2 ms·
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 incr
by 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 agoAssuming 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.