Why I Hate Going to the Dentist

It's not a fear of the drill or possibly the utter helplessness you feel while lying back in the space chair while bright lights glare into your eyes. Going to the dentist is a hassle for me, not only because of the paperwork and endless x-rays involved, but because it becomes a huge let-down of my faith in humanity. 

I'm convinced only psychopaths become dentists--at least the ones in my town. They are the most anti-social, psychotic people I know. Staring at people's teeth everyday puts a disdainful view on ordinary citizens from their higher perspective. 

Most of the time, you're just a money pit to dentists, particularly if you have private insurance. They see it as a gold mine and will try everything they can to get you to do 'extra' work (veneers, unnecessary surgery, teeth whitening, etc.)

Case in point, from a recent dentist visit...
I had to wait an hour to see the dentist after they had changed my appointment.

While waiting in the dentist's office, I was given a couple of magazines. Since I am female and over the age of eighteen, I was given, "Martha Stewart" magazine and "Sunset" magazine to look at. I had been reading, "Empirical Magazine", before I was checked-in, a political-literature magazine.

I guess if I had been a man, they would've handed me "Sports Illustrated" or Golf magazine. 

"Do I look like I read Martha Stewart Magazine?" 

Should I be insulted? I should be thankful they didn't hand me, "Parents" magazine or some tabloid fodder from "People" magazine or such. 

Never mind the poor choice of magazines to chose from, it's the fact that they don't think women are capable of handling anything intellectual besides "Martha Stewart" and "Good Housekeeping". It's been a while since I've seen a "Smithsonian" magazine or "The New Yorker" in any office I've had to wait in. Even "Time" magazine is a big drop in intellectual stimulation these days.

Finally the dentist comes in, after I hear him spending a good fifteen minutes trying to convince a teenage girl in the next room to take some drugs for her anxiety, so he can perform some 'major dental work' that she probably doesn't need.

He comes in and practically leers  at me the whole time. Big wide grin showing all his fake veneers, as he grips my hand in this ridiculous tight grip (Yes, I know you're a big strong man, now quit crushing my fingers!). Then proceeds to make excuses as to why he's so late. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Okay, man, whatever, just hurry up and examine my cavity. He glances at the two x-rays and says, "Well, I don't see anything wrong." Well, duh, even I could see that from the x-ray. I tell him my back tooth has been hurting and he should look at it.

So he leans me back, digs around with a metal pointy-thing and scrapes at it. Then he stands up and says, "I need to take a picture. There's a big groove in your tooth, so I can't tell how deep it goes."

"So is it a cavity?" I ask.

He then goes into this big long speech, dithering all the way, without telling me whether or not I have a cavity. Finally he says, "If they were my teeth, I'd get a filling done". 

Yeah, if they were your teeth, I'd have a mouthful of veneers--not in a million years!

I wanted to shout at him, "Stop dithering about, you idiot!"
Instead I said calmly, "Do I have a cavity or not?"

"Well…" Off he went again, dithering and dithering about. Until he finally said something like, "Everybody has a different opinion, so each person will say something different." In other words, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. He blathered something about being in practice for 22 years--most of which I'm sure he just dithered away. 

I found him to be creepy, eerily-sycophantic and domineering. He kept trying to 'stare me down' and I had to look away to avoid his sickening grin.

I told him, no, I didn't want a filling but, "Thanks for lookin' at it." He squeezed my hand in the awful grip again before he went out. Then his assistant told me, "We don't do silver fillings here--so your insurance won't cover it."

Wow, good to know! I'm so glad I didn't have a filling done by that blithering idiot! I just paid $100 for a jack-a$$ to poke around at my tooth, which I could've done at home.

Say AHH!

Not that this is the first time I've paid an exorbitant amount of money to have some idiot dig around my teeth.

I've had about five dentists (not counting the dithering idiot mentioned here) and none of them were any good. They all take different x-rays, saying stuff like, "Sorry, we don't accept film or digital x-rays," or, "We couldn't get the other x-rays from your dentist". So they waste large amounts of money doing all the x-rays (some which are thrown out), to raise your dental insurance. 

One male dentist, whom I will not mention by name here, is famous for expensive 'surgery' and 'cosmetic' dentistry. He told me I should get veneers in the front, teeth whitening, and laser surgery for my gums. I had a slight chip in my front tooth, my teeth weren't yellow and it turned out I didn't really need the gum surgery after all. The whole process would've cost me over $1,000! It's a good thing I said no.

This particular dentist, had a really cold demeanor and whenever he smiled, his eyes wouldn't match what his lips were doing. You can always tell when it's a fake smile. You could just tell he'd rather be golfing than looking at your teeth. 

Another thing to point out is, dentists put more pressure on women than men to 'change' their appearance. They think women are more susceptible after reading those stupid magazines in their office--"Oh, you really should get those veneers!". Women are also less likely to make a fuss, since they are supposed to be meek and submissive. 

Whenever you question a dentist (who insists upon being called, "Doctor", even if he's just a regular dentist), they put up this whole act like, "I've been in business for over 20 years…in my past 15 years, I know such and such…". It goes on and on. They really don't expect to be questioned, especially by women. 

When I heard the dithering dentist lecture that teenage girl, on and on until she finally gave in, I was sorely tempted to leave right then and there. Just because a dentist claims to know, "What's best for you", doesn't mean they actually know anything.

Dental care in this country is really bad (and they make fun of British people having bad teeth!). With all the little kids drinking their sugary drinks (50 grams of sugar in a can), we have a really bad problem in the United States of America. Not everyone has insurance to pay the high cost of an exam--so no dentist for you!

