21 ms·

I would like to see a federal Staute inacted regarding the collection of user data in the US. Enacted quickly! Something on the lines of don't collect any dat

I would like to see a federal Staute inacted regarding the collection of user data in the US. Enacted quickly! Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. I have weird feeling, in the near future, we will find that information/data has been abused. No just abused by marketing/big data, etc.. And I'm not even arguing about the obvious--personal privacy. Although personal privacy should be the number one reason for this hypothetical statute. I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal. It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and traded stock upon it. I have a hard time believing every email that Warren Buffet/George Sorrows/every sussessful trader makes isn't looked at by someone. And it's not just email; it collating search histories, in order to get a "feeling" of where the money to is to be made. They are then using that info. to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.. And yes, they will claim we don't care about getting insider info. on investments--we make a killing selling the data to marketers. Why would we do such a thing? Because you can. I would have a hard time not looking at that information, and I don't have a penny to gamble. I think it will be a huge story. (Edit to a legitimate question about the poor websites that depend on advertising.) Yes--I didn't bring up advertising. They could advertise like the old days, like newspapers did. They just couldn't target market their advertising--like they presently do at nausium. I still think they would make their nut. They would still be winners! And yes--I would pay for the right service, if they couldn't manage to compete by being hobbled with not targeted advertising. I paid for many websites before Google made advertising a science. My post has nothing to do with advertising. I get advertising. Just leave my detailed, personal info. out of it.)

chii 10y ago
> Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. Would you then pay for the services in full that you now could use for free?
- bonoboTP 10y ago
  Maybe yes, maybe not. So what? It should still be forbidden. If it turns out that not enough people want to pay for it, then tough luck for the company, they should design something that people will pay for. For example it is forbidden to take organs from people as payment. We could forbid taking certain private data from masses of people as payment.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    If you put trade in organs in the same basket as trade in conclusions from personal data, then I have to wonder what you put in the other basket, the one where consenting adults are allowed to freely enter into agreements. If you are criticising that people are not willingly and knowingly entering into agreements with Facebook or Google, that is another debate. Yes I think there should be the utmost level of transparency and regulatory action on that front is justified in my view. But telling people that they cannot trade access to personal data for access to services goes way beyond the role I think governments should have. If that sort of thing is prohibited, how can a government allow its people to make any decisions that potentially affect their safety and their future, like choosing a career path, choosing a place to live, making decisions on health, education, kids, etc?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. Privacy is a necessity for a democracy, without it, democracy falls apart, that is extremely dangerous, and that's why a democratic society should protect itself against it.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. And now please explain to me what sort of voluntary agreement does not have negative externalities when it occurs en masse! Voluntary agreements inevitably create markets and markets have well known negative externalities. Even the democratic process itself has negative externalities. On that basis you can ban everything. I'm not against all regulation, but your justification is way too general. It leads straight into authoritarianism.
doctorstupid 10y ago
Alphabet = winning bet
denzil_correa 10y ago
> I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal. It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and traded stock upon it. I have a similar prediction. There will come a time when companies with the USP of user data would be struggling to keep themselves afloat. What happens to user data, then? Will the organizations sell user data to keep them afloat?
- rmc 10y ago
  Thankfully companies under EU law won't be able to do that.
- jsemrau 10y ago
  Well, foursquare is already using foot traffic to predict retail sales right now. https://medium.com/foursquare-direct/foursquare-predicts-chipotle-s-q1-sales-down-nearly-30-foot-traffic-reveals-the-start-of-a-mixed-78515b2389af#.1c21c9lre https://medium.com/foursquare-direct/foursquare-predicts-chi...
pdkl95 10y ago
> any data, besides name, password, email address Collect any data you want if and only if you have the informed consent of the user. This means explaining in detail what you're intending to collect and gaining permission first (opt-in). > This information can never be sold. Sell the information if you want (that was collected with informed consent of the user), but collecting data brings a responsibility of care for that data and liability for any problems that happen because those records were stored.
- danarmak 10y ago
  Users already opt into using a service like WhatsApp. They are presented with TOS on first use / account creation. Whatsapp changed their TOS and presented the new TOS to existing users when they first opened the app after the change. Doesn't this already satisfy your requirements? It is, of course, well known that users never read TOS / EULA for software or services.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > WhatsApp I'm not talking about WhatsApp. > users never read TOS / EULA Then the user hasn't given informed consent! It's the responsibility of the collecting party to make sure that the user is aware of all aspects of the transaction.
    - danarmak 10y ago
      How? If the TOS text is displayed, and the user clicks OK, how can the service provider make sure the user actually read it, let alone understood it correctly? Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Do you have a positive example of how to do this successfully?
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Well, that's technically a problem of service provider. If you're afraid your product won't be used because of a complicated TOS, then... simplify the TOS. Drop the tons of legal bullshit, and stop hiding shady stuff in it. The more I think about it the more I like the incentive structure it creates.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
The funniest part will begin when Google start sharing user data with Facebook and vice versa, for mutual benefit. Perhaps only then regular users will start thinking about privacy.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  That's never going to happen. The reason they make so much money is because they're the only ones who have that amount of interconnected user data. Sharing it would be the stupidest thing they could possibly do.
  - quickben 10y ago
    Well, you are sort of on the right track. If they interconnect the data even more, they'll make more money. Why is a merger that impossible in your books. It will be just business between two advertising companies.
    - yAnonymous 10y ago
      Yes, but if they share their data with anyone else, it loses its value. That's why they go to such great lengths to collect all data on their own instead of working together. Look at Google Analytics for the perfect example: Millions of websites help Google collect data, but they only ever get anonymized data in return. Google keep the valuable stuff to themselves.
  - ComodoHacker 10y ago
    I'm not so sure about this. When a market becomes consolidated ans stable enough, big players often decide to divide it and cooperate where possible, rather then compete fiercely. Look at the property, insurance and other stable markets.
    - aroman 10y ago
      What's the thinking behind such a strategy? Increasing the overall size of the market?

