4 ms·

It's not so much Google I'm worried about. I can choose to use other online services. But I should be able to buy a car without the vendor tracking me everywhe

It's not so much Google I'm worried about. I can choose to use other online services. But I should be able to buy a car without the vendor tracking me everywhere I go, or a phone without it becoming a beacon that stores use to follow me around as I do my shopping, or a TV that just lets me watch a show without phoning home to tell the manufacturer all about it. None of the data sharing in these cases is in any way essential to the device I've bought, it's just being added because it can be, as an extra revenue stream at the expense of my privacy and potentially security.

luckylion 8y ago
I agree, but it would increase the prices, right? Would you buy a phone that doesn't include "we'll sell the user's data" in the financial planning at twice the price? And pay another premium for a mobile provider that doesn't actively track you & sells profile data? I'm not so sure about it being added just because they can make a few extra bucks. I believe it becomes part of the revenue system and drives down the margin they make on the actual product. Once somebody starts, everybody has to follow or they can't compete because their product is expensive. With privacy minded people being a small minority, it probably doesn't make sense financially to cater to them in many markets. Emails is relatively simple, building a cell phone, or running a cell network, is not, so you don't do it for a handful of users.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  What you describe may well be what is happening, and that is exactly why it is necessary to intervene at this point. By the same argument, if we didn't have safety or environmental standards, manufacturers would be in a race to the bottom in those areas as well. Sometimes you just have to say that a certain behaviour isn't acceptable, for the good of all. If that puts prices up, so be it, but I'm betting that since people managed to make and sell these products at commercially viable levels for many years before all this data grabbing came along, they'll manage just fine if the grabbing gets cut off as well.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    I agree completely, if we want to change that, government has to be involved. There's little to no incentive for a company to change. I doubt many users are fine with a price increase, and for some it may be prohibitive, and they'll not be happy to no longer be able to afford a smart phone. If your electricity provider only offered affordable rates in exchange for giving up a certain amount of privacy, I'm sure most people would still go for it. Most people need electricity much more than they need privacy.
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      I feel that's an externally enforced dichotomy though. Somebody said during a board meeting "let's force people to make this choice and we know they will choose convenience and cheap over privacy". But it doesn't have to be this way. We need new players in the market that aren't that sleazy.
      - luckylion 8y ago
        Will those "good players" be able to compete? And will they even get funding if it's required to start their business? Unless you force everybody to not just dump toxic chemicals into the river, the company that doesn't will have to charge a lot more, and customers will go with those that do (if they live far enough from the river, or upstream from the dump site).
        pdimitar 8y ago
        That is of course the crux of the issue. I'd like to think -- believe if you will -- that things are changing. Many people want a safer environment for their kids and are thus more politically active. Sadly they are a drop in the ocean still. Even with that however, this crazed consumerism cannot last forever. Things will change. Not sure you and I will live to see it though.

luckylion 8y ago

I agree, but it would increase the prices, right? Would you buy a phone that doesn't include "we'll sell the user's data" in the financial planning at twice the price? And pay another premium for a mobile provider that doesn't actively track you & sells profile data? I'm not so sure about it being added just because they can make a few extra bucks. I believe it becomes part of the revenue system and drives down the margin they make on the actual product. Once somebody starts, everybody has to follow or they can't compete because their product is expensive. With privacy minded people being a small minority, it probably doesn't make sense financially to cater to them in many markets. Emails is relatively simple, building a cell phone, or running a cell network, is not, so you don't do it for a handful of users.

Silhouette 8y ago
What you describe may well be what is happening, and that is exactly why it is necessary to intervene at this point. By the same argument, if we didn't have safety or environmental standards, manufacturers would be in a race to the bottom in those areas as well. Sometimes you just have to say that a certain behaviour isn't acceptable, for the good of all. If that puts prices up, so be it, but I'm betting that since people managed to make and sell these products at commercially viable levels for many years before all this data grabbing came along, they'll manage just fine if the grabbing gets cut off as well.
- luckylion 8y ago
  I agree completely, if we want to change that, government has to be involved. There's little to no incentive for a company to change. I doubt many users are fine with a price increase, and for some it may be prohibitive, and they'll not be happy to no longer be able to afford a smart phone. If your electricity provider only offered affordable rates in exchange for giving up a certain amount of privacy, I'm sure most people would still go for it. Most people need electricity much more than they need privacy.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    I feel that's an externally enforced dichotomy though. Somebody said during a board meeting "let's force people to make this choice and we know they will choose convenience and cheap over privacy". But it doesn't have to be this way. We need new players in the market that aren't that sleazy.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      Will those "good players" be able to compete? And will they even get funding if it's required to start their business? Unless you force everybody to not just dump toxic chemicals into the river, the company that doesn't will have to charge a lot more, and customers will go with those that do (if they live far enough from the river, or upstream from the dump site).
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        That is of course the crux of the issue. I'd like to think -- believe if you will -- that things are changing. Many people want a safer environment for their kids and are thus more politically active. Sadly they are a drop in the ocean still. Even with that however, this crazed consumerism cannot last forever. Things will change. Not sure you and I will live to see it though.