My insurance is medical and they put all these restrictions on how many exams, x-rays and procedures you can have. I can't afford separate dental insurance (I have no job). X-rays run $200 or more, exams are $100, cleanings are $75 and up, etc. That's a whole lot of money to shell out twice a year. 

Never mind the fact that insurance companies raise your premiums every time you go to the doctor or dentist…but that's another story for another time.

I'd rather not go to the dentist because of what I've experienced. If I'm lucky, I'll never have to. I floss and brush every night before bed (though I should do this twice a day) and I try to stay away from sweets (those coffee/tea beverages have a lot of syrup though…). All in all, I don't have a lot of problems with my teeth, but I can't speak for the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.A..

Perhaps in another country I can get better dental care. I might have to go up to Canada (providing they don't take my passport), so I can get a dental exam. I heard things are more expensive in Canada, so maybe I won't go there. Thailand then? If their hospitals are like a five-star hotel, then they should have good (and cheap) dental care. I just need to pay for the plane ticket…

Do I look like I need veneers? 

"Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping" Book Review

Paco Underhill, founder of Envirosell, takes us on a journey, a journey of the ever-elusive shopper in, "Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping".

Right away, the author jumps into the story, as we see a personal account of a shopper being tracked by a tracker--usually a paid laboratory assistant whose job is to follow shoppers, write down the time, person, and the item bought onto a clipboard. Obviously, this was the old-fashioned way of tracking people. Now they just use multiple cameras and computers to track shoppers.

Using real-life examples and scenarios, we see how the shopper interacts in the world of retail both from the shopper's perspective and from the retailer/tracker, who must adapt to the shopper's every-changing needs, wants and desires.

Gleaning insights and observations from Underhill, the reader can understand how the whole shopping industry works. You need not be an avid shopper or a retailer to learn some very interesting facts about "Why We Buy".

For example, there was a very humorous scientific phenomenon called, the "butt-brush effect", where shoppers being brushed by or touched from behind, will quickly move on to another part of the store, abandoning the display they were previously looking at.

Also according to Underhill's study, if you're a woman shopping with a female companion, your shopping time is timed at 8 minutes and 15 seconds--compared to just 4 minutes and 41 seconds when shopping with a man. The lesson? Women together, take longer to shop. They like to talk, look at things, talk about those things they looked at, and so on. Most men just want to get out of the store as quickly as possible.

But as we all have found out, the longer you stay in a store, the more chance you see something you want and just have to buy.

In the chapter, "Time, Real and Perceived", we see how time can shift while in a store. It also shows the loss of profit for the retailer when it takes too long for the shopper to purchase an item, if the line is too long or if they have nothing to look at while waiting.

It's interesting to see how much trouble retailers will go to get your attention. A study of signs in the chapter, "How to Read a Sign", shows the process marketers go through to see if their sign is both readable and attention grabbing. If it's too attention grabbing, however, it bares the risk of being too annoying and thus defeats the purpose of the ad sign.

Published in 1999, Underhill foresees the importance of advertising on the internet with the chapter, "In Cyberspace, No One Can Hear You Shop", but isn't quite prepared for the current online ad tracking system we have today.

He does point out the difference between online shopping and retail shopping, where online shopping cannot replace: social interaction, trying-on of clothing and the 'immediate gratification' you get when coming out of a store. Since 1999 was a very different time for online shopping, he uses past examples of bad webpage design that is rarely seen today. His book is obviously out-of-date. He offers a more updated version: WHY WE BUY: The Science of Shopping Updated and Revised for the Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond. (See website listing below)

Still, knowing how retailers and marketers work behind-the-scenes can be very beneficial for the reader. Automatically, you learn to think like 'an observer' noticing how retailers get your attention in the store. You may notice absurd gaffs in how they present their products--like the ridiculous bins that crowd the aisles in every grocery store you visit. You may even have a few suggestions for those retailers--I've made quite a few myself--on how they can improve their displays or make the check-out time go faster.

At times the reader may feel like a guinea pig, when being 'studied' in the shopping environment. Being labeled a consumer is very limiting to the humanness of the shopping experience. But there are consequences for the retailer who won't cater to the shopper's every whim. A shopper is still the person who gives money to the retailer and without the shopper, the retailer wouldn't exist.

With this knowledge we can appreciate, "The Science of Shopping" as Underhill puts the term. An observer rather than a marketing analyst, Underhill's job was not to simply 'spy upon shoppers' but to analyze patterns and behaviors in the retail environment. As Underhill says in his book,

"...the science of shopping knows a great deal less about individual consumers than does your average direct marketing consultant, who can summon up any American's name, address, phone number, marital status, credit record and purchasing history in a flash."

His book also points out the often un-intended issue of discrimination toward shoppers who are older and can't read the small print on drug bottles in the store. Some of those elder shoppers have to actually bend down, close to the floor, just to reach those said hard-to-read bottles. Stores can easily remedy this by providing bigger signs from the printed bottles and positioning the most widely used drugs on a higher-shelf. See? You're learning something already!

Though, slightly out-of-date, the average reader who's interested in shopping, marketing or even human anthropology can learn a great deal. There are many nuances in the everyday social interaction that takes place in the retail environment.

Think about what you do when you enter a store. Where do you go and why? Is there something that 'calls' out to you, a sale rack conveniently placed next to more expensive items? Do certain colors in a store 'grab' your attention? Do you wonder why sugary cereal is so easily reachable by your children? (It may be on purpose!). All these questions are relevant to the shopper, if we only take the time to think about them.

Paco Underhill's website and booklist is here, with a link to his other books and where to buy them:

http://www.pacounderhill.com/booklist.html

Complaint Against Raley's (and other stores)

Most of the time I shop at Raley's when I want groceries. It's convenient, next to my house and they have everything I buy for food. I know it's more expensive and I should probably shop someplace else but my family and I have shopped at Raley's all our lives. It's ingrained into our daily lives.

