As it turns out, George Orwell’s science fiction book titled “1984” was not quite on target, as we look back 25 years later. Its futuristic predictions had a “Big Brother” watching, literally on screens everywhere, our every move in a totalitarian society that would dictate how we were allowed to live, what we could read, watch and do — basically turning us into a will-less robotic society.  Happily that’s not what happened, for unlike the Orwellian futuristic story, nobody is watching.

However, ‘They,’ whether Big Brother or other, are taking “copious notes…”

It’s well understood that a mountain of information is known about our offline lives like income, credit score, home ownership, what car we drive, etc.  It’s also well known that our every move online is traceable, through a technology known as computer “cookies” (a small text file which contains a unique ID tag, placed on your computer by a website). But now comes the news, as reported by Stefani Clifford on the front page of the New York Times, July 31, headlined “Ads Follow Web Users and get Deeply Personal,” that technology has made possible fatter and better “cookies” – ones that connect our offline information to consumers’ browsers.

Just think of a delicious wafer cookie, with a layer of cream in between two wafers.  Now add an extra layer of cream (your hereto private information or real world data) and bingo! — marketers and advertisers start salivating. In this case not at the taste, but at the opportunity to now take out the guesswork involved in online-only profiling. They can use this trove of information to show different products to people with different shopping habits, in many formats, i.e., ads, e-mail messages or semi-personalized Web pages.  Retailers that are already taking advantage of this tactic include Gap and Victoria’s Secret.

According to the article, this melding of offline information with online tracking will result in “a sea change in the way consumers encounter the Web.”

Although consumers can delete those “cookies” from their computers that allow such tracking, not many do and, according to the article, “it is easy for companies to add cookies without users noticing.”

This has an Orwellian feel to it, knowing that a lot of this is done invisibly.

In the book“1984”, it was the totalitarian government that intruded in the lives of private citizens.  It would seem that Corporate America is doing likewise, for nobody gave anyone permission to use the offline information to further typecast us as to our wants, dislikes and behavioral patterns.

To be fair, I suppose that there are benefits to this all around, not just for advertisers, marketers and companies showcasing products.  Even some consumers will be pleased to have their “wants” “come to them” based on their online profile, rather than go hunting themselves.

But what — are we going to make George Orwell right in becoming a will less society in which others do the choosing for us, those who now know what we think and want?  Do we want to be so predictable?  What about randomness? What about individuality?

In recent times there has been much discussion about online privacy issues.  I say this raises the bar on privacy concerns all around…

Do you really think that people who write every little item that is ‘under their finger nails’ on their Facebook page actually WANT privacy?  Certainly not at the time they are writing about it.  Users want their multitude of “friends” to know what they offer up, information given at a certain moment in time in their lives, that matters very much to them indeed. It’s about sharing their lives – in public.

So when Facebook decided to remove the “kill switch” as reported by Fox News, which had allowed for user’s information to be deleted once accounts were terminated, the outcry against this changed policy became a roar from frightened users who were terrified at being found out years later about details of their past, forcing a Facebook reversal.

In reading about the hurried back pedaling that Facebook did, I wondered what people were thinking when they posted their emotional rant or bragged about their newest conquest, or mused about a socially unacceptable cause in the first place. Did they not think that posting on Facebook is tantamount to being published?

There is no question that social networking has opened up the vistas of people worldwide.  I believe that social networking is the great new local café or bar where conversations can blossom, where thoughts can be shared and friends can be made well past just a another posting.

But the reality is, that the new policy, although rapidly overturned, leaves users just a bit more insecure about being found out in years to come — when the very information they are willingly to post today, may come back to bite them tomorrow.