6 ms·

Just let me profit or opt-out of the sale! Some how the mindset/unspoken agreement/TOS-spoken agreement that I have to "pay" with my personal data to use these

Just let me profit or opt-out of the sale! Some how the mindset/unspoken agreement/TOS-spoken agreement that I have to "pay" with my personal data to use these products has become too commonplace. It doesn't have to be much, but if I were allowed to generate an extra $20 a month that'd be great! I already use Google Rewards, and at this point that's the only "surveys" I get. If I play fantasy futurologist for a second, it would even make for some interesting economics. Underrepresented groups for a particular analysis could pay more, because those groups' data is rarer. A straight, white, male techie is probably a saturated market, so I wouldn't generate much, but a Hispanic woman's could be more valuable.

AznHisoka 7y ago
The economics of location data is such that if providers had to pay them much per person, they'd no longer buy the data. If they paid the real worth per person, it'd probably come down to 1/2 cent a month.
- DevKoala 7y ago
  Not true. I work on a targeting product, and if we could have accurate targeting data for a business decision maker, we’d pay significantly more per individual. The problem is that most people’s targeting data is not worth that much. Particularly the data of those who’d want to make a buck off it.
dehrmann 7y ago
> the mindset...that I have to "pay" with my personal data to use these products has become too commonplace I don't mind it so much when it's Facebook because it's clear they have to make money somehow. When it's the phone company that I pay money to, it's more surprising, and it feels like I'm being taken advantage of.
- mrgreenfur 7y ago
  How are these different? Even if you already pay for a service they will maximize their return by doing everything that is legally allowed. This needs CCPA-style disclosure and opt out I think.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    The difference is expectation. I expect my phone calls to be private. That goes for the associated data. I don't have the same expectation of FB. I don't know anyone who does.
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      I know people, who were very surprised to hear, that FB can read all their personal messages as well.
    - ska 7y ago
      > I don't know anyone who does. This is a problem with running in mostly technical circles. I don't think your expectations are well aligned with "average citizen".
- chockZ 7y ago
  It's not your phone company that's making money from your location data so much as the third party apps (Yelp, Weather Channel etc.) that you have installed on your phone for free. In order to use those apps, you often have to consent to them sharing your location data to ad-tech companies to help them serve ads to you if you're in specific areas.
  - Lownin 7y ago
    You sure about that? - "EFF Sues AT&T, Data Aggregators For Giving Bounty Hunters and Other Third Parties Access to Customers’ Real-Time Locations" - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-att-data-aggregators-giving-bounty-hunters-and-other-third-parties-access https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-att-data-aggrega...
thatcat 7y ago
Your personal data often includes other peoples personal data though...
guelo 7y ago
The white male techie would still be more valuable because of the extra disposable income.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
citilife 7y ago
These companies use your data to make money. Paying you would mean they'd have to make more than they pay you from the addition of said data. Today, I suspect the benefit of having said data is probably unknown. This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. Showing you a random advertisement vs an advertisement based on the page info vs an advertisement with your data included. I suspect an advertisement based on the page info is 90+% of the value. That being said, they can't truly pay you meaningful amounts for your data and answer to their shareholders. That's why it's not really done yet. Plus, they dont' need to in many cases. The whole internet is designed to collect all this data from you, without your consent being necessary.
- koolba 7y ago
  > Today, I suspect the benefit of having said data is probably unknown. This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. One of the biggest purchasers of this data is private bounty hunters. It’s definitely useful to them, both in real time and “recent time”. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43z3dn/hundreds-bounty-hunters-att-tmobile-sprint-customer-location-data-years https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43z3dn/hundreds-bounty-hu...
- acpetrov 7y ago
  The value of a targeted ad is a lot higher than just +10%
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > "This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends." Aafaik, when the data is available on the free market that means anyone can buy it. Anyone includes your favorite three-letter intelligence agencies. Imagine that. Your personal data without a wiretap or other legal authorization. No thanks.
- tsumnia 7y ago
  > Paying you would mean they'd have to make more than they pay you from the addition of said data. > This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. I disagree with this data point only because their current profits are being generated because they do not have to pay their data producers. And while I agree with the sentiment that the data is only valuable in aggregate, this doesn't mean my data is worth $0.00. Its still worth pennies, so maybe instead of $20, I earn $5, or less. The point is I'm paid for it. An analogy I had while I was driving over this comment is the equivalent to, say, an orange tree. A single orange is not as valuable as an "aggregate" of oranges. In the current data economy, companies have maintenance expenses for their "orange harvesters", but not for the oranges themselves. Again, this has often brought up points of "you are using their service, its their data", but I'd say a) this bill clearly shows that some people do not agree with that sentiment, and b) (to continue with the farm analogy) this is where something like share farming [1] would be a usable model. [1] https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/business-management/joint-ventures/share-farming-agreements/ https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/business-man...
jammygit 7y ago
Jaron lainier wrote a great book about your model called “Who Owns the Future.” In it, he describes a future where almost all profits go to large cloud centres and there are no jobs. He argues that by monetizing the data people produce that trains the ai of the future, people could avoid some of this and still have dignified lives and be self sufficient Edit: typo
- tsumnia 7y ago
  With the occasional discussions about a Universal Basic Income, this is how I viewed it'd be plausible.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    Just to continue the discussion about the book, he dislikes basic income because it makes everybody fully dependent on the government for their wellbeing. He prefers a system where people have the dignity of having a way to earn their money :) I'm not whether sure I agree or not, but the book was interesting
    - tsumnia 7y ago
      I don't mean basic income as a government expense; rather that the basic income is coming from selling your data and dictated by what the market is willing to pay for it.
      - jammygit 7y ago
        Oh interesting, I misunderstood
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  I don't follow. If the majority of people create no wealth, it seems unlikely that getting paid only for their data is going be sustainable. Today, no-one is interested in paying the poorest people in the world for their data.
the_watcher 7y ago
Yea, I really don't understand how T-Mobile (the Uncarrier!) hasn't figured out that they could just offer a $10 monthly credit in exchange for "opting in" and bask in the massive marketing windfall they could get from it.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Wouldn't data of opt-in users only be less valuable to bounty hunters, since their targets would opt out much more than the other population?
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    It would depend on what percentage of the data revenue is purely going to bounty hunters (my guess: low). Also, my understanding is that most bounty hunters are basically doing collections, not chasing down hardened criminals.
komali2 7y ago
I highly recommend Doctorow's "Radicalized" for the other angle of this: pervasive, locked IoT devices baked-in to a rental agreement. "Only use proprietary soap for your washing machine - after all, that's the reason your rent is priced where it is."
0xDEFC0DE 7y ago
>Just let me profit or opt-out of the sale! You'll get like $5 just once. It's valued at nowhere near $20/month.
- 50656E6973 7y ago
  Facebook paid teens $20 a month to access their browsing history and DMs https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-pays-people-to-access-their-phone-activity-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-pays-people-to-access-the...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zainhoda 7y ago
    Location data is much cheaper: $9.50/mo for 1000 users https://www.cnet.com/news/location-data-from-a-gas-station-app-sold-for-9-50-per-1000-people/ https://www.cnet.com/news/location-data-from-a-gas-station-a...
maxerickson 7y ago
It'd be even better if it were $50 or $100 a month!
soared 7y ago
1. You are profiting - you get all the apps and content for free. 2. > Underrepresented groups for a particular analysis could pay more, because those groups' data is rarer. A straight, white, male techie is probably a saturated market, so I wouldn't generate much, but a Hispanic woman's could be more valuable. Audience size doesn't equate well to cost of data. Buying power is most correlated thing to data cost. In this fantasy, rich white techy males earn more money form their data, and a hispanic woman earns very little.
ohazi 7y ago
The goal is not to provide a knob for a power user, it's to change norms and avoid the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario that we're currently in. Individual users are not going to opt out of anything, even though in aggregate, they state that they want the defaults to change.