However, I'm re-considering shopping at Raley's now. It's not because of the high prices but because of what they're doing in the store that is making me think to go someplace else.

Have you noticed the change of displays in the aisles? There are more 'bins' filled with excess merchandise--most of which you already find on the shelves.

I find this most inconvenient and most of the time, the products on display have nothing to do with the merchandise it's placed next to.

Here's an example: A box of teas next to the cereals. 

Does everyone have tea with cereal? If you're too lazy to cook a hot meal, will you bother to heat the water and pour it into a cup with a tea bag? I doubt it. Most likely those who want cereal don't want tea with it.


Also, these excess 'bins' are always in the way! They crowd the aisles and if there are two people in the aisles, one of you has to stop so the other can move around you.

I usually just shove the bin aside and tell my fellow shopper that the stores shouldn't make it so inconvenient for us to shop. Most people agree with me.

I don't know who thought of this terrible idea but they must not do the shopping. (I'm sorry to say, it must've been a man who thought of this...)

Especially if someone is using those mechanized wheel-chair carts, it's really hard to get around. The bins sometimes hide their flags, they are that tall!




I did write to Raley's.com to complain to them. Here's what I said:

Crowding the aisles with junky displays is not only inconvenient, it's disrespectful for people on motorized carts, who can't get through.

I've had to move these displays several times to get them out of the way. At times there are as many as three large in-the-way displays that crowd the aisle. 

Please consider another method to market your items without putting them our way.

Sincerely,

Raley's Shopper

Hopefully, someone up in the advertising ladder will get the message and remove the bins. Not only is it inconvenient, it's cheap-looking!

Another thing I have noticed that I don't like is the new "Something Extra" card that supposedly saves you money when you use it. 

You get points every time you buy something and "Every 3 months, your points turn into vouchers that you can use for free groceries and more". 

I'm guessing it's something similar to Safeway's Club Card, that you can also use for gas (with some restrictions). 

However, I'm not a fan of these cards. First of all, they gather your information every-time you sign up for it. Second, they track what you buy. Third, and probably most importantly, they sell that information to other companies and make judgements about your buying behavior to share with banks and credit card companies (See my review for "The Daily You" book by Joseph Turow).

These cards are not convenient for me. I hardly use them. I stopped using the CVS card because they only give you the discount after you buy something, and it expires before I can use it. Also, the discount isn't that big, usually only .50 or $1.00 off something--forcing you to buy in bulk or spend an exorbitant amount of money. I saw one ad somewhere that said, "Spend $500 or more, get $50 off!". Really, I'm going to spend that much money in one place? I don't think so...

You think Raley's would have learned their lesson from Albertson's, another grocery store that went out of business and had to shut down. Most of those stores turned into SaveMart. 

Albertson's had a 'card membership saver' program and it was rumored that they raised their prices to accommodate the discount people received on their cards. So, basically people were still paying the same price no matter what. 

I've seen this happen at Safeway, where prices are sometimes higher than Raley's. I think they're compensating for the 'discount'. 

Sometimes, the cards don't work either...
I heard one conversation in a Raley's store from an employee who wanted to get their card registered but couldn't until the first of the month--April Fool's Day! 

If stores really listened to shoppers, I don't think they would make these mistakes. I prefer to shop at a store that doesn't make me sign up for stupid cards I don't need. Supposedly, prices are set at a supply-and-demand price anyway (barring gas prices, droughts, etc.). I shouldn't have to sign up to save a few cents. 

Also, don't crowd the aisles when I'm shopping. If stores feel the need to advertise their products, they could put a TV screen above the ailes advertising their products and deals. I've seen floor advertisements too, they're okay, at least they don't block my way.

Hopefully Raley's and other stores will take note of this. I'm still waiting for their reply...

UPDATES!

Reply from Raley's:


Dear Valued Customer,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns regarding one of our stores.
>
> It is always disheartening to receive such reports; however, we do appreciate your willingness to communicate with us.  We truly value your feedback and thank you for bringing this to our attention.  If you could please reply with which store you shop at and a name and telephone number, I would be more than happy to pass it along to the Store Director for his review and handling and so he can follow up with you.
>
> Thank you for caring enough to contact us, and thank you too for your
> patronage.

"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" Book Review

"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" by Joseph Turow

Do you notice the ads that are shown when you check your email or watch YouTube? If not, then maybe you should. These ads say a lot about who you are but surprisingly, you have no control over this.

What kind of ads you see is decided by data-mining companies that compile information about what you do online (and offline), including what you buy, how you buy and how often you buy. They even know your gender, your age and your household income. And the most surprising fact of all is that it's all legal for them to get this information from you--without your consent.

The most sinister part of this new knowledge is that these companies sell and trade your personal information for their own gain--putting you into possibly unfavorable categories, also known as 'waste', which may affect your credit and future employability.

Joseph Turow's book, "The Daily You..." compiles many years of information searching, research and internet activity to define how a person is judged by these data-mining 'super-powers' who are controlling what we see on the internet. Instead of the long-held belief that we control our information on the internet, Turow shows a shocking behind-the-scenes look that reveals how little we actually control while we unknowingly surf the world wide web.

In Turow's introduction, the book shows us how, "(Marketers and other companies are) performing a highly controversial form of social profiling and discrimination by customizing our media content on the basis of marketing reputations we don't even know we have."

