14 ms·

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It

by darawk 7y ago

> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. EDIT: I'll also add that it strongly favors incumbent tech companies, by explicitly carving out "selling to third parties" as a disfavored tactic. Google can monetize your data internally. Your average startup may not be able to. Specifically carving out "selling to third parties" favors large, incumbent players over small startups. But then, regulation always does.

tikiman163 7y ago
I think you've missed the point. This does not make it illegal to collect or even sell user data, it makes it illegal to do so without consent. Any concern regarding whether consent is likely to be withheld really just points out how stupid a company's business model is. Incumbent vs. Startup is also a false premise because Facebook is an incumbent that relies on selling user data. They do make some money from purely internal advertising, but in total Facebook only makes less than $5 per user when selling data, and that's lifetime, not per year. So the only way to make real profits from selling data is if you sell millions of people's data. Their internal data use however, is just for add targeting which they make more money from each year. This internal use makes more per user and is therefore a more viable strategy for a small company than selling data. There are already regulations that make it impossible to sell user data that would be valuable that apply to more than just internet collected information. So, any data selling strategy a startup or incumbent company might have will either not earn significant profits or is very likely already illegal. In any case, advertising revenue rarely ever covers a company's expenses. If a company is only staying afloat because of selling data, then that company is achieving a very poor return on investment and is wasting the time of everyone involved. Either they need better business processes, strategies or they're not offering something of sufficient value to be worth the time put into the business.
heliodor 7y ago
I interpret the purpose of that item combined with the subsequent one is to ensure that they can't force you to sell yourself but can offer you the option and leave the decision with you.
1000units 7y ago
Good laws put bad people out of business. I don't see the issue here.
- jredwards 7y ago
  The reason there are so many wonderful services available for free is because they make money selling your data. If the service is free, the product is you. For many, many people, that is _fine_. The real issue I see here is how this law is written and how we're interpreting it. If the law makes it so that people who want to opt out of free internet services because of privacy concerns are free to do so, then we're all good. If the law is written such that people who want to avail themselves of free services in exchange for their data are no longer able to do so because that business model is broken, then I see a lot of problems.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    The problem is these services are scams. If people understood what they were doing they wouldn't trade their data for $5/month. If your business can't survive by charging a fair price for the service it provides without stealing data, then it shouldn't exist.
  - mfer 7y ago
    > For many, many people, that is _fine_. I would argue this isn't the case. For many people it is out of sight and out of mind. They don't realize what's happening. I came to this conclusion after talking with people about it. Numerous people didn't believe it. I had to show people documents and articles for them to believe me. Most of the people I've spoken with do not like this behavior and would rather not use a service or pay for it if they had known. The average person is unaware. That does not make it ok.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      I like that the webshit data robbers downvote me for saying what they're doing is evil, yet if I showed any particular one what kind of information I have access to about them, just as a random private citizen interested in these things, they'd freak out and call me a creep. It's a shame what money does to people.
ashelmire 7y ago
> - 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. This just means your service always costs money, but you can refund the full amount for allowing you to collect data.
- mrmuagi 7y ago
  Is there a difference between offering, say, $12 monthly opt-out & $10 plan for opt-in vs flat $12 with a $2 discount to opt-in?
  - filoleg 7y ago
    Yeah, the latter seems like it would involve more bureaucracy than the former. I don't want to sound fatalistic, but I cannot shake off the feeling that it was almost definitely intended.
  - Bjartr 7y ago
    Yep, people are generally lazy. Having something be two steps instead of one make a big difference on your overall conversion rate.
  - seandougall 7y ago
    Given how hidden opt-out settings tend to be, yes. If the user has to opt in explicitly, it’s much less likely they’ll consent unintentionally.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      In practice it will be a dull button saying “$12 plan” and a bright shiny button saying “$2 DISCOUNT” with everything else in fine print.
  - inlined 7y ago
    Probably. Loss aversion may make the user more likely want to recover $2 rather than pay $2 to upgrade to tracking-free versions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
joshklein 7y ago
Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law, and California laws don’t change that. EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim. Enumerating the established methods to avoid meeting the legal parameters of price discrimination is not the same as price discrimination being legal. My bar for following just laws is higher than the minimum required to avoid being prosecuted. I’m sure experts can help work around any future privacy laws too, so why even worry? Surveillance already creates a different product one can charge more for, though your lawyer might advise you call it “personalization” in memos.
- mattnewton 7y ago
  This is suprising to me. I assume it is much more nuanced than that? How does insurance work then? Isn't insurance fundimentally the same plan with different prices for different groups depending on assessed risk?
- matthewmcg 7y ago
  That's not generally true. Businesses are free to vary their pricing provided they aren't violating some other law in doing so (e.g. laws prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex or laws requiring common carriers or utilities to charge prices set on a tariff).
