4 ms·

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.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      > yet if I showed any particular one what kind of information I have access to about them This is where the line is drawn for most - if people from Facebook, Amazon or Google look at information other than machines. Totally fine if it's just a computer with a strong law like GDPR safeguarding it.
      - 1000units 7y ago
        People are looking.
        emiliobumachar 7y ago
        Not that I'm doubting you, but could you please provide sources?
        1000units 7y ago
        I will not. This is both common knowledge and common sense. You can easily find articles about sufficiently low-level drones getting fired from Facebook for snooping if this is an authentic query. If you have trusted friends in tech, you can ask them even better.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Maybe. I'm just saying this is where expectations lie - including my own. Maybe I'm naive, I don't know. From my conversations with Googlers at least, it does seem they're extremely careful about insider threats.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Is what people say is what people actually going to do ?
  - briandear 7y ago
    > The average person is unaware. That does not make it ok. Any actual data other than anecdotes?
debatem1 7y ago
This statement is too broad brush for me to actually understand where you're coming from. Let's try a few variations of the theme and see if we can suss out why we perceive this so differently. If none of these touch on your perspective, I'd appreciate it if you could propose some of your own. Please note that these are deliberately constructed as strawmen; I am not advocating for them or saying you do. 1/ Would you approve of a law which forbade companies (perhaps outside of eg healthcare or finance) from collecting or storing PII? 2/ Would you approve of a law which forbade a company which bought or sold PII (perhaps with the above exemptions) from doing any other kind of business? 3/ Would you approve of a law which required companies to explicitly price and purchase PII from consumers? 4/ Would you approve of a law holding employees or executives criminally responsible for data breaches? 5/ Would you approve of a law standardizing the requirements for anonymizing data? 6/ Would you approve of a law banning online advertising? 7/ Would you approve of a law which placed the same requirements on any company which stored PII as are currently imposed on credit agencies?
- 1000units 7y ago
  These all sound fine, except I don't know that credit agencies are held to high standards.
  - debatem1 7y ago
    Ok, maybe I'm asking questions too close to my own viewpoint. Let me ask some follow-up questions that are a bit further out. Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? Would you approve of a law banning the sale of digital goods or rights to digital goods? Would you approve of a law banning subscriptions or recurring payments? Would you approve of a law forbidding the use of cameras in public places? Would you approve of a law forbidding companies from having more than $X in revenue, for some X?
    - 1000units 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.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    > yet if I showed any particular one what kind of information I have access to about them This is where the line is drawn for most - if people from Facebook, Amazon or Google look at information other than machines. Totally fine if it's just a computer with a strong law like GDPR safeguarding it.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      People are looking.
      - emiliobumachar 7y ago
        Not that I'm doubting you, but could you please provide sources?
        1000units 7y ago
        I will not. This is both common knowledge and common sense. You can easily find articles about sufficiently low-level drones getting fired from Facebook for snooping if this is an authentic query. If you have trusted friends in tech, you can ask them even better.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Maybe. I'm just saying this is where expectations lie - including my own. Maybe I'm naive, I don't know. From my conversations with Googlers at least, it does seem they're extremely careful about insider threats.
- matz1 7y ago
  Is what people say is what people actually going to do ?
- briandear 7y ago
  > The average person is unaware. That does not make it ok. Any actual data other than anecdotes?

debatem1 7y ago

This statement is too broad brush for me to actually understand where you're coming from. Let's try a few variations of the theme and see if we can suss out why we perceive this so differently. If none of these touch on your perspective, I'd appreciate it if you could propose some of your own. Please note that these are deliberately constructed as strawmen; I am not advocating for them or saying you do. 1/ Would you approve of a law which forbade companies (perhaps outside of eg healthcare or finance) from collecting or storing PII? 2/ Would you approve of a law which forbade a company which bought or sold PII (perhaps with the above exemptions) from doing any other kind of business? 3/ Would you approve of a law which required companies to explicitly price and purchase PII from consumers? 4/ Would you approve of a law holding employees or executives criminally responsible for data breaches? 5/ Would you approve of a law standardizing the requirements for anonymizing data? 6/ Would you approve of a law banning online advertising? 7/ Would you approve of a law which placed the same requirements on any company which stored PII as are currently imposed on credit agencies?

1000units 7y ago
These all sound fine, except I don't know that credit agencies are held to high standards.
- debatem1 7y ago
  Ok, maybe I'm asking questions too close to my own viewpoint. Let me ask some follow-up questions that are a bit further out. Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? Would you approve of a law banning the sale of digital goods or rights to digital goods? Would you approve of a law banning subscriptions or recurring payments? Would you approve of a law forbidding the use of cameras in public places? Would you approve of a law forbidding companies from having more than $X in revenue, for some X?
  - 1000units 7y ago