He gives a fictional account of a middle-class family with children who happen to eat at a lot of fast-food restaurants. For example: Mr. Father notices a bunch of ads on his page for used cars, dieting, and loan companies. When complaining about the low-trend in the web market, Mr. Father is shocked to hear from his boss that she gets ads for Mercedes Benz and BMW's on her web page.

However, this scenario is NOT fictional--it's real. Recently, I visited a blog for Plus-sized women and found many ads thereafter, wanting me to shop at Zulily--Plus-size women's fashions. Based on my IP address (which contains my gender, age and location), I constantly get ads for weight-loss, shoes and cash loans. Note: I am not a Plus-size woman, I don't like shopping for shoes and I don't need a cash loan. I can't help but feel insulted by these false statistics that some data-mining company gleaned from my IP address.

Joseph Turow also notes in his introduction that, "In broader and broader ways, computer generated conclusions about who we are affect the media content--the streams of commercial messages, discount offers, information, news, and entertainment--each of us confronts."

Take a look at the news clips you see when you log-in to your email. It usually has breaking news, world-wide news events and major disasters. However, take a closer look and you may see a lot of 'fluff' pieces such as: A celebrity got a make-over, B celebrity got a new dog, C celebrity has a new haircut, etc. Not exactly news-worthy, is it? What you may not realize is that these fluff pieces are geared toward people in your age group and like it or not, you're now subject to the new definition of 'news', i.e. Tabloid Entertainment Daily.

By this definition our view of the world is drastically shrinking when viewed by these narrow margins of what people our age should view. This is just one consequence that is outlined in, "The Daily You".

Turow then complies a history of the media-buying system which is behind this whole ad-centered philosophy and argues that unless people understand how this system works, they can't hope to change it. These media-buying agencies control around $170 Billion dollars in the United States alone!

But remember, we pay them too. These agencies depend on us for their data and we as their targets influence how they spend their money. Many of these agencies have a lot of competition within their ranks to reach us (the consumers), and they spend their precious money to throw more ads at us in return. The more we know, the more we can influence their decisions.

But it's a long battle...

These companies control more than just our buying information. Some of these companies also handle our private background information--what is believed to be private. Companies like Acxiom, used in some background checks, actually furnish our private information to media agencies for a very hefty price.

The way these companies and marketers define us is crucial when we are applying for a home loan, student loan or a job. How will we be judged based on these advertisements? What are these companies saying about us? Do we have good credit or bad credit? Do we pay off our loans or are we considered a risk because we haven't established credit yet? You may be surprised what they are saying, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

The main thing missing in all of the data-gathering companies' practices is transparency. It's not so much that they're following us--although that's creepy enough. It's that they're not telling us that we're being followed, that they're using our information for their own gain--all without our knowledge!

Considering that these companies and marketers are constantly bombarding us with 'ad choices' it's surprising how little control we have over what should be our right to choose. Do we really have control over the ads we see?

Turow challenges this assumption that "the consumer is king" in his first chapter. He titles his book after, Nicholas Negroponte's own 1995 book, "Being Digital", using an example of The Daily Me, "an online newspaper whose content would be customized to suit the interests and beliefs of individual readers".

This breach of privacy and conflict of interest would go against ordinary laws but these companies have billions to spend on lobbyists to influence the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC implemented a privacy policy requirement in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, and is supposed to oversee Online Privacy for the public.

Privacy advocates are still arguing these cases with the courts but the answer is lost among marketing lobbyists who control most of these courts. Take a look at who's on the Federal Trade Commission, then take a look at the top people involved in companies like: Acxiom, BlueKai, Rapleaf, etc. Notice anything? Their ties to each other are closer than you think.

Acxiom is a member of Privacy and American Business, the Center for Information Policy Leadership and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA).

--Consumer Data Products Catalogue 2011

Turow describes in his second chapter, how these marketing machines use technology to gain their information through: cookies (browser enabled devices that collect your personal information), phishing scams, permanent 'markers' in your computer hard drive, 'active' links (once clicked on, can track your progress through the web), and web bugs.

What caught my eye was in the third chapter, where Turow explains how companies get your information and 'feed' them to other companies in his chapter titled, "A New Advertising Food Chain".

"Nytimes.com has an arrangement with the LinkedIn social-media site to match nytimes.com registrants to their LinkedIn profiles and transfer that information to nytimes.com for its use in advertising".

Last Updated on February 13, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html#b

I happen to have a LinkedIn profile page (but no Nytimes.com account), and having other people other than my future employers look at my page and use it for data-mining is something I call, online stalking behavior.

He goes on to say that website publishers can purchase data about registrants (from other sites besides Nytimes.com), "from information vendors such as Experian and Acxiom and append them to their files." This data can contain personal information about their job, their household income, their location and even how many kids they have.

There is so much to say about Google and their co-hort AdSense, that I covered the topic in my previous blog post, "They're Watching Us", with Yahoo!'s similar AdChoices company. Turow writes about the history of these sites and how the search engine giant, Google, helped pave the way for marketers to track what you search.

Chapter four, "Target or Waste", is an actual title marketers use to classify us Americans and whether or not we are worth pursuing. Those in the waste section get ads and coupons for low-class deals in the supermarket, while those in the target area may see exclusive shopping deals for Nordstrom, Bloomingdales or Tiffany & Co.. Looks like I'm in the waste pile...

Acxiom (a large 'marketing-communication agency') has a lot to say about you in their Consumer Data Products Catalogue, concerning your demographic, household income, race and other personal factors that may determine if you are worth pursuing as a consumer (target) or not (waste).

If that's not creepy enough for you, here's another quote I found about how Acxiom puts you in a 'race-box'.

"Our Race model provides information on the major racial category: Caucasians, Hispanics, African-Americans, or Asians. The Country of Origin model provides more detail on ethnicity, with the actual country of the consumer’s heritage." 

