codefork.com

Should there be a federally regulated “do not track” list for the internet, similar to the existing “do not call” lists? There’s an angle to this issue that I think proponents are missing.

As at least one person has already pointed out, the internet doesn’t work like a telephone system. It makes sense to say “do not call me”, since the “me” is the phone number. But how do you identify the “me” who’s using the web? Schemes using IP addresses and browser cookies aren’t adequate, since they can often be shared by several people.

Contextual advertising tries to make smart guesses about what might interest the user, but it’s only as good as its assumptions about whether it’s the same individual who generated the browsing patterns. The fact that advertisers are constantly extending their networks to probe more data and perpetually improving their algorithms speaks to how difficult this problem of identification is.

This is not simply a technical problem, but one that has broader social ramifications. The crux of it is this: in order to say “do not track me,” there needs to be a “me.” Supporters of this initiative are, in effect, implicitly also supporting the creation of a strong identification mechanism. Any federal regulation would need such an id in order to sign people up. Otherwise, how would you? Who’s the “me” that advertisers shouldn’t track?

A “do not track” list might successfully limit advertisers’ collection of web usage data, but it would certainly also improve government’s ability to do so. Would privacy really be improved then? The more practical solution is to encourage people to make use of ad-blockers and secure channels, and to educate them on how to be more savvy web users.

James Watson, of Watson and Crick fame, has resigned this morning (Race row DNA scientist quits lab). No doubt it was due to the controversy over his incredibly offensive comments about people of African descent:

He was quoted as saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

He later issued a pretty feeble apology; actually more of a statement that he’d been misunderstood. On the subject of whether Africans were genetically inferior, he retracted his earlier statement: “there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

The most interesting discussions so far about this incident resolve around the question: Is “race” a valid scientific construct for genetic research, or is it merely a social construct? It’s a deceptive question whose answer probably isn’t either/or: for example, I think it’s been shown that certain populations correlated with “race” are more genetically prone to having particular medical conditions.

I’m a skeptic when it comes to science. For me, the deeper question is: when does race get used in research and when doesn’t it? For what purposes? Science rarely takes place (if ever) in a vacuum of objectivity. Research gets funded, often in order to support human decisions about something. Note that Watson’s original comments reference “social policies.” He also mentioned what employers tend to think about the intelligence of people of African descent.

This is what’s truly scary about genetics in this day and age. It definitely can be a tool for helping people. But I suspect the greater likelihood is that it’ll be a tool for deciding who’s smart/able, who’s more deserving of opportunity, even who’s more deserving of a chance to live (health insurance companies love this stuff!).

My Technorati Profile.