems that old Facebook went from introducing Beacon as an automatic service, then when users “recoiled” it made it into an opt-in participation. But even that was a bit deceptive, as it was learned that the Beacon spying still functions and Facebook still receives all of the users’ purchase information, even from “opt-out” users. “That has raised privacy concerns severe enough to prompt partners like Travelocity and retailer Overstock to withdraw their support. Even advertising clients fear the system is too intrusive”…now that says something about Facebook doesn’t it, when they pursue something so invasive that even the advertisers that benefit run for cover from it? When user privacy is so highly disregarded by something as “hot” with young ones as Facebook…maybe we should all be afraid… Frankly, I feel much better to know there was such backlash.


And So…

So, while intuitively when I first read the “Letter to the Editor” from Automotive Fleet Magazine that started this whole topic I was sort of skeptical of their being any privacy issue in fleet use of telematics, I now find myself skeptical in a reverse sort of way. I think maybe there are serious privacy issues afoot, perhaps not today in the way telematic information is used, but coming possibly down the road in the very near future…



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 02, 2007 

Vol. 3 No. 26


“I Spy”…I’m Starting to Get A Bit Concerned…I Bet Other Folks Will Be Soon As Well…

Combine Telematics/GPS Systems, with Current “Normal” Surveillance Cameras, and Innovations like “Beacon” on Facebook and Privacy Truly Does Become a Thing of the Past


This blog entry started out as a simple highlight of a “Letter to the Editor” in the September issue of Automotive Fleet Magazine that I thought raised a particularly interesting point in a new area of the law, surrounding a relative new technology, that is, telematics/GPS installation systems for fleet vehicles. These systems allow fleet managers and employers to monitor and have a detailed online digital record of the entire history of fleet vehicle’s excursions-- every stop, every time the motor is turned on or off, etc. The letter writer managed a utility fleet that had the devices installed in a pilot program and the company’s union had put in a policy grievance based on privacy issues and changes in working conditions. They basically argued that the devices could be used in vehicles but the results of monitoring could not be used for disciplinary purposes. Having no direct case law as precedent, the fleet manager was subject to the pre-arbitration ruling that stated emphatically that telematics systems cannot be used for disciplinary purposes, and that no judge or arbitrator would allow an invasion of privacy to this degree. However, it did suggest it could be used for breaches of criminal law – in short, an employee could not be taken to task because the telematics system revealed he spent the afternoon at a local bowling alley (or worse) as opposed to being “on the job,” but if the installed telematics revealed that the vehicle was used in an armed robbery, then the tracking evidence could be utilized as evidence. The writer’s question was simply if anyone else faced this issue and if this is the case in all circumstances, then the “legal brick wall” greatly reduced the benefits of installing telematics/GPS systems.

Now one of the reasons why Automotive Fleet Magazine is the “bible of the fleet industry” and why I think the “Letters to the Editor” section is way more informative than similar sections in other magazines, is because Ed Bobit, Mike Antich, and the rest of the crew do an excellent job to investigate and get the best answer/responses for good topical issues and questions. This was indeed the case once again, when this reader’s query was answered in print by
Ann P. Fourney, attorney for the automotive issue focused law firm of Hudson Cook, LLP in Washington, D.C., where she responded that the cited “grievance by the union in question may be based on a collective bargaining agreement management and the union,” and, “if so, the issues involving work conditions will be resolved in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and applicable labor laws,” “However, these labor relations issues do not implicate federal privacy laws.” Fourney went on to say that “Generally speaking, fleet-oriented telematics/GPS products, used in accordance with the vendor’s instructions (and with the notice provided to the employee) do not violate privacy laws,” and “In fact, a properly designed telematics/GPS product reflects a careful balance between an employee’s right to privacy and an employer’s legitimate need for the information.”


So That Was It, The Issue, the Question, and the Answer--Until I Picked Up a Newspaper This Week…

So simply, there was the concern and the answer, providing a brief but information filled topic that I wanted to provide more exposure to in this blog. I thought it was interesting both from a fleet and legal perspective (because of my background I’m one of those strange folks that looks for the intersection of both topics), and that was the end of that, until I was reminded of the issue this week, in two distinctly different articles in Wednesday’s issue of the Wall Street Journal (November 28, 2007). They were different articles but each dealt with the what is now the perceived issue of privacy, and when looked on together from a broader perspective, and combined with the “telematics at work” issue, really makes one think about how personal privacy is fast becoming a myth propagated by the uninformed.