Page 9 of Consumer Data Products Catalogue 

http://www.Acxiom.com/site-assets/catalog-consumer-data-products/

Reading about their separate categories for said people above is enough to make your stomach turn. Here's another quote from their catalogue which deems one category "too close to the bottom of the list for net worth".

"41 TRuCKIN’ & STYLIN’ Truckin & Stylin’ households are in their mid-to-late 30s and live in rural towns. Though, on average, they earn middle incomes, they rank below average for income when compared to the nation and drop too close to the bottom of the list (58th) for net worth." 

(Page 31)
Ibid.

Do you fall into this category? Well, that's just too bad. You are now cast into the waste pile.

Turow went through this many-paged catalogue (59 pages in PDF form), to point out more of what Acxiom does to get rid of the waste pile, which is to put many people into a segment called, "contact suppression".

"Enhances marketing performance and increases ROI (Return On Investment) by recognizing undesirable or less responsive consumers through deceased, prison, bankruptcy, taxes, liens and judgment, underage and geo suppression" 

(Page 53)

Ibid.

Reading chapter four is enough to educate even the most oblivious internet surfer, to the dangers of these data-mining companies. Trouble is, they're pretty much everywhere and there's little to no escape from them. These companies have insinuated themselves in our every-day life: our shopping, car insurance, health insurance, education and credit card dealings. You'd have to be a total Luddite to not be followed and tracked all the time.

Chapter five, in "The Daily You" focuses on media buyers and the pressure they put upon publishers (those who provide content to people), to share private information for the sake of revenue.

Since subscriptions are at an all-time-low, publishers have no choice but to rely more on the advertisers who give them money to put ads on display. Trouble is, advertisers won't pay money without the data--and they are in greater control of what publishers are producing for us consumers. You may notice how closely the articles in what you read resemble the ads that are right next to them. How can you tell which is which? The line is so blurred that even publishers have trouble discerning the difference.

There used to be laws limiting such vagrant mis-use of content, but no more. To paraphrase Turow's findings in the television industry, The U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, ruled that previous industry codes that "dictated maximum hourly commercial minutes", were invalid--thus, leaving the area open to an unlimited amount of leeway to mix "commercial components into programming".

This was one of many decisions in 1996 (along with the Telecommunications Act), that eroded previously upheld codes of conduct for marketers to adhere to. With the fall of television regulation, it wasn't long before the internet regulations would follow suit.

Chapter six deals with social media targeting, tracking and off-line stalking behavior.

With new mobile devices such as Smartphones (iPhones, Androids, etc.), advertisers can now track everyone, everywhere. Since there are little to no regulations to protect people (a.k.a. consumers), advertisers can track people when they're essentially 'offline' as well.

Social media is defining the new landscape that advertisers have to navigate. New social media platforms such as Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter, allow people to share information with their friends in real-time. Sounds great, right? Well, what people don't know is that advertisers see whatever you post here. They can figure out what location you're in, what stores are near by, and send direct feeds to businesses as you are using your mobile device. They are tracking you from your phone!

Foursquare is especially vile in their stalking behavior. They track and gather information about where you go after you log-in and submit your information. Foursquare encourages you to constantly check-in at various locations and add your friends--all without telling you that this information is viewable by other companies, third-party sites and search engines.

For example: In the morning you go to the store for groceries (you might be a stay-at-home mom), you stop for gas at a gas station but use your parents credit card (you must be a college kid), then head to the movies with your friends on a Friday afternoon (you don't have a job), then go to someone else's house to cook dinner with the groceries you bought (must be a boyfriend)--cue ads for 'couple's dinner & movie' special.

Now Foursquare has all this valuable information about you: your gender (female), household income (single--non-working), your interests (movies--chick-flick, romance, comedy), what you buy (instant pasta, salad, canned fruit, cheap white wine) and who you hang out with (college age, middle-income, pre-owned vehicle driver, beer & cheap wine buyer, Safeway shopper w/ club card, etc.).

Do you get the picture? The more friends you add on Foursquare, the more Foursquare can track your friends and also shape an opinion of you: (low-income, drug user, lives in mobile home, is on welfare...) Oops, that's not you, is it? The wrong person must've added you as a friend...

Although tracking is limited on mobile devices, companies are figuring out ways to track your mobile phone through accounts which are used for PC's, laptops, and other devices. Think of those 'bundling' services that conveniently put all your devices onto its network for one low price. They're not doing it for your benefit--it's so they can track you. It's much easier to track all your devices under their network, rather than having each device under a different competing network.

The same is true when you access the same publisher with a different device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.). You are required to log-in each time, so by using multiple devices, they have greater access to what you're using and what you're doing on each device.

According to Turow, "The New York Times reported on a technology company called Ringleader Digital, which had created a product called Media Stamp that, according to critics, could surreptitiously acquire information from a mobile device and assign it a unique ID". This was from an article Tanzina Vega did in the New York Times.

See Tanzina Vega's article, "Code That Tracks Users Browsing Prompts Lawsuits", New York Times, September 21, 2010. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/technology/21cookie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to Vega's article, Flash Cookies are used to track users buying behavior online and people are taking legal action against these companies, including Ms. Burn, after she found out she was being tracked without her knowledge. From Vega's article, Flash Cookies are harder to erase than regular cookies and many people aren't aware of them. More alarming is that,

"Flash cookies can be used to restore HTML cookies that have been deleted from a user’s computer, circumventing a user’s privacy settings."

--Tanzina Vega, "Code That Tracks Users Browsing Prompts Lawsuits," New York Times, September 21, 2010

Such Big Brother spying is commonplace now but Turow gives a frightening view at how far this will go in the future. He gives a forecast about how this practice is moving to the household T.V., into the privacy of people's homes.

