On May 13, 2:52 am, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 08:29:22 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On May 12, 4:20 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 07:35:51 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On May 12, 2:35 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 01:59:36 -0700, MIG
wrote:

That is not the same as passively recording my movements when I am not
suspected of any crime (other than a pattern of movement that may at
any time be deemed by the powers that be to be deviant).

Think about how many Oyster cards there are out there, and how many
journeys are made with them. Then think about how much time and effort
(and money) it would take to assess the data for "deviant patterns".

And then wake up and snap out of your paranoia.

Notice my use of the word "passively". It's only the analysis that
takes effort, and that can be done at any time in the future, as long
as the data is collected.

But analysis for "deviant" patterns necessarily must take place
promptly, or it is irrelevant.

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

You really are paranoid, aren't you? I don't think there's a cure

No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying
beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get
long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Even if that is true, what's the problem?-

Well, back to the original point, it IS easy to do, and I would simply
rather than they didn't record stuff about me.

Rather than worry about what governments, supermarkets, governments'
successors and any number of third parties they sell the data to might
do with information about me, I would simply prefer them not to store
it in the first place, which is why I haven't registered my Oyster.

You think that they're not collecting the data for unregistered cards?-


Of course they are, but the card will be related to me if and only if
I am arrested with it on me, and only as far back as last time I
replaced it.

In a criminal investigation, it might be reasonable to find out where
I (or my card) had been.

On Sat, 12 May 2007, MIG wrote:

On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining is too
much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket "loyalty"
cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg buying beer
and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards is to get long term
data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Most people pay for their shopping with credit or debit cards. I've long
wondered why they didn't just use the numbers of those to track people.

tom

--
information distribution, vox humana, deviation, handle, feed, l.g. **

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, MIG wrote:

On May 12, 3:05 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On 12 May 2007 06:47:31 -0700, MIG
wrote:

If you really think that collecting data for subsequent mining
is too much trouble, why do you suppose they have supermarket
"loyalty" cards?

For collective data, not for data on individuals.

No, they could get collective data from the till records (eg
buying beer and nappies together). The purpose of loyalty cards
is to get long term data about individuals' patterns of purchases.

Most people pay for their shopping with credit or debit cards. I've
long wondered why they didn't just use the numbers of those to
track people.

Because the credit/debit card number is needed only to effect the
purchase transaction, and any other use not authorised by the card
holder would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. In the case of
loyalty cards, I think you'll find that the terms of use specifically
include permission to track buying habits.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)