The first article that I saw on the topic in the WSJ last Wednesday was in the editorial section, the “Business World” article written by long time Journal editorial writer, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., entitled, “
I Spy.” In it he highlights a new movie, “Look,” co-produced by Barry Schuler, about surveillance. Interestingly enough when combined with the topic of the second article I’ll cite from the paper that day, Jenkins’ says that Schuler began thinking about the topic when he was CEO of AOL, and "the subpoenas began arriving for access to member’s emails." It also said that “Adam Rifkin, the film’s director and screenwriter…had a similar epiphany: He was nailed by a traffic camera for running a red light.”

The film “Look” is a “loose-hanging collection of intersecting plotlines…whose stories are seen entirely from the perspective of surveillance cameras at ATM machines, high school parking lots, a department store stockroom, etc.” (Hey, it occurs to me they could have included dealership “F & I” closing rooms, as lots of those have video recording cameras running as well these days). “The characters are mostly unaware that their behavior and misbehavior is being recorded. The audience isn’t. Hence the film’s ingenious charm.” (the film apparently sports an “R” rating and was lucky to get off that easy).

The article goes on to state that Schuler’s research found that most of the nation’s 30 million closed-circuit private surveillance cameras aren’t monitored by security pros (surprise?), but manned by minimum wage teenagers, the very same folks who like to make unauthorized highlight reels and post them on YouTube… You get the drift here folks…the movie is fiction but the underlying situation is very real – this is not a movie of what may happen in the future, this is happening right now, all the time, in lots of places.

What is coming in the very near future, however, is of even more concern. “The surveillance cameras of the future will be networked – linked to each other and computers capable of face recognition and other kinds of pattern recognition, and thus able to extract information about who and what the camera is seeing.” As is quoted, “In a much-noted October speech,
Donald Kerr, who serves as No. 2 overseeing the nation’s intelligence agencies, laid out a hard truth – “in our interconnected and wireless world,” he said, “anonymity- or the appearance of anonymity – is quickly becoming a thing of the past..And our only hope for “privacy” (meaning some degree of control over who has access to private information), he argued, is by trusting government.”


Okay, so is anyone concerned yet?

If not, let me move on to the final article in the Wall Street Journal, that ran the very same day, in the front page of the “Marketplace” section, the “Portals” column by Vauhini Vara, entitled, “
Just How Much Do We Want to Share On Social Networks.” In this article a new automatic “service” on the social networking site Facebook is highlighted, called Beacon, which, get this, automatically follows its members around the Internet and reports back to all listed friends all of that member’s Web based transactions ( all purchases: clothes, movie tickets, books, online films etc.) – by the way, apparently a Facebook member doesn’t get a choice in this if you join this social network, which is why, I think business/professional social network sites are sorely needed that adopt the best business networking traits of social networks but thatprotect things like privacy and aren’t geared towards kids, even college kids, that frankly don’t know any better than to accept these “innovations” for the sake of feigned “closeness” with hundreds of online “friends,” any more than they yet have not gotten tired of “thrown sheep”or “pokes” from “friends.”

If you buy something from an online site that has signed up with Beacon, a note is sent to your Facebook profile automatically, and in an area of your friends Facebook account under “news feeds” which gives them updates on friends activities…and of course, an ad for the purchase site can accompany the news feed note. Its reported, “Fandango (the movie ticketing site), Blockbuster and Overstock.com are among the few dozen commercial sites on board already” – why wouldn’t every online vendor sign up, as no compensation is paid to you for the broadcast of your purchase behavior (as the article says, you get nothing from the transaction, “except the satisfaction of having yet another way to broadcast your every move to every friend”).