AznHisoka 7y ago

The economics of location data is such that if providers had to pay them much per person, they'd no longer buy the data. If they paid the real worth per person, it'd probably come down to 1/2 cent a month.

DevKoala 7y ago
Not true. I work on a targeting product, and if we could have accurate targeting data for a business decision maker, we’d pay significantly more per individual. The problem is that most people’s targeting data is not worth that much. Particularly the data of those who’d want to make a buck off it.

dehrmann 7y ago

> the mindset...that I have to "pay" with my personal data to use these products has become too commonplace I don't mind it so much when it's Facebook because it's clear they have to make money somehow. When it's the phone company that I pay money to, it's more surprising, and it feels like I'm being taken advantage of.

mrgreenfur 7y ago
How are these different? Even if you already pay for a service they will maximize their return by doing everything that is legally allowed. This needs CCPA-style disclosure and opt out I think.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  The difference is expectation. I expect my phone calls to be private. That goes for the associated data. I don't have the same expectation of FB. I don't know anyone who does.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    I know people, who were very surprised to hear, that FB can read all their personal messages as well.
  - ska 7y ago
    > I don't know anyone who does. This is a problem with running in mostly technical circles. I don't think your expectations are well aligned with "average citizen".
chockZ 7y ago
It's not your phone company that's making money from your location data so much as the third party apps (Yelp, Weather Channel etc.) that you have installed on your phone for free. In order to use those apps, you often have to consent to them sharing your location data to ad-tech companies to help them serve ads to you if you're in specific areas.
- Lownin 7y ago
  You sure about that? - "EFF Sues AT&T, Data Aggregators For Giving Bounty Hunters and Other Third Parties Access to Customers’ Real-Time Locations" - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-att-data-aggregators-giving-bounty-hunters-and-other-third-parties-access https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-att-data-aggrega...

thatcat 7y ago

Your personal data often includes other peoples personal data though...

