![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158343-100x100.png\")
The article said that \"We're a bit closer to the Orwellian 1984\".
As long as people are willingly choosing to buy into the illusion that \"privacy\" actually still exists anymore, it would be more correct to say that we have already surpassed the Orwellian concept and are into new territory.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-86677-100x100.png\")
I'm all for fire and brimstone when it comes to privacy, but the fear and loathing here is too much. Specifically \"On top of that, the company may monitor
\"information you publish\" via the Road Runner portal, which should send a chill through anyone who accesses his or her e-mail through Time Warner's servers.\"
What webhost (And that policy is most probably in regards to the 10megs or whatever webspace they give you) doesn't? If you publish something online, its not private, and the company needs to be able to cover it's own ass. You could be publishing porn/childporn/animalporn/unsavory stuff. Sure, moral reasons to shut down a page are bullshit, but even then, stuff like that are part of the REASONABLE section of TOS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
It appears my comment disappeared earlier. The problem may be that there's the assumption that something's amiss.
I think I am going to move and live in a cave.
All of that data collection may seem like no big deal. But it could be creatively used against you at some point. If you run the wrong side of some person, company, employer. That information could be used to build some sort of case against you. Even if you didn't do anything that could be considered wrong, lawyers are pretty good at twisting beneign things into some big issue to attack someone's credibility.
Something petty like ordering adult content can be turned into an attack on someone's credibility or their person.
It sounds a bit paranoid but I have seen lawyers take some trivial tidbit of someone's personal life and blow it up into a huge character assassination.
Well, nice to learn today that literacy is apparently not a job requirement at the LA Times. \"Information you publish\" clearly can not refer to email because private communication is not publishing.
As cdeat pointed it, out probably refers to stuff you publish on their web hosting service, etc.
Why does this only happen with bundled services? Why couldn't a company that only provides you, say, cable internet monitor your activities on the Internet?
FWIW, most cable TV boxes report back to the cable co which channels you're watching, when, and for how long. Also, cable phone services also keep logs of which #'s you call and the cable cos DO sell this info to other companies. Call in a lot of pizza orders and suddenly start getting coupons from a pizza company? Now you know why.
@Sam: When you bundle it, the company is able to put togther a much more \"invasive\" picture of things. Similar to my above example, imagine a company keeping track of who you call, which websites you view, and which television programmes you watch. For many people, that'd produce quite a telling story. Then imagine them selling that info. It's happening, and it's fully legal in the USA. Phone records used to be privileged info, but the law on that was reversed a year or two ago.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
Right now, this information is being used in an annoying, albeit innocuous function. But when the gubbamint decides to stick their nose in, oooOOOOooo \"Adios, muchachos\"
\"We see you posted an anti-gubbamint comment on Consumerist last week, please come with us we have some Questions for you.\"
I knew I'd find an advantage to not bundling eventually.