- refurb 7y ago
  How do car dealerships do it then?
  - connicpu 7y ago
    Because when you buy a car you aren't usually buying "a [year] [make] [model] [with these features]". You're buying "that specific car with that unique identifier"
    - refurb 7y ago
      The correct answer is “it’s not the law”. Or at least the way the OP described it. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/price-discrimination-robinson-patman https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
matthewmcg 7y ago
I think the legislative motivation is a belief that people do not (and perhaps cannot) understand the potential cost of consenting to data sharing. Without that understanding, can you really have a meaningful consent? In this view, a company offering a discount in exchange for sharing is inherently deceptive.
mfer 7y ago
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. The service isn't free. The exchange just isn't money. When money is involved a price is put forth. It's an agreed to and published exchange mechanism. When it's data on someone the price isn't shared. It's kept secret. There's always a price. It's just not always money or public. This will make more information public. I wonder if this will start to change how business operate. Right now they are skewed against consumers towards businesses. I wonder if consumer protections, like this, will cause businesses to re-evaluate business models.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
buboard 7y ago
except, the full sentence in the bill reads: > including by charging the consumer who opts out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s dat Doesnt that second part cancel the first part? Businesses can also pay money for data ... so facebook can switch to subsciption only, but pay its users with virtual coins for viewing ads
- twanvl 7y ago
  > except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s data I think it means that if you opt out of data collection, then things like personalized recommendations will no longer work, which makes the services worse. That is a part of the service directly related to the data.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  >so facebook can switch to subsciption only sure, if it wanted to fall out of the fortune 500.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    If Facebook can't convince its users that its service is worth paying an average of $2.5 per year for, I don't think it really deserves to remain in the Fortune 500.
    - mokus 7y ago
      Where does $2.5/year come from? Other comments in this discussion have suggested that it would be more like $120/year in the US, or $25/year for a global average
      - Marsymars 7y ago
        $2.5/year from each of their monthly active users would be sufficient to keep Facebook in the Fortune 500. (As referenced in the post I was replying to.) (Tangentially, they would have to cut costs to remain profitable, but I figure it should be possible for 6k employees to maintain a set of services that people are willing to pay $2.5/year for.)
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. Well, no — they could charge money for them. But even this is a false dilemma; surely we can come up with at least one business model other than "charge directly for our service" and "surveil our users".
- m463 7y ago
  There's also the dilemma that if you pay for something with a credit card, you have to identify yourself.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Only as an artifact of how laws currently work, not a necessary aspect of how transactions have to work. We could definitely have a system where eg all CC processing must be done through a firewalled system such that the business only ever learns that the payment was successful (unless there is a dispute). Edit: Europe tries to approximate this with the GDPR system of “you can only use information for the purposes for which it was collected” but that doesn’t stop them from seeing your identity like I described.
  - ummonk 7y ago
    Not if you use Apple Pay though no?
    - KSteffensen 7y ago
      Why would Apple not be selling your data the same as everyone else?
  - abacadaba 7y ago
    Will credit card companies fall under this law so I can opt out of them selling my purchase history?
m-p-3 7y ago
You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do (or reenable data sharing). That way it feels more transparent to the end-user, and they have to make the conscious choice of either giving a bit of their data in exchance of a free service or be prepared to pay to keep their data private.
- m463 7y ago
  I wonder if that will have unintended consequences. It might inadvertently assign a price to the data collected. It also shows a direct discrimination against poor and/or young people who might not afford the service.
  - cbhl 7y ago
    You need parental permission to collect data from young people in the US anyway (see COPPA). But an age gate and asking for a credit card number are very different levels of sign up friction for a young person to try to get around.
  - buboard 7y ago
    There is already a price in the data collected (for FB i think $120 / year). I think making it public is a good thing. I think the law will also force facebook to offer ad free subscription plans, something people have been asking for. My bet is nobody is going to use them though.
    - zawerf 7y ago
      I didn't believe that number but it seems like it's true if you restrict it to just north america monthly active users: https://thespring.io/investing/facebook-makes-more-revenue-per-user-than-netflix/ https://thespring.io/investing/facebook-makes-more-revenue-p... Average revenue per user is around $25 for global users. This brings up a related issue that not all users are equal. Even in non-data mining business models, you still have some segment of the users subsidizing another.
caconym_ 7y ago
At least in America we already restrict certain types of transactions, e.g. selling illegal and/or restricted drugs is itself generally illegal IIRC. Similarly I'm pretty sure slavery is illegal even if it's entered into voluntarily (please correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not speaking from specific knowledge). We impose these restrictions for the good of the public. If we decide that exchanging personal data for goods and services should be illegal under certain conditions, I don't see why that's any different than the precedents I mentioned.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  There's significant pushback against the restricted drugs thing, so that might not be the best comparison.
