5 ms·

I am on board with this law, but I’m curious how these two points will shake out: > - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t reta

I am on board with this law, but I’m curious how these two points will shake out: > - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. > - Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. Seems to me that it’s a distinction without a difference. Is there something I’m missing?

danaris 7y ago
It sounds like this means it'll have to be clearly disclosed up front as a bonus, rather than being charged after the fact as a penalty and hidden somewhere in the ToS.
danharaj 7y ago
Maybe something like the advertised price of the service must be the price without data collection.
jtchang 7y ago
It's all about marketing and perception. See how credit card companies set rules regarding surcharges and cash. Before credit card companies tried to prevent a discount being offered if a customer paid cash as stipulation for taking credit cards. Durbin Act of 2010 changed that which made it legal in all 50 states.
- jedberg 7y ago
  > Durbin Act of 2010 changed that Ah! I was always saying I'm surprised by the brazenness of gas stations to offer cash discounts in violation of their credit processing agreements. Today I learned that as of 2010 the law protects them. Thanks!
  - paulmd 7y ago
    The gimmick has always been that you can't charge more for using a credit card, but you can offer a cash discount. So basically you just have to advertise the credit card price rather than it being a surprise fee added on at the last second. Which makes sense, most other countries actually roll sales tax and others into the advertised prices, and what you see is what you'll pay out the door.
    - jedberg 7y ago
      Right, but before 2010 the credit processing agreements could (and always did) include language that you could not offer a different price to credit customers and cash customers, discount or not. Otherwise you would lose your ability to accept credit cards. Some places would still offer a cash discount and assume they wouldn't get caught, but most places didn't risk it.
kelnos 7y ago
It might be a matter of semantics? You can quote a standard price, and then give a discount for allowing data collection, but you can't quote a standard price, and then add a surcharge for disallowing data collection. I agree that there is no practical difference between the two, but given how deceptive companies can be when disclosing various pricing and hidden fees, this might be an attempt to curb that behavior?
- nabnob 7y ago
  There's definitely a difference in outcomes between 1) allowing customers to opt-in to data collection by giving a them reward. In this case, the default behavior does not involve data collection 2) allowing customers to opt out of data collection by paying a penalty. In this case, the default behavior involves data collection. People usually don't bother to opt out.
moosey 7y ago
The way I'm guessing that will be clarified is that if you are charging for your product, you cannot offer a lower price point for allowing data collection. This will probably boil down to professional, paid for services, being allowed to collect only a small amount of information, and what is strictly needed. The second line would allow companies to pay people to permit them to collect information. I imagine that because of the first statement, a company that is charging for the service cannot take advantage of this statement.
jassmith87 7y ago
Its intended to fuck over Facebook. If you're charging for a service you can simply offer a discount for allowing data collection after bumping prices for everyone by the same amount, Facebook however isn't charging. Facebook can't offer a discount on free, and they can't just force only users who opt-out to go pay (because that falls afoul of the first quote you put). Basically this puts Facebook in a real tight situation, I honestly wonder how they will survive it.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  They can start charging everyone and offer a "data-share discount" back to free.
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    They would survive but I imagine that would either cause enourmous sign-up friction, or if they hide it too well, might run afoul of the law?
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Yeah, it would not go well for them for sure.
- taurath 7y ago
  Opt-out for GDPR is under 1%. Most people don't care at the moment, sadly. However, a mass movement to opt-out would absolutely affect them. This lays the groundwork for that, and thats what they should be afraid of.
  - chronic71819 7y ago
    > Opt-out for GDPR is under 1%. Most people don't care at the moment, sadly. Correct. On top of that, many people on HN, aware of the privacy implications, continue to have a Google Home / Alexa in their homes. Myself included. Sadly, I (and many people) simply don't care about privacy. The probability/expected negatives of surveillance abuse is far less than the benefit of being able to turn my lights on and off with my voice. The US will for sure become like China in 10-20 years, with regards to surveillance.
nabnob 7y ago
IANAL, but I'm guessing it's the difference between opting in and opting out? For example, I think it would be legal for Verizon to get around this law by increasing their prices by $5 across the board, and offering a $5 rebate for customers who want to opt-in to their data being sold. But it would not be legal for Verizon to allow customers to opt-out of data collection by paying an extra $5 a month. In the first approach, Verizon will not track by default and customers have to opt-in. In the second approach, Verizon will track by default and customers have to opt-out.
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  Assuming that's true, then it's just accounting for social behavior. A user isn't "paying" for privacy. Privacy comes by default (for a price) and a company can pay a user to harvest their data. Financially, they both work out the same, but based on opt-in, opt-out behaviors and perception I presume they have a different impact. The wording specified by the law says that users should have a default expectation of privacy. They can actively choose to give that up for a fee. The business profit loss side of it says, you can't build a business that assumes it gets to profit off harvesting user's data for free. User data has value, place a value on it, and make it an explicit part of the transaction.
taurath 7y ago
Because then they'll have to be up front about "why" they're charging you a lower amount, which puts a real dollar value on the data for the user, something which previously was never disclosed.