Of course you get to “opt out” of this invasive device, but as the article says, that isn’t easy… the box that appears at your initial item purchase time on the corner of your computer screen stays there for all of 30 seconds, saying, for instance, “Fandango is sending this to your Facebook profile: Vauhini bought No Country for Old Men on Fandango.” Then, on your Facebook account, there is a similar notice at the top of the page, but to stop the broadcast to all friends takes four clicks, while one click of “ok” forever pastes your purchase history to all of your listed friends. “Beacon asks Facebook users to make ever more-invasive trades for the sake of an ever more superficial sense of closeness.”

I have to add my own observation here, that is, blatant privacy invasion devices like these (unlike the surveillance cameras or telematic/GPS devices noted above that have a good underlying security justification), in my opinion, will ultimately identify and relegate Facebook to be an inexperienced “kids play world” forever, just as MySpace is today – 35% of the audience is under 18 years old and 15% are parents trying to watch this 35%. And then you add to this percentage the audience that wants to sell to this teen mentality buying group, entertainers, clubs and the like, and I’m not convinced there are too many full grown adults on these networks, or that the their adult membership is growing significantly. As one well known VC partner stated (an investor in a product servicing one of these sites I might add), "if you are over 40 and on either of these social networks, well, you are kind of creepy…"


In any event, I think experienced business folks wouldn’t put up with exploitive “innovations” like “Beacon” for 30 seconds…no self respecting networking site, that catered to adult users, would allow its use, let alone promote Beacon as a service. As

Adam Nash, Senior Director of Product for LinkedIn.com said when I heard him speak in Philadelphia at the Entrepreneurs Forum recently, you would never see LinkedIn.com allowing “widget” software that allowed the viral sending of virtual “sheep throwing,” or “zombie pirate bighting” messages, apparently the two highest volume application software widgets circulating on Facebook today. As identified, LinkedIn is geared towards adult professionals, who, if exposed to such things even once, would sign off and never return.

In my opinion, it’s time that social networking online get out of the “kiddy playground” that MySpace and Facebook have created, and use the advanced technology for networking available to create business networks specialized in various career disciplines. I think innovations on Facebook like “Beacon” only reinforce this idea, and LinkedIn has done a lot to move things in the right direction, but there are still a lot more, business focused networks yet to be created.


So Back to the Issue at Hand…In Summation…

So what started out to be a rather innocuous blog entry highlighting some useful information that was in a recent “Letters to the Editor” area of Automotive Fleet Magazine about the (again rather innocuous) use of telematics/GPS in fleet vehicles, turned out to have some larger ramifications, when put in the broader perspective of surveillance, as the topic and message outlined in the editorial section of a recent Wall Street Journal reviewing the recent film, “Look,” then combined with the article in the very same issue dealing with the reality of online surveillance software on the second most popular social networking site on the Web. My observations/conclusions to all of this:

a) None of these topics involve future surveillance, all this stuff – telematics, public videos monitored by non-qualified civilians, Internet tracking surveillance is all proliferating right now


b) To the extent adult business people can provide limits they do, i.e. the actual discussion in Automotive Fleet of the issues present at the very beginning of the mainstream use of telematics

c) To the extent inexperienced consumers/young people are exposed to online surveillance, sensitivities are not so heightened, so indeed, there are no limits to date and widget makers such as Beacon are free to do what they like; frankly, I’d be more concerned about an online service tracking and broadcasting my every Internet purchase, than I would my employer tracking my employer provided vehicle during business hours, but I’ve yet to see any serious consumer/legal backlash on such an Internet surveillance

d) Perhaps the only protection we have in this increasingly interconnected, surveillance filled world is, as the Journal describes it, “normal democratic pushback” to help “curb the excesses by questioning the competence and motives of government” as has occurred in Britain, probably the most “watched” society. Or as it says, “the best hope for taming the new technology is simply voters’ learning curve” and films like “Look” serve as “a kind of public service announcement.” But…

e) How long is this learning curve, if the youngest adult demographically skewed Web sites can actively and commercially promote and expand privacy damming surveillance widgets online and be greeted not with outrage or even suspicion, but with an almost naïve enthusiasm? In fact, given that this is the case, we provide a huge economic incentive for these firms to become more skilled at surveillance (the participants in Facebook don’t even get a cut of the revenue their purchase surveillance generates) and equally skilled at glossing over “opt in” provisions.

What do you think?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Syndication

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates