5 ms·

Honest question. Why do we always need to opt out of something that we may or may not have signed up? Shouldn't these organizations be asking us to opt in? I

Honest question. Why do we always need to opt out of something that we may or may not have signed up? Shouldn't these organizations be asking us to opt in? I'm beginning to think more and more that we need a data privacy bill of rights. https://epic.org/privacy/white_house_consumer_privacy_.html https://epic.org/privacy/white_house_consumer_privacy_.html Note. I don't know how i feel about EPIC so buyer beware. Yet sounds interesting.

Kason 7y ago
Based on the article, it seems that this is actually an opt-in service despite the title.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Defaults matter. Fundamentally speaking, the vast majority of everyone will use whatever is the default. That's why Google pays Apple billions to be default on iPhone. That's why Google made Android and Chrome. Google isn't the top search engine because of how well it searches, it's the top search engine because it's the default search engine. A large part of why Bing has the market share is the same: It's the default on Windows devices and most people won't change it. (I mean, let's be honest, "I want to switch my search to Bing" was said by nobody ever who lives outside Redmond.) Defaults matter. So when you want to use everyone's data, and you make it opt in, you only get a little bit of everyone's data, whereas if you make it opt out, you get most everyone's data. And unfortunately, legal regulation is the only way we can override tech companies desire to default to the best answer for them.
izacus 7y ago
The article title is misleading - Face Match feature isn't enabled unless you opt into it and train your face explicitly.
Despegar 7y ago
EPIC is much better on privacy than the EFF is, who only has sharp words for government surveillance but otherwise acts as the tech industry's lobbyist. https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-groups-fighting-to-regulate-facebook.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-group...
- ggg3 7y ago
  people love to pick on EFF but forget life as we live it would be very different without them. your critic is more a matter of focus than agenda. EFF is more focused on protocols and crypto and software per se. while usability, end user abuse etc is not high on it's priorities.
Insanity 7y ago
For a second I thought it was about the medical software (epic). Which would have been really curious if the medical data storage was opt-in :p
VikingCoder 7y ago
When you buy a Fitbit, do you want to opt-in to it checking your heart rate? Serious question. I don't know how you draw the line between what would have to be opt-in and what would have to be opt-out.
- kleer001 7y ago
  Yes, absolutely. It's super easy with a yes/no popup when starting or when trying to use that function.
- fucking_tragedy 7y ago
  Yes. If a corporation wants access to my health data, they need to ask for permission.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  False question. Checking my heart rate for me isn't my privacy issue. Sharing my heart rate is.
- MrMember 7y ago
  That would be ideal to me. Devices and services should be very clear on what personal information they are collecting and how it's being shared, and all data collection should be opt out by default.
- jlarocco 7y ago
  That's a straw man. The underlying issue is that companies are shipping products that do a bunch of extra shit that nobody expects or can predict. The solution is for companies to be transparent and open about what their products are actually doing, and then users can decide for themselves if they want to use them or not.
- justaguyhere 7y ago
  Not your parent commenter. Yes, I want to opt-in explicitly, even for heart rate when I buy Fitbit. The default should be do not track, do not do anything without explicit permission from user. This includes even harmless features and core features of a product (like heart rate monitor for fitbit). This wouldn't be the case if companies played nice. We are well past that now. We can't believe pretty much any company online, not to sell data, mess with their users' privacy etc. Explicitly opting in is a minor inconvenience compared to destroying everyone's privacy.

Kason 7y ago

Based on the article, it seems that this is actually an opt-in service despite the title.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Defaults matter. Fundamentally speaking, the vast majority of everyone will use whatever is the default. That's why Google pays Apple billions to be default on iPhone. That's why Google made Android and Chrome. Google isn't the top search engine because of how well it searches, it's the top search engine because it's the default search engine. A large part of why Bing has the market share is the same: It's the default on Windows devices and most people won't change it. (I mean, let's be honest, "I want to switch my search to Bing" was said by nobody ever who lives outside Redmond.) Defaults matter. So when you want to use everyone's data, and you make it opt in, you only get a little bit of everyone's data, whereas if you make it opt out, you get most everyone's data. And unfortunately, legal regulation is the only way we can override tech companies desire to default to the best answer for them.

izacus 7y ago

The article title is misleading - Face Match feature isn't enabled unless you opt into it and train your face explicitly.

Despegar 7y ago

EPIC is much better on privacy than the EFF is, who only has sharp words for government surveillance but otherwise acts as the tech industry's lobbyist. https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-groups-fighting-to-regulate-facebook.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-group...

ggg3 7y ago
people love to pick on EFF but forget life as we live it would be very different without them. your critic is more a matter of focus than agenda. EFF is more focused on protocols and crypto and software per se. while usability, end user abuse etc is not high on it's priorities.

Insanity 7y ago

For a second I thought it was about the medical software (epic). Which would have been really curious if the medical data storage was opt-in :p

VikingCoder 7y ago

When you buy a Fitbit, do you want to opt-in to it checking your heart rate? Serious question. I don't know how you draw the line between what would have to be opt-in and what would have to be opt-out.

kleer001 7y ago
Yes, absolutely. It's super easy with a yes/no popup when starting or when trying to use that function.
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
Yes. If a corporation wants access to my health data, they need to ask for permission.
PeterStuer 7y ago
False question. Checking my heart rate for me isn't my privacy issue. Sharing my heart rate is.
MrMember 7y ago
That would be ideal to me. Devices and services should be very clear on what personal information they are collecting and how it's being shared, and all data collection should be opt out by default.
jlarocco 7y ago
That's a straw man. The underlying issue is that companies are shipping products that do a bunch of extra shit that nobody expects or can predict. The solution is for companies to be transparent and open about what their products are actually doing, and then users can decide for themselves if they want to use them or not.
justaguyhere 7y ago
Not your parent commenter. Yes, I want to opt-in explicitly, even for heart rate when I buy Fitbit. The default should be do not track, do not do anything without explicit permission from user. This includes even harmless features and core features of a product (like heart rate monitor for fitbit). This wouldn't be the case if companies played nice. We are well past that now. We can't believe pretty much any company online, not to sell data, mess with their users' privacy etc. Explicitly opting in is a minor inconvenience compared to destroying everyone's privacy.