More than ever now, people stream the internet on their TV sets through Hulu.com or Roku. These providers often have ads that are geared toward the person's interests or location. I remember seeing an ad made for PG&E from my hometown! It was shown three times while I viewed content on Hulu Plus (which was supposed to be ad-free).

But having a search engine provide television may not be a good idea. Google Television, which aims to "link the internet to the living-room TV", has more access than you think to what people are watching. Their goal is "to organize television via search so that people will use Google Television instead of individual channels as a starting point for viewing".

Imagine if the shows presented for you to choose from was based on your 'profile' that Google gathered from your searches. "Search engines will then individualize their results so that your suggested television agenda will depend on the search company's understanding of you", quotes Turow.

But that's not all, besides limiting the choices you have Google Television promises to be the ultimate Big Brother. "And when you start a viewing session, Google Television, Comcast, or another entity will take advantage of that by watching you," Turow writes.

I don't think I'll be watching Google Television anytime soon... Heaven forbid I should see programming based on my gender and age bracket: The Kardashians Strike Back Season 1, Paris Goes To Hilton Season 3, and last but not least, Justin Bieber Has A New Song! Season 10.

Technology is developing faster than most people can keep up with. The use of mobile smartphones has exploded in the past five years. And yet people use these devices without a second thought for banking, online purchases and Facebook posts.

It's hard for citizens to rely on a government entity to protect privacy rights, since the government is heavily influenced by the same violators that are endangering privacy. Most people don't even know their privacy is being violated or that these companies operate this data-mining under a legal umbrella--shielded in legal jargon that is both contradictory and confusing.

Marketers argue that what they're doing is perfectly legal--after all, they wrote the rules! Self-regulation is non-existent and it's hard for privacy activists to prove that being spied on isn't all that bad. Based on a study funded by marketers, spying on people's activity is good for the economy!

According to a 2005 survey conducted by Turow, "large majorities of U.S. internet users" are largely unaware of what is going on. "They overestimate the protection the government provides for them". In 2009, Turow noted that "78 percent of American adults" didn't understand that just because a business has a 'privacy policy', doesn't meant that the business is protecting your privacy.

In most privacy policies I've read, it states that, "We may use your information to enhance your experience on our site...we may use your information for affiliate parties and subsidiaries...we may provide information to other sites and companies to improve our site..." Not very explicit, is it?

The truth is, if most people were given a choice, they'd rather not give out their personal information. When Facebook announced they would allow users to have a nickname instead of using a real name, many people changed their real names to a fake one. However, Facebook still manages to trace you and force you to enter your real name when you sign up. Even Google/YouTube is constantly bugging people to use their real names on their accounts.

If people really understood how these marketing companies are getting their information and then selling it around, people would think twice about putting their information out there. In some cases, people would be incensed enough to tell their government officials what is happening, and pass a law to protect their privacy rights. This has happened before but without much success, as the paid-for-by-special-interests courts throw out each case and consider them invalid.

It's not enough that we are callously judged by these companies as they spy on us. We are subject to a secret discrimination process which under the Constitution is illegal. Worse yet, we have no access to any evidence to defend ourselves with. It seems like all is lost when it comes to protecting our information online and off.

In chapter seven, Turow describes a future where everything we see and do is decided by the reputations these companies have set for us. What is more alarming is that the technology these companies use will be ever-intrusive, using voice and face recognition software, location chips and our fingerprints to follow and 'tag' our every move. We will be oblivious to the methods but ever-so-willing to cooperate in exchange for 'goodies' that companies promise to us.

Think of the Raley's, Safeway, Kmart, CVS, rewards card that we are required to carry in order to 'get the best deals'. Are we really getting all they are promising us? Do some people get better deals on their cards than I do? Or are they just finding another way to ply our information away from us to sell?

The fact is, they are tracking your every purchase, your every move through the shopping aisles and recording it--all without your knowledge or permission. Perhaps you didn't read the fine print when the salesperson asked you to give your phone number or email but you just threw away any privacy you previously had by getting that so-called 'rewards' card.

By putting people into these "reputation silos", Turow argues that our society will become further fractured and antagonistic. It will be like 'keeping up with the Jones' ' but on steroids. How will we feel when we know our neighbors are getting a much better deal on a product than we are? Worse yet, how will it affect our trust to know that certain businesses are charging more for us to use their service, than someone else?

There was a story covered in the news about Mac users being charged more for tickets on Expedia and other travel sites, than for Windows users. The reason? Mac users have more money to spend. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The point is: A) Expedia is reading information about your computer and browser without your knowledge or permission B) Expedia is ripping you off because you're a Mac user--and finally C) Charging different prices for the same product just because you're using a different computer is probably illegal.

I found this out for myself when I went online to buy tickets to travel and saw the prices were much higher when I used a Mac than when I used a PC for sites such as Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, and other sites. It's like charging someone a dollar extra for bread at the supermarket, just because they drive a Hummer instead of a mini-van!

In the words of the author, judging people based on data gathered without their knowledge, "will produce a corrosive social atmosphere characterized by resentment and distrust of both government and marketers."

If we can't rely on the Federal Trade Commission to protect our privacy, or the useless self-regulation idea that marketers stress, what can we do to protect our privacy?

Turow lists some major points that people can use to better educate and defend themselves against such online discrimination. I've added my own description to his points to better illustrate what people can do.

