Every web request is like a letter with a to: and a from: address. Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to.
Also, your argument is that because the user doesn't want it, it is unethical? I don't want to sit in traffic but that doesn't make traffic unethical.
Similarly, you accuse them of 'violating trust'. It's public knowledge that any IP address can be looked up. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean your trust is violated. In the same way, just because you didn't know something was against the law doesn't make it not illegal.
I am for privacy, don't get my wrong, but your comments represent one of the biggest challenges with privacy right now: the assumptions of privacy and trust. It's hard to have rational and productive arguments about privacy when people get emotional about the inner workings of the system. If you don't agree with the system, work to change it, but don't blame others for what is, at the end of the day, just a feature of how it all works. Instead, try to understand the feature and think about how we can implement future systems with similar functionality but more privacy.
>Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to.
No, it's the equivalent of asking a woman in a bar if you can call her and when she says "no," you look up her number in the phone book and call her anyway.
Except she’s not forced to wear her full name on display at the bar (unlike IP addressing) and is able to opt out of being in the phone book (unlike GeoIP .
DBs).
I get what you’re saying and I see where you’re coming from, but to try and use this phone number analogy, it’s like telling someone what city/state they’re in based on their area code when they’ve opted to provide you no location information beyond their phone number.
The phone number itself contains location information. It’s not necessary accurate information as I could easily (and do) use a 212 number wherever I am I the USA, not just in New York.
Finally, we’ve had rulings about phone numbers and IP addresses. Phone numbers “belong” to the end user, not the operator, and move with the user if they want to. IP addresses “belong” to the carrier, and are non portable. In a number of cases, carriers actively provide city-level accuracy for where they’re using their IP space as it actively improves performance for end users.
Also, your argument is that because the user doesn't want it, it is unethical? I don't want to sit in traffic but that doesn't make traffic unethical.
Similarly, you accuse them of 'violating trust'. It's public knowledge that any IP address can be looked up. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean your trust is violated. In the same way, just because you didn't know something was against the law doesn't make it not illegal.
I am for privacy, don't get my wrong, but your comments represent one of the biggest challenges with privacy right now: the assumptions of privacy and trust. It's hard to have rational and productive arguments about privacy when people get emotional about the inner workings of the system. If you don't agree with the system, work to change it, but don't blame others for what is, at the end of the day, just a feature of how it all works. Instead, try to understand the feature and think about how we can implement future systems with similar functionality but more privacy.