8 ms·

I look forward to the day when selling user's data requires the user's opt-in every single time a third party wants to access that data. No more "yes to all" or

I look forward to the day when selling user's data requires the user's opt-in every single time a third party wants to access that data. No more "yes to all" or allowing blanket usage in TOS/EULAs. People who use apps that sell their data should be bombarded with requests to use that data each and every single time, until they either decide the app isn't worth it or the app decides they should try a different business model. And ad targeting should be included in that. Add a new notifications button to FB - companies that have requested advertising access to me. If I decline or don't answer, I never see their ads.

ryanisnan 7y ago
Each and every time? As a user who understands and consents to that request, that would be incredibly annoying.
- inetknght 7y ago
  Your consent should be considered an outlier and should not be used to hinder my lack thereof.
  - marmada 7y ago
    I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.
    - emptyparadise 7y ago
      The tech industry spent the last 15 years coming up with fancy new ways to make users part with their data. There has to be a way to fix the damage.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      > Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I think you're incorrect. I think most users recognize that they usually don't have a choice: they don't have money to provide for services that they need, so they are _forced_ to use services that are cheaper or free. And I think most users feel helpless to do anything about it because most politicians actively ignore them (because they're poor) or work against them (because not-poor businesses pay politicians), and also because most businesses providing free service do not provide any useful mechanism for human interaction. Ever have trouble with a free service? Your only recourse is to go on social media and complain and hope to catch enough public attention such that someone who works at the company will reply. And even then you're not guaranteed a resolution to your issue.
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        I think you're underestimating the average non-tech oriented user that simply uses. A lot of those considerations might be true for users conscious about data collection, but I'd imagine that's a very small subset of users.
        inetknght 7y ago
        > I think you're underestimating the average non-tech oriented user that simply uses. While I certainly think it's possible, it doesn't echo with my personal anecdotes of friends and family. They all fit in with "I don't want to be tracked but I'm helpless to stop it!" crowd. All of my family, most of my friends.
      - sbov 7y ago
        There's plenty of similarly priced alternatives out there that aren't as abusive as the big ad companies. The problem isn't just that poor people are money poor. It's that they're also time poor. They're too busy making ends meet to care about this stuff. That Google collects so much of their data would probably not even be on their list of things to care about.
    - _r_o_y_ 7y ago
      I agree partly with you but I don't think most users know the extend of information collected from those services, if people saw their profiles as really used by google I believe almost all of them would freak out.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      > Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I'm far from convinced that this is true. Most users don't actually know the extent to which their data is being collected. I suspect that a large percentage of people, if they were informed (and believed it), would object mightily.
      - _hl_ 7y ago
        I think it's far more likely that people don't want to know. By now I think most people are aware that their privacy is being violated, but feel powerless to do anything and don't want to resist the temptations of using addictive social media etc. They pity themselves for it, and try to ignore that it's a problem.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      > As a user who understands and consents to that request They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. It is simply not possible to have informed consent about the use, re-sale, re-combination, re-identification, long-term storage, profiling, credit/employment/health/housing impacts, etc. It's not possible to consent because you can't tell what you are giving away about other people who you aren't aware that you're impacting, and don't have their permission to do so. There just isn't any way for someone to say 'I understand and consent' and have it be meaningful.
      - ryanisnan 7y ago
        I do agree that this is probably the bigger issue. A lack of understanding of what exactly you are agreeing to. If that is solved, however, then a continual request for consent would be a non-starter for any service use, making the whole point moot.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. That is a supposition of yours. I'm pretty confident that I understand what i'm agreeing to. And I agree to it.