• Teach our children well: Kids don't know they can still be tracked online even if they are 13 years of age and younger. Tell them not to submit any information on any site that asks for their email, birthday or geographical location. Use educational game sites instead of commercial ones. Discourage chat rooms and never let them buy products, meet people online or use GPS on any of their devices.
• Let people know what is really going on with their data: Join discussion groups, meet with elected officials, write to your newspapers and tell people the truth. The more people know, the more they can do something about it.
• Create a "Do Not Track" regime with rotating "relevance" categories: Some browsers such as Firefox, allow you to erase cookies and other internet markers. However, some sites will insert new ones and require you to install another cookie in order to use their site. At best, you can temporarily erase them each day--but you may not be able to escape them all. Just be aware of which sites require cookies and why.
• Pass ground-level government regulations to force a playing field of good actors (industry and web sites, providers, etc.) See what local agencies are doing to protect your privacy and urge your local government representatives to uphold the rights of citizens regarding online and offline privacy. Try American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or other organizations that lobby congress to protect rights.

"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" by Joseph Turow is a must-read for anyone interested in protecting their privacy both online and off. Turow also wrote, "Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age" (a study of deceitful marketing practices in America) and is a Professor of Communication and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania.

RECENT UPDATES

Is it possible to change your reputation, to try to 'fix the game', as it were? Can you really change your digital habits (online and off) to get a whole new reputation? Or will they find some excuse to shove you farther down the social ladder?

In my own search for the truth I will attempt to find out what these companies are saying about me. I will attempt to clear my browser of all cookies daily and go to web-sites that are deemed to be 'high-class': Vogue, Architectural Digest, Conde Nast, Mercedes Benz, etc. I will add a bunch of high-profile people to my 'friends' list and 'like' stores on Facebook that are beyond my reach, like Tiffany & Co..

I will post my findings on my blog for other readers, so that they too can try this experiment.

CONCLUSION

I continue to get ads based on my so-called 'relevant information' and IP address along with previous websites I've visited. Most of the ads are insulting and it's practically impossible to complain to AdChoices to tell them, "Please don't show me pictures of women sticking needles in their eyelids for Botox commercials!". I'm not even 40 and I really don't think I need Botox--nor would I ever use it in the future.

Based on these ads I can tell that AdChoices has a very low opinion of me. They think I need to lose weight, so I see ads for diet pills and animated GIF's of fat women slimming down to stick figures. I'm considered ugly and wrinkly, hence the ads for Botox, ProActive and acid facial treatments. They think I'm rich enough to afford such things but that I'm poor enough to need cash advances from my local bank. I'm also on the computer at odd hours of the day, so they think I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I get ads for baby products and stupid "Moms Only specials at Raley's".

Just once, I wish they'd get it right. You'd think with all the spying they're doing on me they would at least show an ad I'm interested in. 

Job Hunt Spying Policy

Lately, I've been getting a whole slew of 'fake' job offers from companies that don't exist. Here's the latest email I got...

Tawanna Hopkins <TawanyvnaygsyHopkins@hotmail.com> Reply-To: sashamak87@gmail.com To: (MY EMAIL ADDRESS) 

Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:33 AM 

Hello (MY NAME), Our company is a payment processor with services designed for international small companies. 

At the moment we have a job opening of a "Check Assist Manager". We have carefully reviewed your CV, that was placed online. We trust that your knowledge will be among our valuable assets. 

Job requirements: 

- US citizeship and permanent address; - Age: at least 24; - computer skills and e-mail address; - liability and ability to work independently. ALL FEES ARE PAID BY US. 

Interested candidates, please reply to this message Thank you. 

Notice the time the email was sent, 5:33 AM--what company sends an email at 5:30 in the morning? Also, the email address is clearly fake along with the reply address.

Why does this matter you ask? I didn't send my resume to them. They got it from a job-site that I applied with. Chico Help Wanted, a popular job-search company, lures unsuspecting job-seekers to fill out forms on its website for jobs. 

However, what people don't realize is that they are sent to third-party websites with misleading job information. In tiny print it says something along the lines of, "Registering with this site does not qualify for a job application, you must submit a separate application", etc. 

After I found this out, it was too late. Here's the conversation I had with a Chico Help Wanted representative online.

Agent: ok, that is Beyond, that is not our site
you: Yes, this is a bad system. Third party sites shouldn't "lure" job-seekers from ChicoHelpWanted.
Agent: the job with Chico's is a feed to our site from TOP USA Jobs
you: Is there somewhere to report this?
Agent: you will need to contact Top USA Jobs and Beyond, we have no control over what forms etc you are given once you leave our site
you: This is bad, I was not given warning that I left the site.
Agent: you didn't notice that the page changed color or another name was on the screen?
you: No. The site just changes to the form, which I filled out.
you: http://www.techcareers.com/job.asp?id=74123737&aff=AC44BA2E-E3EB-4DBC-8BDB-9FCE01C58B09
you: There is no warning that you are on a different site. It's deceptive.
Agent: it says Beyond right at the top of the page
Agent: not ChicoHelpWanted.com
Thank you for using our Live Help feature, if you have additional questions please call 1-800-365-8630 option 2 or contact your representative.
Sorry but you are not currently in an active chat session.

I looked over Chico Help Wanted Help Section and there was nothing stating anything about third-parties using Chico Help Wanted applications or feeds.

Previously, I had received a suspicious phone call from some strange woman with an accent, saying I had applied to her job (Soup company?), when in fact I did not.

Here was the number: 5308985927.
 I looked it up on Google and it listed a whole bunch of scammer numbers like that one that people use. 

This is a major breach of privacy and many job-sites do not warn people when they are applying for jobs about this behavior. What many of these job-sites don't tell you, is that your information is compromised every time you apply for a job. And worse yet, these job-sites often share your private information with other companies.

