3 ms·

I've been thinking instead of paying individuals, gov't should levy a tax on PII that is stored. A $/person identified/fingerprinted would be interesting. This

I've been thinking instead of paying individuals, gov't should levy a tax on PII that is stored. A $/person identified/fingerprinted would be interesting. This would allow ethical companies like Firefox and Signal to operate at much lower margins than Chrome and Messenger.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
I like this. One worry I have with paying individuals is that it becomes predatory for poorer people. If you struggle come back-to-school season, it might be tempting to let companies vacuum up your data for a quick buck. Sundar Pichai touched on this recently, criticizing Apple for making privacy a "luxury good" (of course, Google doesn't give you privacy at any price). We should make companies value our privacy in the first place, not commoditize it.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  > Sundar Pichai touched on this recently, criticizing Apple for making privacy a "luxury good" (of course, Google doesn't give you privacy at any price). Heh, yes, clever spin on his part: it's expensive primarily because the default is actors (like Google) working so hard against it.
- jszymborski 7y ago
  I think that enforcing strong privacy creates a "herd immunity" similar to how vaccines work. Collecting vast information on individuals allows companies to work in the disinterest of the public. I also think that services that have become essential to receive public services like email should be regulated as such, with availability and cost guarantees. That's a whole digression on eInfrastructure though....
Nasrudith 7y ago
That sounds self defeating from matters of auditing would expose it to the government and everyone involved in compliance layers. Not to mention PII can be composite. Knowing you are 26 and in say New York City doesn't tell much. Now add "once worked at a Quiznos in 2010" and "born July 19th" starts narrowing things further.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

I like this. One worry I have with paying individuals is that it becomes predatory for poorer people. If you struggle come back-to-school season, it might be tempting to let companies vacuum up your data for a quick buck. Sundar Pichai touched on this recently, criticizing Apple for making privacy a "luxury good" (of course, Google doesn't give you privacy at any price). We should make companies value our privacy in the first place, not commoditize it.

wool_gather 7y ago
> Sundar Pichai touched on this recently, criticizing Apple for making privacy a "luxury good" (of course, Google doesn't give you privacy at any price). Heh, yes, clever spin on his part: it's expensive primarily because the default is actors (like Google) working so hard against it.
jszymborski 7y ago
I think that enforcing strong privacy creates a "herd immunity" similar to how vaccines work. Collecting vast information on individuals allows companies to work in the disinterest of the public. I also think that services that have become essential to receive public services like email should be regulated as such, with availability and cost guarantees. That's a whole digression on eInfrastructure though....

Nasrudith 7y ago

That sounds self defeating from matters of auditing would expose it to the government and everyone involved in compliance layers. Not to mention PII can be composite. Knowing you are 26 and in say New York City doesn't tell much. Now add "once worked at a Quiznos in 2010" and "born July 19th" starts narrowing things further.