        cyphar 7y ago
        Maybe you do, but the vast majority of people do not. In that respect you definitely are an outlier. Most people don't understand the value that comes from user data, and the potentially damaging effects it might have on their life (Facebook can detect that you are homosexual through your Facebook usage, and if you live in a country where they kill homosexuals you are going to be in serious trouble). Almost no users understand the impact of the third-party doctrine. There are all sorts of other issues. If you talk to someone suspected of being a terrorist, then you are labeled as a suspected terrorist. Since this bill is about browsing data, if you read articles If you read articles that are seen as being objectionable (imagine reading articles about communism during McCarthyism) then you might be labeled as such even if you were reading them for purposes other than indoctrination. There is a reason that a court order is required to get the borrowing records of a particular library user and libraries cannot sell that information.
  - DannyBee 7y ago
    Saying "I think everyone who disagrees with me is an outlier" is not a particularly helpful way to further a discussion. Would you care to present evidence?
    - qwsxyh 7y ago
      This is such a peak HN comment. Evidence of what, exactly?
  - ryanisnan 7y ago
    For clarity, I do not share the opinion that I stated, only recognized that people do have it. I'm not too sure how one user consenting to the data sharing guidelines should affect your experience. Elaborate?
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Causing incredible annoyance is obviously the idea. It would drive away users, making business models that relied on it less efficient. It's a great idea.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    Has this worked out in practice, say with cookie warnings? Or do most of us click Accept and move on?
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      You get asked to accept a cookie once per site. The proposal above is way more annoying.
      - jhayward 7y ago
        No, I get asked to accept a cookie on every page view because I don't allow cookies.
- erkose 7y ago
  The configuration should be yes/no and always-ask/never-ask with the default being no and always ask.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  thatsthepoint.gif
khawkins 7y ago
I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. No one likes ads, but no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If I'm going to see ads, I'd rather them be something I might potentially find useful than something irrelevant. If I end up buying their product, the exchange is mutually beneficial and both parties walk away with value from the exchange. What's really great is that it can really help small businesses and startups over large corporations. Brands like Coca Cola can afford to canvas the world with their logo, but a business with a handful of employees must use their marketing budget very carefully. User data and profiling makes it realistic to find those people naturally through their internet habits. Even if this is being used by politicians, I don't see the harm. If you think people can't think for themselves in the face of political advertising campaigns, then I don't see why you'd also believe that those same people can be trusted with the responsibility of the vote. I can understand the need for treating data carefully and making sure the data is sufficiently scrubbed for personal identification, but this issue is something different.
- rapind 7y ago
  Because it's rife with bad actors due to a lack of regulation. And even the good actors are kind of forced to be bad actors in order to compete. Lacking better regulation it's just a horrible business model for consumers, with really no exceptions since anyone who plays nice will ultimately lose out to less scrupulous players.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > And even the good actors This sounds like snark, but I don't intend it that way. I genuinely want to know. Who are the good actors? I really can't see any.
    - rapind 7y ago
      I naively consider(ed?) Google a good actor. I still kind of buy that they want to be at least. I'm sure others think differently though and I'm definitely not going to defend them. (Android, Dragonfly)
Bombthecat 7y ago
Like the cookie question where everyone clicks yes anyway?
shrimpx 7y ago
I agree and this points to the problem of "high level, usable TOS/EULA". Today's EULA "culture" is so hopelessly broken. Whereas the software is interactive and intuitive, using readable labels and buttons, the EULA is a couple dozen pages of non-interactive legal fine print. Companies will continue to get away with evil until we come up with better requirements for this nonsense.