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    I mean, I'd push back against some of it myself, but how many people are arguing that e.g. methamphetamine and fentanyl should be freely available? Of course, it's all up for debate. I used it as an example because it's the status quo, so it's a good refutation of the statement that this new law is "crazy" in the sense of it being radical and unprecedented.
rebuilder 7y ago
It's not a requirement that services be provided for free. It's an acknowledgment that, if services can't be provided without violating basic human decency, they should not be provided at all.
sha666sum 7y ago
Data mining as a business model is fine, as long as the customer is making an informed decision, there are equally good alternatives out there which you can pay for in other means, and you're not drawn to a particular service because of network effects or platform lock-in. However, customers aren't well informed, and if they were, they wouldn't use these services. Currently customers are getting scammed for their data. This is why we need regulation.
loup-vaillant 7y ago
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Not if the thing I value is my personal data. Because I, as a typical short sighted consumer, will consistently underestimate the value of my data, as well as how my data affects those around me (extreme case: my data is my social graph, which you can use to reconstruct the social graph of my acquaintances). If I don't know the actual value of what I am giving up, I am naturally going to get swindled.
- aetherson 7y ago
  You used the first person pronoun a lot there. Do you yourself actually feel that you are short-sighted and that you consistently underestimate the value of your data? Or are you putting yourself in the place of a hypothetical other person?
  - loup-vaillant 7y ago
    Hypothetical. The post I replied to used "I" and "you", so I used "you" and "I". That said, I genuinely don't know how much my data is worth…
    - aetherson 7y ago
      I ask because people are often very quick to suppose that they are part of the educated elite but other people need them to protect them from their own bad choices. Do you, for example, not use Google because you are concerned they are getting too good a deal from you? Duck Duck Go exists.
      - loup-vaillant 7y ago
        I use DuckDuckGo, and only fairly rarely fall back to Google. My Gmail account is dormant, I set up my own mail server. But I still have an Android phone…
brailsafe 7y ago
I think the intention is to decrease the opacity of 'free' services, with the awareness that most people using most free services don't or can't know what happens with it and what is collected. Money is not personal data, likewise almost anything else is not personal data, and there should be more legal protections in llace imo to protect a naive person's ability to limit the propagation of it, or hold companies accountable. If most people knew how any givem system worked, then software engineers wouldn't make as much. It's not a clear cut transaction when the cost is "any amount of data we can collect about you and sell to anyone for any price in exchange for this specific service we provide amd cam take away at any moment". That's a bullshit transaction.
brightball 7y ago
Agree entirely. This part is overreach as it’s now forcing a company to provide a service for which they receive no compensation. That’s too far.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I honestly don't see how it's doing that. The legislation doesn't even make an ad-based revenue model illegal.
- potta_coffee 7y ago
  They're not being forced to continue offering any services.
cgriswald 7y ago
In the case of data, is it always yours to give? Is the fact that I am friends with Friendo my data or Friendo’s? Both? Neither? Collectively both? Taken further is my contact info about Friendo mine to give? Is the photo with Friendo’s face that I took of a group of us at a bar my data to give? If Friendo doesn’t have the same relationship I have with Tech.co, how is Friendo benefitting? Where is the exchange there?
Railsify 7y ago
Your quoted statement conflicts with the following: > Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. Couldn't a financial incentive be charging more?
jlarocco 7y ago
> The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. If people don't find your product valuable enough to pay for, then your company should go out of business. Companies have been exploiting people's privacy behind their back, and now that they've been called on it they're throwing a tantrum.
jlarocco 7y ago
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. The problem is that these companies advertise their products as "free," which means something very different. And they usually don't mention at all that they're collecting shit tons of personal data. It's taking advantage of people's ignorance, and it's practically fraud, IMO. Every other business tells the customer up front what the price is, and maybe it's time tech companies started doing the same. Without telling users what data they collect, how much they collect, how they use it, and who they give it to, there's no way for users to make an informed decision.
stiray 7y ago
This explains it, I think that California took same diction. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor “There might well be a market for personal data, just like there is, tragically, a market for live human organs, but that does not mean that we can or should give that market the blessing of legislation.” Privacy is fundamental human right that you cant trade for. Same as you cant sign a lawfull contract that you want to be someones slave, even if you want to.
pmontra 7y ago
> Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. Maybe you can show me generic ads based on your content instead of targeting them based on where I've been on vacation last month, etc. Or simply stop building businesses based on people data. Sell something people want to pay for. Humankind has been able to do that for thousands of years, did we forget how to do it?
xz0r 7y ago
> It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. > I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. I never explicitly stated that I'd serve these companies by giving my data. Services cannot be assumed, why do you think there are such long Terms of Service. We as users should also have Terms of Service then.