When applying for a job, job centers and their company websites make you sign ridiculous Privacy Agreements, Terms of Service contracts and others, which allows them to collect any and all information you provide to them.

Technically, when you post your resume, it contains your: full name, resident address, telephone number, email and all your job contacts and history.

So, if you don't post your resume, you don't get the job. But if you do post your resume, those 'job centers' collect that information and use it however they see fit--including giving it to other database searches for Scammers to contact you.

"If you choose to provide personal information to us through the [company site], we will collect your email address, name, address, and/or telephone number.  
We may also collect certain non-personally identifiable information, such as occupation, location, education and experience.  

Finally, we collect aggregate information about the use of the [company site], including information about users accessing or using the [company site], such as the number of users that applied for jobs on the [company site], internet protocol addresses, browser type, browser language, referring / exit pages and URLs, other browser history, platform type, number of clicks, domain names, landing pages, pages viewed and the order of those pages, the amount of time spent on particular pages, and the date and time."

The bold-italic print is my own format. I just wanted to bring attention to how these 'job centers' spy on you.

What wasn't pointed out to me previously was how much these companies pay attention to each website you visit. 

Does this really matter? Why should these companies watch what you watch? 

Well, it turns out they are judging you based on what websites you visit, how often you visit them and for HOW LONG YOU ARE ON THERE!

According to this new information--it must follow that each website you visit has a built-in timer, which measures how long you are on that site. Either through cookies, mal-ware, etc. (which you can't erase from your computer sometimes), each webpage you visit is constantly tracking you.

If you visit Facebook too much, it could show that you spend too much time there and would be considered a liability because you may use company time to check your status on Facebook (which is against company policy in most places). The same goes with, Foursquare, YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Also, it's bad if you're viewing potentially hazardous websites: Porn (obviously bad), UFO pages (which suggest paranoia), Human Rights organizations including: ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, etc. 

Some jobs forbid Unions--see Walmart, in Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimmed: On (NOT) Getting By in America" book. Other jobs forbid you to join any organization if you're representing certain companies: news, government agency, etc.

And it's bad to view anti-government websites or anything you accidentally come across. I mention this because people can come across websites through a bad search lead and be on a page they didn't intend to be on--like, bombs when searching for "Super Bomb Sandwich special at Bob's Deli", for example.

The time you access these webpages says a lot about you too. If you're viewing pages at 1AM in the morning, it probably means you don't have a daytime job to get up for in the morning--so you are most-likely unemployed. If you're accessing pages too much in the middle of the day, you're wasting your lunch break or doing it on company time--also very bad!

This makes surfing the web that much worse, doesn't it? Now that you know you are constantly being watched--not just by advertisers--but by your future bosses and their company websites, you will mostly likely change your internet habits.

The company policy further states that:

"We also use non-personally identifiable information and certain technical information about your computer and your access of the [company site] (including your internet protocol address) in order to operate, maintain and manage the [company site]."

It turns out, your IP address says a lot about you, including your exact location, internet browser, age range and gender.

I have to warn you, some other strange sites track and post your IP addresses on their websites, including your email address. I tracked my IP address and found links in Japanese and another site in Russia somewhere that tracked people's IP addresses. I'm guessing they sell that information to whoever registers with that site (exchanging more personal information). 

However, what made me pause was that you can add an IP address to a blacklist. I didn't click on that link but I'm thinking it's not a good thing...

Pretty scary, huh?

In order to protect their own interests, they also make you 'sign' an order on their website, which advises you to have an attorney. What for you ask? It's right here in black and white:

"Please note that you may be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that an activity is not infringing the copyrights of others. If you are uncertain whether an activity constitutes infringement, we recommended seeking advice of an attorney."

Whatever that means! I just noticed the part about the attorney.

Anyhoo, the fact that you need to sign such stupid legal jargon just to apply for a job is crazy. Who's going to read all this and pay attention? Do I need a lawyer every time I apply for a job? 

I understand that each company has to protect their own rights but since your rights are 'infringed' upon without any defense of your own--I can't say I respect their right to a defense. 

So, if you're reading this, just be aware that when you check the little box that says, "I accept Terms of Use Policy and Privacy Policy"--you're giving up more than you think. But if you don't check that little box, you can't apply for the job.

It's up to you. I'm just posting this so people are aware that their online privacy and their rights are eroded, especially when they look for a job in a horrible economy that forces people to use these company websites as a last resort. 

I'll be posting more information about online privacy and how the courts are not protecting people's rights online.

RECENT NEWS DEVELOPMENT:

I applied with a temp agency, Spherion, and after the scamming scare, I sent an email telling them what happened. Not only did they NOT report this, they started avoiding me! I sent an email to the office and they claimed they were out and then they gave me an address to contact that didn't work!

When I went in to the office, they claimed they couldn't remove my resume and personal information from their computers. They keep my information indefinitely! 

Here's their privacy policy:

"Spherion retains indefinitely all the information gathered about you in an effort to make your repeat use with Spherion more efficient, practical and relevant."

 

What are they doing with all this information?

"Spherion uses log files on JavaScriptTM to collect domain information, referral information, browser information, pages visited, content viewed, files downloaded, and time spent per page. This information is then forwarded to our outside vendor for analysis.

Spherion combines your personally identifiable information with passively collected information. For example, when a user registers for a point-of-view article under About Spherion/Articles & Newsletters on spherion.com, Spherion is able to determine who the user is (based on the user registration information) and where they came from (e.g. if the user clicked on a banner advertisement) and the specific article downloaded."

They refuse to disclose what they are doing and now they won't answer my emails. I won't be using Spherion again and I recommend people avoid them and any other temp agency that follows their privacy invading tactics.