No Panacea

Businessweek has an interesting article about oDesk–a company that matches up freelance professionals with companies that need extra work done, either on an hourly or project basis. The rates range from $15-$100/hr depending on the skill offered, experience, etc.

Working from home saves costs on transportation, food, etc. however, does also come with some drawbacks. To make sure people are working and not just surfing online, the company implements some rather unnerving monitoring techniques.

Excerpt from Businessweek

“To keep everyone honest, oDesk takes random screen shots of what people are working on every 10 minutes. There’s also a Web cam, so employers can physically see whether someone is at their desk, and a log showing how many mouse clicks or keystrokes are made per minute. It’s not meant to be unduly intrusive, but rather to give the same degree of privacy — or lack thereof — people find in office settings where a manager can easily peer over a shoulder.”

Personally, I would feel rather uneasy about the fact a program is capturing screen shots of my screen and archiving them to look at later.

The Greek word anonymous derives from two parts an meaning without, and onoma meaning name, literally translating to “without a name.” Anonymity, the state of not being known or identifiable, however, in modern context carries somewhat incorrectly a negative connotation. Many people would argue that if a person does not want to disclose their identity, they must obviously have something to hide. Although this line of reasoning may appear to be air-tight, there are several flaws with it. Here are some positive uses anonymous identities online:

• determining if online retailers are carrying out price discrimination with cookies or through source IP
• viewing web sites that are filtered by geographic area (IPs)
• reaching online sources without leaving a trace or audit trail

The benefits and/or drawbacks of anonymity are in the eye of the beholder. What is good for the user (maintaining his or her anonymity) often reduces information (and hence power) of some other party; it is however far from one-sided. Many companies also need (or at least can benefit from) anonymity.

Consumer Protection
A consumer is concerned they have an illness and use their Internet connection to search on various search engines and health sites about their symptoms. What are the chances that the insurance company will find out, and raise their premiums as a response (let’s say hypothetically they’re looking for a plan, or perhaps switching)? Can insurance companies and/or HMO’S access to this information? Are they prevented from acquiring it under current statues (from certain information collectors)? Disturbing scenarios such as these with rather ethical questions always bring out my esteem for technology. If the law doesn’t account for it, well technology can remediate at least part of the solution. The consumer can browse the information anonymously and be less concerned about what might happen. They might want to do this anonymously because in the future both the search engine, the health site, and/or the cable provider under financial hardships might be inclined to “tweak” their privacy policy and become an information broker rather than an information provider. This is not necessarily likely, however, it could be argued that is it plausible. Through a proper mix of paranoia and uber-geekyness we take the situation into our own hands and use anonymizing software (such as Tor). This is far from a “perfect solution,” it requires 1) awareness 2) technical knowledge 3) time 4) lots of paranoia about where the medical industry is headed.