by darawk 7y ago

tikiman163 7y ago

I think you've missed the point. This does not make it illegal to collect or even sell user data, it makes it illegal to do so without consent. Any concern regarding whether consent is likely to be withheld really just points out how stupid a company's business model is. Incumbent vs. Startup is also a false premise because Facebook is an incumbent that relies on selling user data. They do make some money from purely internal advertising, but in total Facebook only makes less than $5 per user when selling data, and that's lifetime, not per year. So the only way to make real profits from selling data is if you sell millions of people's data. Their internal data use however, is just for add targeting which they make more money from each year. This internal use makes more per user and is therefore a more viable strategy for a small company than selling data. There are already regulations that make it impossible to sell user data that would be valuable that apply to more than just internet collected information. So, any data selling strategy a startup or incumbent company might have will either not earn significant profits or is very likely already illegal. In any case, advertising revenue rarely ever covers a company's expenses. If a company is only staying afloat because of selling data, then that company is achieving a very poor return on investment and is wasting the time of everyone involved. Either they need better business processes, strategies or they're not offering something of sufficient value to be worth the time put into the business.

heliodor 7y ago

I interpret the purpose of that item combined with the subsequent one is to ensure that they can't force you to sell yourself but can offer you the option and leave the decision with you.

1000units 7y ago

Good laws put bad people out of business. I don't see the issue here.

