5 ms·

It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction just in t

It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction just in the name of profit.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
If we stop punishing companies when they have a bad quarter, this probably would not be happening.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.
  - Freak_NL 9y ago
    We would end up with a small section of middle class consumers who are aware of the privacy issues and its effects and willing to choose businesses based on merit as well as price. I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    > Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...
    - pmiller2 9y ago
      Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company[0] established the principle in law almost 100 years ago. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
      - cratermoon 9y ago
        I like how anyone who actually reads the content of the article and checks the references can a) know how wrong it is to represent this case as a meaningful bit of law and b) find that it directly contradicts the assertions that it is a driving force. "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744
      - mindcrime 9y ago
        That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no? And from the same Wikipedia page: In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      Well, I wasn't speaking to codified law, as referenced in your linked article. However, perhaps I over-simplified a bit in the interest of brevity when I wrote "singular mission". Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction. Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.
- omginternets 9y ago
  The level of mental gymnastics required to argue that a lack of regulation would improve customer privacy is ... olympian.
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    Where are you getting that the GP post is advocating a lack of regulation? I read it as the market should stop punishing transient fluctuations in earnings and share prices and expecting continuous growth, while, in turn, we could have companies that actually respect privacy. I'm not sure it's a great argument, but it's a nice sentiment, at least.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    What about the level of mental gymnastics required to go from what I actually wrote to something about lack of regulations? Because that certainly is not what I wrote nor is it what I meant.
- horusthecat 9y ago
  Who is "we"? I'm not a Google shareholder.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Exactly. People completely disconnect their own incentives as a shareholder ("hope price goes up") with those as a user(privacy/ethics in this case). When you only want the price of FB/GOOG to rise as a shareholder and are happy when it does (regardless of what it took to achieve it), don't be surprised when the board that represents the shareholders does whatever it takes to make it happen. As a shareholder, you can be completely ignorant (or knowing but indifferent) of what it takes to deliver returns to your investment yet support those measures by buying shares. As a board member, the only incentive then is to raise share price because you know shareholders don't know/care about what it takes. When the system delivers rewards to both shareholders and people running the company for extracting more profit, and requires little scrutiny of the means in which that is done, the logical optimization target function is just that - profit. The system converges to optimizing the target function. If you are not a shareholder but merely a user, this does not apply to you. But then, your only input into the system it whether you choose to remain a user. As long as enough people remain such that the business can continue to function an generate profits, there is again no incentive for a business to change its behavior.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  This sounds logical, but the issue is that the price of an asset should fall if its performance decreases. I don't know whether there is a real solution when the (bulk of) ownership of a company is disjoint from those participating in its operations. However, I can comfortably say that organized behavior against rational self-interest is probably not a solution. Personally, I'm a huge fan of employee-owned companies. But to be 100% employee owned, that means no fundraising based on selling ownership. So growth is probably going to be limited by capital. (Which, also personally, I don't think is a terrible thing either.)
dberhane 9y ago
This is already happening with the free services we are getting from Google and Facebook.
- guruparan18 9y ago
  And then they also do explicitly with: Google Opinion Rewards (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.paidtasks&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...). The app does ask questions based on location, search terms, YT videos and others, that DO get pretty personal.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
It's how all rights work. Freedom of speech? You can yell all you want, but it will never be equal to a rich individual able to buy adds and have recorded messages played over the internet. 2nc Amendment? You ever see the prices to own certain guns? Voting? While there isn't a direct poll tax, you have to be able to afford the opportunity costs of the time spent to vote, as well as being able to afford access to the place to vote.
- aggie 9y ago
  There's a difference between Rights and Entitlements. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything, it restricts what the government can take away (in theory).
- ianai 9y ago
  I think some of that is related to wage inequalities and decades of business friendly legislation.
pmiller2 9y ago
And how do even "higher classes" achieve privacy while taking advantage of what modern technology has to offer? I can't even imagine the level of op sec one would need to be truly anonymous on the internet.