guelo 7y ago

The white male techie would still be more valuable because of the extra disposable income.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

citilife 7y ago

These companies use your data to make money. Paying you would mean they'd have to make more than they pay you from the addition of said data. Today, I suspect the benefit of having said data is probably unknown. This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. Showing you a random advertisement vs an advertisement based on the page info vs an advertisement with your data included. I suspect an advertisement based on the page info is 90+% of the value. That being said, they can't truly pay you meaningful amounts for your data and answer to their shareholders. That's why it's not really done yet. Plus, they dont' need to in many cases. The whole internet is designed to collect all this data from you, without your consent being necessary.

koolba 7y ago
> Today, I suspect the benefit of having said data is probably unknown. This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. One of the biggest purchasers of this data is private bounty hunters. It’s definitely useful to them, both in real time and “recent time”. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43z3dn/hundreds-bounty-hunters-att-tmobile-sprint-customer-location-data-years https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43z3dn/hundreds-bounty-hu...
acpetrov 7y ago
The value of a targeted ad is a lot higher than just +10%
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends." Aafaik, when the data is available on the free market that means anyone can buy it. Anyone includes your favorite three-letter intelligence agencies. Imagine that. Your personal data without a wiretap or other legal authorization. No thanks.
tsumnia 7y ago
> Paying you would mean they'd have to make more than they pay you from the addition of said data. > This data is probably only valuable in aggregate to determine trends. I disagree with this data point only because their current profits are being generated because they do not have to pay their data producers. And while I agree with the sentiment that the data is only valuable in aggregate, this doesn't mean my data is worth $0.00. Its still worth pennies, so maybe instead of $20, I earn $5, or less. The point is I'm paid for it. An analogy I had while I was driving over this comment is the equivalent to, say, an orange tree. A single orange is not as valuable as an "aggregate" of oranges. In the current data economy, companies have maintenance expenses for their "orange harvesters", but not for the oranges themselves. Again, this has often brought up points of "you are using their service, its their data", but I'd say a) this bill clearly shows that some people do not agree with that sentiment, and b) (to continue with the farm analogy) this is where something like share farming [1] would be a usable model. [1] https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/business-management/joint-ventures/share-farming-agreements/ https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/business-man...

jammygit 7y ago

Jaron lainier wrote a great book about your model called “Who Owns the Future.” In it, he describes a future where almost all profits go to large cloud centres and there are no jobs. He argues that by monetizing the data people produce that trains the ai of the future, people could avoid some of this and still have dignified lives and be self sufficient Edit: typo

tsumnia 7y ago
With the occasional discussions about a Universal Basic Income, this is how I viewed it'd be plausible.
- jammygit 7y ago
  Just to continue the discussion about the book, he dislikes basic income because it makes everybody fully dependent on the government for their wellbeing. He prefers a system where people have the dignity of having a way to earn their money :) I'm not whether sure I agree or not, but the book was interesting
  - tsumnia 7y ago
    I don't mean basic income as a government expense; rather that the basic income is coming from selling your data and dictated by what the market is willing to pay for it.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      Oh interesting, I misunderstood
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
I don't follow. If the majority of people create no wealth, it seems unlikely that getting paid only for their data is going be sustainable. Today, no-one is interested in paying the poorest people in the world for their data.

the_watcher 7y ago

Yea, I really don't understand how T-Mobile (the Uncarrier!) hasn't figured out that they could just offer a $10 monthly credit in exchange for "opting in" and bask in the massive marketing windfall they could get from it.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Wouldn't data of opt-in users only be less valuable to bounty hunters, since their targets would opt out much more than the other population?
- the_watcher 7y ago
  It would depend on what percentage of the data revenue is purely going to bounty hunters (my guess: low). Also, my understanding is that most bounty hunters are basically doing collections, not chasing down hardened criminals.

komali2 7y ago

I highly recommend Doctorow's "Radicalized" for the other angle of this: pervasive, locked IoT devices baked-in to a rental agreement. "Only use proprietary soap for your washing machine - after all, that's the reason your rent is priced where it is."

0xDEFC0DE 7y ago

>Just let me profit or opt-out of the sale! You'll get like $5 just once. It's valued at nowhere near $20/month.

50656E6973 7y ago
Facebook paid teens $20 a month to access their browsing history and DMs https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-pays-people-to-access-their-phone-activity-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-pays-people-to-access-the...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zainhoda 7y ago
  Location data is much cheaper: $9.50/mo for 1000 users https://www.cnet.com/news/location-data-from-a-gas-station-app-sold-for-9-50-per-1000-people/ https://www.cnet.com/news/location-data-from-a-gas-station-a...

maxerickson 7y ago

It'd be even better if it were $50 or $100 a month!

soared 7y ago

1. You are profiting - you get all the apps and content for free. 2. > Underrepresented groups for a particular analysis could pay more, because those groups' data is rarer. A straight, white, male techie is probably a saturated market, so I wouldn't generate much, but a Hispanic woman's could be more valuable. Audience size doesn't equate well to cost of data. Buying power is most correlated thing to data cost. In this fantasy, rich white techy males earn more money form their data, and a hispanic woman earns very little.

ohazi 7y ago

The goal is not to provide a knob for a power user, it's to change norms and avoid the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario that we're currently in. Individual users are not going to opt out of anything, even though in aggregate, they state that they want the defaults to change.