jredwards 7y ago
The reason there are so many wonderful services available for free is because they make money selling your data. If the service is free, the product is you. For many, many people, that is _fine_. The real issue I see here is how this law is written and how we're interpreting it. If the law makes it so that people who want to opt out of free internet services because of privacy concerns are free to do so, then we're all good. If the law is written such that people who want to avail themselves of free services in exchange for their data are no longer able to do so because that business model is broken, then I see a lot of problems.
- 1000units 7y ago
  The problem is these services are scams. If people understood what they were doing they wouldn't trade their data for $5/month. If your business can't survive by charging a fair price for the service it provides without stealing data, then it shouldn't exist.
- mfer 7y ago
  > For many, many people, that is _fine_. I would argue this isn't the case. For many people it is out of sight and out of mind. They don't realize what's happening. I came to this conclusion after talking with people about it. Numerous people didn't believe it. I had to show people documents and articles for them to believe me. Most of the people I've spoken with do not like this behavior and would rather not use a service or pay for it if they had known. The average person is unaware. That does not make it ok.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    I like that the webshit data robbers downvote me for saying what they're doing is evil, yet if I showed any particular one what kind of information I have access to about them, just as a random private citizen interested in these things, they'd freak out and call me a creep. It's a shame what money does to people.

ashelmire 7y ago

> - 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. This just means your service always costs money, but you can refund the full amount for allowing you to collect data.

mrmuagi 7y ago
Is there a difference between offering, say, $12 monthly opt-out & $10 plan for opt-in vs flat $12 with a $2 discount to opt-in?
- filoleg 7y ago
  Yeah, the latter seems like it would involve more bureaucracy than the former. I don't want to sound fatalistic, but I cannot shake off the feeling that it was almost definitely intended.
- Bjartr 7y ago
  Yep, people are generally lazy. Having something be two steps instead of one make a big difference on your overall conversion rate.
- seandougall 7y ago
  Given how hidden opt-out settings tend to be, yes. If the user has to opt in explicitly, it’s much less likely they’ll consent unintentionally.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    In practice it will be a dull button saying “$12 plan” and a bright shiny button saying “$2 DISCOUNT” with everything else in fine print.
- inlined 7y ago
  Probably. Loss aversion may make the user more likely want to recover $2 rather than pay $2 to upgrade to tracking-free versions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

joshklein 7y ago

Charging different customers a different price for the same product is illegal under US law, and California laws don’t change that. EDIT: Several comments below point out the innumerable businesses operating in such a way as to make mine an impossible claim. Enumerating the established methods to avoid meeting the legal parameters of price discrimination is not the same as price discrimination being legal. My bar for following just laws is higher than the minimum required to avoid being prosecuted. I’m sure experts can help work around any future privacy laws too, so why even worry? Surveillance already creates a different product one can charge more for, though your lawyer might advise you call it “personalization” in memos.

mattnewton 7y ago
This is suprising to me. I assume it is much more nuanced than that? How does insurance work then? Isn't insurance fundimentally the same plan with different prices for different groups depending on assessed risk?
matthewmcg 7y ago
That's not generally true. Businesses are free to vary their pricing provided they aren't violating some other law in doing so (e.g. laws prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex or laws requiring common carriers or utilities to charge prices set on a tariff).
refurb 7y ago
How do car dealerships do it then?
- connicpu 7y ago
  Because when you buy a car you aren't usually buying "a [year] [make] [model] [with these features]". You're buying "that specific car with that unique identifier"
  - refurb 7y ago
    The correct answer is “it’s not the law”. Or at least the way the OP described it. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/price-discrimination-robinson-patman https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

matthewmcg 7y ago

I think the legislative motivation is a belief that people do not (and perhaps cannot) understand the potential cost of consenting to data sharing. Without that understanding, can you really have a meaningful consent? In this view, a company offering a discount in exchange for sharing is inherently deceptive.

mfer 7y ago

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. The service isn't free. The exchange just isn't money. When money is involved a price is put forth. It's an agreed to and published exchange mechanism. When it's data on someone the price isn't shared. It's kept secret. There's always a price. It's just not always money or public. This will make more information public. I wonder if this will start to change how business operate. Right now they are skewed against consumers towards businesses. I wonder if consumer protections, like this, will cause businesses to re-evaluate business models.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

buboard 7y ago

except, the full sentence in the bill reads: > including by charging the consumer who opts out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s dat Doesnt that second part cancel the first part? Businesses can also pay money for data ... so facebook can switch to subsciption only, but pay its users with virtual coins for viewing ads