It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction just in the name of profit.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

If we stop punishing companies when they have a bad quarter, this probably would not be happening.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  We would end up with a small section of middle class consumers who are aware of the privacy issues and its effects and willing to choose businesses based on merit as well as price. I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).
- cratermoon 9y ago
  > Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company[0] established the principle in law almost 100 years ago. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
    - cratermoon 9y ago
      I like how anyone who actually reads the content of the article and checks the references can a) know how wrong it is to represent this case as a meaningful bit of law and b) find that it directly contradicts the assertions that it is a driving force. "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744
    - mindcrime 9y ago
      That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no? And from the same Wikipedia page: In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    Well, I wasn't speaking to codified law, as referenced in your linked article. However, perhaps I over-simplified a bit in the interest of brevity when I wrote "singular mission". Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction. Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.
omginternets 9y ago
The level of mental gymnastics required to argue that a lack of regulation would improve customer privacy is ... olympian.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  Where are you getting that the GP post is advocating a lack of regulation? I read it as the market should stop punishing transient fluctuations in earnings and share prices and expecting continuous growth, while, in turn, we could have companies that actually respect privacy. I'm not sure it's a great argument, but it's a nice sentiment, at least.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  What about the level of mental gymnastics required to go from what I actually wrote to something about lack of regulations? Because that certainly is not what I wrote nor is it what I meant.
horusthecat 9y ago
Who is "we"? I'm not a Google shareholder.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Exactly. People completely disconnect their own incentives as a shareholder ("hope price goes up") with those as a user(privacy/ethics in this case). When you only want the price of FB/GOOG to rise as a shareholder and are happy when it does (regardless of what it took to achieve it), don't be surprised when the board that represents the shareholders does whatever it takes to make it happen. As a shareholder, you can be completely ignorant (or knowing but indifferent) of what it takes to deliver returns to your investment yet support those measures by buying shares. As a board member, the only incentive then is to raise share price because you know shareholders don't know/care about what it takes. When the system delivers rewards to both shareholders and people running the company for extracting more profit, and requires little scrutiny of the means in which that is done, the logical optimization target function is just that - profit. The system converges to optimizing the target function. If you are not a shareholder but merely a user, this does not apply to you. But then, your only input into the system it whether you choose to remain a user. As long as enough people remain such that the business can continue to function an generate profits, there is again no incentive for a business to change its behavior.
jdmichal 9y ago
This sounds logical, but the issue is that the price of an asset should fall if its performance decreases. I don't know whether there is a real solution when the (bulk of) ownership of a company is disjoint from those participating in its operations. However, I can comfortably say that organized behavior against rational self-interest is probably not a solution. Personally, I'm a huge fan of employee-owned companies. But to be 100% employee owned, that means no fundraising based on selling ownership. So growth is probably going to be limited by capital. (Which, also personally, I don't think is a terrible thing either.)

dberhane 9y ago

This is already happening with the free services we are getting from Google and Facebook.

guruparan18 9y ago
And then they also do explicitly with: Google Opinion Rewards (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.paidtasks&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...). The app does ask questions based on location, search terms, YT videos and others, that DO get pretty personal.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

It's how all rights work. Freedom of speech? You can yell all you want, but it will never be equal to a rich individual able to buy adds and have recorded messages played over the internet. 2nc Amendment? You ever see the prices to own certain guns? Voting? While there isn't a direct poll tax, you have to be able to afford the opportunity costs of the time spent to vote, as well as being able to afford access to the place to vote.

aggie 9y ago
There's a difference between Rights and Entitlements. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything, it restricts what the government can take away (in theory).
ianai 9y ago
I think some of that is related to wage inequalities and decades of business friendly legislation.

pmiller2 9y ago

And how do even "higher classes" achieve privacy while taking advantage of what modern technology has to offer? I can't even imagine the level of op sec one would need to be truly anonymous on the internet.