ryanisnan 7y ago

Each and every time? As a user who understands and consents to that request, that would be incredibly annoying.

inetknght 7y ago
Your consent should be considered an outlier and should not be used to hinder my lack thereof.
- marmada 7y ago
  I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.
  - emptyparadise 7y ago
    The tech industry spent the last 15 years coming up with fancy new ways to make users part with their data. There has to be a way to fix the damage.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I think you're incorrect. I think most users recognize that they usually don't have a choice: they don't have money to provide for services that they need, so they are _forced_ to use services that are cheaper or free. And I think most users feel helpless to do anything about it because most politicians actively ignore them (because they're poor) or work against them (because not-poor businesses pay politicians), and also because most businesses providing free service do not provide any useful mechanism for human interaction. Ever have trouble with a free service? Your only recourse is to go on social media and complain and hope to catch enough public attention such that someone who works at the company will reply. And even then you're not guaranteed a resolution to your issue.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      I think you're underestimating the average non-tech oriented user that simply uses. A lot of those considerations might be true for users conscious about data collection, but I'd imagine that's a very small subset of users.
      - inetknght 7y ago
        > I think you're underestimating the average non-tech oriented user that simply uses. While I certainly think it's possible, it doesn't echo with my personal anecdotes of friends and family. They all fit in with "I don't want to be tracked but I'm helpless to stop it!" crowd. All of my family, most of my friends.
    - sbov 7y ago
      There's plenty of similarly priced alternatives out there that aren't as abusive as the big ad companies. The problem isn't just that poor people are money poor. It's that they're also time poor. They're too busy making ends meet to care about this stuff. That Google collects so much of their data would probably not even be on their list of things to care about.
  - _r_o_y_ 7y ago
    I agree partly with you but I don't think most users know the extend of information collected from those services, if people saw their profiles as really used by google I believe almost all of them would freak out.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I'm far from convinced that this is true. Most users don't actually know the extent to which their data is being collected. I suspect that a large percentage of people, if they were informed (and believed it), would object mightily.
    - _hl_ 7y ago
      I think it's far more likely that people don't want to know. By now I think most people are aware that their privacy is being violated, but feel powerless to do anything and don't want to resist the temptations of using addictive social media etc. They pity themselves for it, and try to ignore that it's a problem.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    > As a user who understands and consents to that request They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. It is simply not possible to have informed consent about the use, re-sale, re-combination, re-identification, long-term storage, profiling, credit/employment/health/housing impacts, etc. It's not possible to consent because you can't tell what you are giving away about other people who you aren't aware that you're impacting, and don't have their permission to do so. There just isn't any way for someone to say 'I understand and consent' and have it be meaningful.
    - ryanisnan 7y ago
      I do agree that this is probably the bigger issue. A lack of understanding of what exactly you are agreeing to. If that is solved, however, then a continual request for consent would be a non-starter for any service use, making the whole point moot.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > They can't really consent, because no-one truly understands what it is that they are agreeing to. That is a supposition of yours. I'm pretty confident that I understand what i'm agreeing to. And I agree to it.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        Maybe you do, but the vast majority of people do not. In that respect you definitely are an outlier. Most people don't understand the value that comes from user data, and the potentially damaging effects it might have on their life (Facebook can detect that you are homosexual through your Facebook usage, and if you live in a country where they kill homosexuals you are going to be in serious trouble). Almost no users understand the impact of the third-party doctrine. There are all sorts of other issues. If you talk to someone suspected of being a terrorist, then you are labeled as a suspected terrorist. Since this bill is about browsing data, if you read articles If you read articles that are seen as being objectionable (imagine reading articles about communism during McCarthyism) then you might be labeled as such even if you were reading them for purposes other than indoctrination. There is a reason that a court order is required to get the borrowing records of a particular library user and libraries cannot sell that information.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  Saying "I think everyone who disagrees with me is an outlier" is not a particularly helpful way to further a discussion. Would you care to present evidence?
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    This is such a peak HN comment. Evidence of what, exactly?
- ryanisnan 7y ago
  For clarity, I do not share the opinion that I stated, only recognized that people do have it. I'm not too sure how one user consenting to the data sharing guidelines should affect your experience. Elaborate?
darkpuma 7y ago
Causing incredible annoyance is obviously the idea. It would drive away users, making business models that relied on it less efficient. It's a great idea.
- chillacy 7y ago
  Has this worked out in practice, say with cookie warnings? Or do most of us click Accept and move on?
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    You get asked to accept a cookie once per site. The proposal above is way more annoying.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      No, I get asked to accept a cookie on every page view because I don't allow cookies.
erkose 7y ago
The configuration should be yes/no and always-ask/never-ask with the default being no and always ask.
dredmorbius 7y ago
thatsthepoint.gif

khawkins 7y ago

I really don't understand the extreme hostility to data collection and data markets. No one likes ads, but no one wants to have to pay a subscription fee to every single site on the internet. If I'm going to see ads, I'd rather them be something I might potentially find useful than something irrelevant. If I end up buying their product, the exchange is mutually beneficial and both parties walk away with value from the exchange. What's really great is that it can really help small businesses and startups over large corporations. Brands like Coca Cola can afford to canvas the world with their logo, but a business with a handful of employees must use their marketing budget very carefully. User data and profiling makes it realistic to find those people naturally through their internet habits. Even if this is being used by politicians, I don't see the harm. If you think people can't think for themselves in the face of political advertising campaigns, then I don't see why you'd also believe that those same people can be trusted with the responsibility of the vote. I can understand the need for treating data carefully and making sure the data is sufficiently scrubbed for personal identification, but this issue is something different.

rapind 7y ago
Because it's rife with bad actors due to a lack of regulation. And even the good actors are kind of forced to be bad actors in order to compete. Lacking better regulation it's just a horrible business model for consumers, with really no exceptions since anyone who plays nice will ultimately lose out to less scrupulous players.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > And even the good actors This sounds like snark, but I don't intend it that way. I genuinely want to know. Who are the good actors? I really can't see any.
  - rapind 7y ago
    I naively consider(ed?) Google a good actor. I still kind of buy that they want to be at least. I'm sure others think differently though and I'm definitely not going to defend them. (Android, Dragonfly)

Bombthecat 7y ago

Like the cookie question where everyone clicks yes anyway?

shrimpx 7y ago

I agree and this points to the problem of "high level, usable TOS/EULA". Today's EULA "culture" is so hopelessly broken. Whereas the software is interactive and intuitive, using readable labels and buttons, the EULA is a couple dozen pages of non-interactive legal fine print. Companies will continue to get away with evil until we come up with better requirements for this nonsense.