twanvl 7y ago
> except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s data I think it means that if you opt out of data collection, then things like personalized recommendations will no longer work, which makes the services worse. That is a part of the service directly related to the data.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
>so facebook can switch to subsciption only sure, if it wanted to fall out of the fortune 500.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  If Facebook can't convince its users that its service is worth paying an average of $2.5 per year for, I don't think it really deserves to remain in the Fortune 500.
  - mokus 7y ago
    Where does $2.5/year come from? Other comments in this discussion have suggested that it would be more like $120/year in the US, or $25/year for a global average
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      $2.5/year from each of their monthly active users would be sufficient to keep Facebook in the Fortune 500. (As referenced in the post I was replying to.) (Tangentially, they would have to cut costs to remain profitable, but I figure it should be possible for 6k employees to maintain a set of services that people are willing to pay $2.5/year for.)

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. Well, no — they could charge money for them. But even this is a false dilemma; surely we can come up with at least one business model other than "charge directly for our service" and "surveil our users".

m463 7y ago
There's also the dilemma that if you pay for something with a credit card, you have to identify yourself.
- SilasX 7y ago
  Only as an artifact of how laws currently work, not a necessary aspect of how transactions have to work. We could definitely have a system where eg all CC processing must be done through a firewalled system such that the business only ever learns that the payment was successful (unless there is a dispute). Edit: Europe tries to approximate this with the GDPR system of “you can only use information for the purposes for which it was collected” but that doesn’t stop them from seeing your identity like I described.
- ummonk 7y ago
  Not if you use Apple Pay though no?
  - KSteffensen 7y ago
    Why would Apple not be selling your data the same as everyone else?
- abacadaba 7y ago
  Will credit card companies fall under this law so I can opt out of them selling my purchase history?

m-p-3 7y ago

You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do (or reenable data sharing). That way it feels more transparent to the end-user, and they have to make the conscious choice of either giving a bit of their data in exchance of a free service or be prepared to pay to keep their data private.

m463 7y ago
I wonder if that will have unintended consequences. It might inadvertently assign a price to the data collected. It also shows a direct discrimination against poor and/or young people who might not afford the service.
- cbhl 7y ago
  You need parental permission to collect data from young people in the US anyway (see COPPA). But an age gate and asking for a credit card number are very different levels of sign up friction for a young person to try to get around.
- buboard 7y ago
  There is already a price in the data collected (for FB i think $120 / year). I think making it public is a good thing. I think the law will also force facebook to offer ad free subscription plans, something people have been asking for. My bet is nobody is going to use them though.
  - zawerf 7y ago
    I didn't believe that number but it seems like it's true if you restrict it to just north america monthly active users: https://thespring.io/investing/facebook-makes-more-revenue-per-user-than-netflix/ https://thespring.io/investing/facebook-makes-more-revenue-p... Average revenue per user is around $25 for global users. This brings up a related issue that not all users are equal. Even in non-data mining business models, you still have some segment of the users subsidizing another.

caconym_ 7y ago

At least in America we already restrict certain types of transactions, e.g. selling illegal and/or restricted drugs is itself generally illegal IIRC. Similarly I'm pretty sure slavery is illegal even if it's entered into voluntarily (please correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not speaking from specific knowledge). We impose these restrictions for the good of the public. If we decide that exchanging personal data for goods and services should be illegal under certain conditions, I don't see why that's any different than the precedents I mentioned.

edmundsauto 7y ago
There's significant pushback against the restricted drugs thing, so that might not be the best comparison.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I mean, I'd push back against some of it myself, but how many people are arguing that e.g. methamphetamine and fentanyl should be freely available? Of course, it's all up for debate. I used it as an example because it's the status quo, so it's a good refutation of the statement that this new law is "crazy" in the sense of it being radical and unprecedented.

rebuilder 7y ago

It's not a requirement that services be provided for free. It's an acknowledgment that, if services can't be provided without violating basic human decency, they should not be provided at all.

sha666sum 7y ago

Data mining as a business model is fine, as long as the customer is making an informed decision, there are equally good alternatives out there which you can pay for in other means, and you're not drawn to a particular service because of network effects or platform lock-in. However, customers aren't well informed, and if they were, they wouldn't use these services. Currently customers are getting scammed for their data. This is why we need regulation.