chii 10y ago

> Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. Would you then pay for the services in full that you now could use for free?

bonoboTP 10y ago
Maybe yes, maybe not. So what? It should still be forbidden. If it turns out that not enough people want to pay for it, then tough luck for the company, they should design something that people will pay for. For example it is forbidden to take organs from people as payment. We could forbid taking certain private data from masses of people as payment.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  If you put trade in organs in the same basket as trade in conclusions from personal data, then I have to wonder what you put in the other basket, the one where consenting adults are allowed to freely enter into agreements. If you are criticising that people are not willingly and knowingly entering into agreements with Facebook or Google, that is another debate. Yes I think there should be the utmost level of transparency and regulatory action on that front is justified in my view. But telling people that they cannot trade access to personal data for access to services goes way beyond the role I think governments should have. If that sort of thing is prohibited, how can a government allow its people to make any decisions that potentially affect their safety and their future, like choosing a career path, choosing a place to live, making decisions on health, education, kids, etc?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. Privacy is a necessity for a democracy, without it, democracy falls apart, that is extremely dangerous, and that's why a democratic society should protect itself against it.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      >The reason why government should forbid it is not to protect the individual that's agreeing to give away their data, but to protect society from the externalities of those transactions when they occur en masse. And now please explain to me what sort of voluntary agreement does not have negative externalities when it occurs en masse! Voluntary agreements inevitably create markets and markets have well known negative externalities. Even the democratic process itself has negative externalities. On that basis you can ban everything. I'm not against all regulation, but your justification is way too general. It leads straight into authoritarianism.

doctorstupid 10y ago

Alphabet = winning bet

denzil_correa 10y ago

> I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal. It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and traded stock upon it. I have a similar prediction. There will come a time when companies with the USP of user data would be struggling to keep themselves afloat. What happens to user data, then? Will the organizations sell user data to keep them afloat?

rmc 10y ago
Thankfully companies under EU law won't be able to do that.
jsemrau 10y ago
Well, foursquare is already using foot traffic to predict retail sales right now. https://medium.com/foursquare-direct/foursquare-predicts-chipotle-s-q1-sales-down-nearly-30-foot-traffic-reveals-the-start-of-a-mixed-78515b2389af#.1c21c9lre https://medium.com/foursquare-direct/foursquare-predicts-chi...

pdkl95 10y ago

> any data, besides name, password, email address Collect any data you want if and only if you have the informed consent of the user. This means explaining in detail what you're intending to collect and gaining permission first (opt-in). > This information can never be sold. Sell the information if you want (that was collected with informed consent of the user), but collecting data brings a responsibility of care for that data and liability for any problems that happen because those records were stored.

danarmak 10y ago
Users already opt into using a service like WhatsApp. They are presented with TOS on first use / account creation. Whatsapp changed their TOS and presented the new TOS to existing users when they first opened the app after the change. Doesn't this already satisfy your requirements? It is, of course, well known that users never read TOS / EULA for software or services.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > WhatsApp I'm not talking about WhatsApp. > users never read TOS / EULA Then the user hasn't given informed consent! It's the responsibility of the collecting party to make sure that the user is aware of all aspects of the transaction.
  - danarmak 10y ago
    How? If the TOS text is displayed, and the user clicks OK, how can the service provider make sure the user actually read it, let alone understood it correctly? Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Do you have a positive example of how to do this successfully?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Well, that's technically a problem of service provider. If you're afraid your product won't be used because of a complicated TOS, then... simplify the TOS. Drop the tons of legal bullshit, and stop hiding shady stuff in it. The more I think about it the more I like the incentive structure it creates.

ComodoHacker 10y ago

The funniest part will begin when Google start sharing user data with Facebook and vice versa, for mutual benefit. Perhaps only then regular users will start thinking about privacy.

yAnonymous 10y ago
That's never going to happen. The reason they make so much money is because they're the only ones who have that amount of interconnected user data. Sharing it would be the stupidest thing they could possibly do.
- quickben 10y ago
  Well, you are sort of on the right track. If they interconnect the data even more, they'll make more money. Why is a merger that impossible in your books. It will be just business between two advertising companies.
  - yAnonymous 10y ago
    Yes, but if they share their data with anyone else, it loses its value. That's why they go to such great lengths to collect all data on their own instead of working together. Look at Google Analytics for the perfect example: Millions of websites help Google collect data, but they only ever get anonymized data in return. Google keep the valuable stuff to themselves.
- ComodoHacker 10y ago
  I'm not so sure about this. When a market becomes consolidated ans stable enough, big players often decide to divide it and cooperate where possible, rather then compete fiercely. Look at the property, insurance and other stable markets.
  - aroman 10y ago
    What's the thinking behind such a strategy? Increasing the overall size of the market?