danaris 7y ago

It sounds like this means it'll have to be clearly disclosed up front as a bonus, rather than being charged after the fact as a penalty and hidden somewhere in the ToS.

danharaj 7y ago

Maybe something like the advertised price of the service must be the price without data collection.

jtchang 7y ago

It's all about marketing and perception. See how credit card companies set rules regarding surcharges and cash. Before credit card companies tried to prevent a discount being offered if a customer paid cash as stipulation for taking credit cards. Durbin Act of 2010 changed that which made it legal in all 50 states.

jedberg 7y ago
> Durbin Act of 2010 changed that Ah! I was always saying I'm surprised by the brazenness of gas stations to offer cash discounts in violation of their credit processing agreements. Today I learned that as of 2010 the law protects them. Thanks!
- paulmd 7y ago
  The gimmick has always been that you can't charge more for using a credit card, but you can offer a cash discount. So basically you just have to advertise the credit card price rather than it being a surprise fee added on at the last second. Which makes sense, most other countries actually roll sales tax and others into the advertised prices, and what you see is what you'll pay out the door.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Right, but before 2010 the credit processing agreements could (and always did) include language that you could not offer a different price to credit customers and cash customers, discount or not. Otherwise you would lose your ability to accept credit cards. Some places would still offer a cash discount and assume they wouldn't get caught, but most places didn't risk it.

kelnos 7y ago

It might be a matter of semantics? You can quote a standard price, and then give a discount for allowing data collection, but you can't quote a standard price, and then add a surcharge for disallowing data collection. I agree that there is no practical difference between the two, but given how deceptive companies can be when disclosing various pricing and hidden fees, this might be an attempt to curb that behavior?

nabnob 7y ago
There's definitely a difference in outcomes between 1) allowing customers to opt-in to data collection by giving a them reward. In this case, the default behavior does not involve data collection 2) allowing customers to opt out of data collection by paying a penalty. In this case, the default behavior involves data collection. People usually don't bother to opt out.

moosey 7y ago

The way I'm guessing that will be clarified is that if you are charging for your product, you cannot offer a lower price point for allowing data collection. This will probably boil down to professional, paid for services, being allowed to collect only a small amount of information, and what is strictly needed. The second line would allow companies to pay people to permit them to collect information. I imagine that because of the first statement, a company that is charging for the service cannot take advantage of this statement.

jassmith87 7y ago

Its intended to fuck over Facebook. If you're charging for a service you can simply offer a discount for allowing data collection after bumping prices for everyone by the same amount, Facebook however isn't charging. Facebook can't offer a discount on free, and they can't just force only users who opt-out to go pay (because that falls afoul of the first quote you put). Basically this puts Facebook in a real tight situation, I honestly wonder how they will survive it.

StavrosK 7y ago
They can start charging everyone and offer a "data-share discount" back to free.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  They would survive but I imagine that would either cause enourmous sign-up friction, or if they hide it too well, might run afoul of the law?
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Yeah, it would not go well for them for sure.
taurath 7y ago
Opt-out for GDPR is under 1%. Most people don't care at the moment, sadly. However, a mass movement to opt-out would absolutely affect them. This lays the groundwork for that, and thats what they should be afraid of.
- chronic71819 7y ago
  > Opt-out for GDPR is under 1%. Most people don't care at the moment, sadly. Correct. On top of that, many people on HN, aware of the privacy implications, continue to have a Google Home / Alexa in their homes. Myself included. Sadly, I (and many people) simply don't care about privacy. The probability/expected negatives of surveillance abuse is far less than the benefit of being able to turn my lights on and off with my voice. The US will for sure become like China in 10-20 years, with regards to surveillance.

nabnob 7y ago

IANAL, but I'm guessing it's the difference between opting in and opting out? For example, I think it would be legal for Verizon to get around this law by increasing their prices by $5 across the board, and offering a $5 rebate for customers who want to opt-in to their data being sold. But it would not be legal for Verizon to allow customers to opt-out of data collection by paying an extra $5 a month. In the first approach, Verizon will not track by default and customers have to opt-in. In the second approach, Verizon will track by default and customers have to opt-out.

BoiledCabbage 7y ago
Assuming that's true, then it's just accounting for social behavior. A user isn't "paying" for privacy. Privacy comes by default (for a price) and a company can pay a user to harvest their data. Financially, they both work out the same, but based on opt-in, opt-out behaviors and perception I presume they have a different impact. The wording specified by the law says that users should have a default expectation of privacy. They can actively choose to give that up for a fee. The business profit loss side of it says, you can't build a business that assumes it gets to profit off harvesting user's data for free. User data has value, place a value on it, and make it an explicit part of the transaction.

taurath 7y ago

Because then they'll have to be up front about "why" they're charging you a lower amount, which puts a real dollar value on the data for the user, something which previously was never disclosed.