3 ms·

I don't quite follow that analogy. My underlying thoughts are as follows. Yahoo is the target in this story, so I'll use Yahoo as the placeholder for any compa

by kefka 10y ago

I don't quite follow that analogy. My underlying thoughts are as follows. Yahoo is the target in this story, so I'll use Yahoo as the placeholder for any company that deals with user data in that capacity. When you send an email, it shows up at a destination. You send it from your mail provider, "magic happens", and it shows up at the destination. By definition, the text that you send it what is received. By sending your text with who you want it to go to, you are relinquishing control over your data. Now, Yahoo can read it. And any mailserver in between. And the destination mailserver can as well. You also give up a form of copyright- because the basis of this transmission means that the same message may appear multiple places. With the USPS, we pay postage to send data and packages. And there are stringent safeguards in place for the USPS. We have no such data safeguard laws in the US. European Union is different (I don't know the laws there). But whatever data I send to some private org, can be used and reused in whatever ways that are bound by their privacy policy (which they write), and whatever contracts they abide by (PCI DSS, HIPAA, FERPA, etc). Even though this part isn't logical, whenever I don't pay for a service, I automatically assume that I'm paying with my data. I guess when you're cash-poor, it's a good trade-off.

matt4077 10y ago
The "paying-with-my-data-I-am-the-product" cliche doesn't really work here because Yahoo didn't do this for money. You are also not giving up "some form of copyright" beyond the narrow definition of the license yahoo may require to show it to someone else. Otherwise there'd probably be a few bestsellers owned by google et al. – I'm sure quite a few Harry Potter manuscripts went through their network. There's a certain expectation of the relationship between a service like yahoo's and the customer. Those expectations go beyond what may be the bare minimum that is legally required. Considering that there is healthy competition even in the free tier of email services, consumers are not powerless in the "negotiation" that defines this relationship. The bare minimum of any such relationship must be a truthful and specific description of any access the provider has to my data. Indeed that is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions. But how can I trust them? It depends on the organization. I'm 100% certain that Apple doesn't sell the content of my e-mails because it'd be stupid... They'd be risking a triple-digit-revenue business on what could amount to a few million/year tops. Their and my interest are aligned. Regarding the analogy you weren't following: placing yourself in a position of vulnerability is simply never an excuse for anybody, either legally or morally, to exploit that vulnerability. If I accidentally leave my bike unlocked doesn't change the thieve's legal or moral standing at all.

by kefka 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

The "paying-with-my-data-I-am-the-product" cliche doesn't really work here because Yahoo didn't do this for money. You are also not giving up "some form of copyright" beyond the narrow definition of the license yahoo may require to show it to someone else. Otherwise there'd probably be a few bestsellers owned by google et al. – I'm sure quite a few Harry Potter manuscripts went through their network. There's a certain expectation of the relationship between a service like yahoo's and the customer. Those expectations go beyond what may be the bare minimum that is legally required. Considering that there is healthy competition even in the free tier of email services, consumers are not powerless in the "negotiation" that defines this relationship. The bare minimum of any such relationship must be a truthful and specific description of any access the provider has to my data. Indeed that is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions. But how can I trust them? It depends on the organization. I'm 100% certain that Apple doesn't sell the content of my e-mails because it'd be stupid... They'd be risking a triple-digit-revenue business on what could amount to a few million/year tops. Their and my interest are aligned. Regarding the analogy you weren't following: placing yourself in a position of vulnerability is simply never an excuse for anybody, either legally or morally, to exploit that vulnerability. If I accidentally leave my bike unlocked doesn't change the thieve's legal or moral standing at all.