loup-vaillant 7y ago

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Not if the thing I value is my personal data. Because I, as a typical short sighted consumer, will consistently underestimate the value of my data, as well as how my data affects those around me (extreme case: my data is my social graph, which you can use to reconstruct the social graph of my acquaintances). If I don't know the actual value of what I am giving up, I am naturally going to get swindled.

aetherson 7y ago
You used the first person pronoun a lot there. Do you yourself actually feel that you are short-sighted and that you consistently underestimate the value of your data? Or are you putting yourself in the place of a hypothetical other person?
- loup-vaillant 7y ago
  Hypothetical. The post I replied to used "I" and "you", so I used "you" and "I". That said, I genuinely don't know how much my data is worth…
  - aetherson 7y ago
    I ask because people are often very quick to suppose that they are part of the educated elite but other people need them to protect them from their own bad choices. Do you, for example, not use Google because you are concerned they are getting too good a deal from you? Duck Duck Go exists.
    - loup-vaillant 7y ago
      I use DuckDuckGo, and only fairly rarely fall back to Google. My Gmail account is dormant, I set up my own mail server. But I still have an Android phone…

brailsafe 7y ago

I think the intention is to decrease the opacity of 'free' services, with the awareness that most people using most free services don't or can't know what happens with it and what is collected. Money is not personal data, likewise almost anything else is not personal data, and there should be more legal protections in llace imo to protect a naive person's ability to limit the propagation of it, or hold companies accountable. If most people knew how any givem system worked, then software engineers wouldn't make as much. It's not a clear cut transaction when the cost is "any amount of data we can collect about you and sell to anyone for any price in exchange for this specific service we provide amd cam take away at any moment". That's a bullshit transaction.

brightball 7y ago

Agree entirely. This part is overreach as it’s now forcing a company to provide a service for which they receive no compensation. That’s too far.

JohnFen 7y ago
I honestly don't see how it's doing that. The legislation doesn't even make an ad-based revenue model illegal.
potta_coffee 7y ago
They're not being forced to continue offering any services.

cgriswald 7y ago

In the case of data, is it always yours to give? Is the fact that I am friends with Friendo my data or Friendo’s? Both? Neither? Collectively both? Taken further is my contact info about Friendo mine to give? Is the photo with Friendo’s face that I took of a group of us at a bar my data to give? If Friendo doesn’t have the same relationship I have with Tech.co, how is Friendo benefitting? Where is the exchange there?

Railsify 7y ago

Your quoted statement conflicts with the following: > Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. Couldn't a financial incentive be charging more?

jlarocco 7y ago

> The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. If people don't find your product valuable enough to pay for, then your company should go out of business. Companies have been exploiting people's privacy behind their back, and now that they've been called on it they're throwing a tantrum.

jlarocco 7y ago

> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. The problem is that these companies advertise their products as "free," which means something very different. And they usually don't mention at all that they're collecting shit tons of personal data. It's taking advantage of people's ignorance, and it's practically fraud, IMO. Every other business tells the customer up front what the price is, and maybe it's time tech companies started doing the same. Without telling users what data they collect, how much they collect, how they use it, and who they give it to, there's no way for users to make an informed decision.

stiray 7y ago

This explains it, I think that California took same diction. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor “There might well be a market for personal data, just like there is, tragically, a market for live human organs, but that does not mean that we can or should give that market the blessing of legislation.” Privacy is fundamental human right that you cant trade for. Same as you cant sign a lawfull contract that you want to be someones slave, even if you want to.

pmontra 7y ago

> Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. Maybe you can show me generic ads based on your content instead of targeting them based on where I've been on vacation last month, etc. Or simply stop building businesses based on people data. Sell something people want to pay for. Humankind has been able to do that for thousands of years, did we forget how to do it?

xz0r 7y ago

> It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. > I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. I never explicitly stated that I'd serve these companies by giving my data. Services cannot be assumed, why do you think there are such long Terms of Service. We as users should also have Terms of Service then.