10 ms·

> 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'

> 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?
newfangle 7y ago
>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? Is this a real question?
scarejunba 7y ago
Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data. Lots of us feel that the data thing should be allowed. That's all.
- 100100010001 7y ago
  Is this anecdotal or do you have empirical evidence?
  - sgregnt 7y ago
    No this is one of the most verified facts. The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this: if you use the service you agree to this. Majority of people use Gmail, Facebook, etc. So this is not anecdotal. On the other hand the desire to "protect" privacy at the expense of free services is based on anecdotal data at best.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      > The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this I don't think they do, given that most people don't read them, and a large percentage of them are written so it's very hard to tell what they are really saying unless you're a lawyer.
      - vsl 7y ago
        That nobody gives a damn and doesn’t even read it kinda proves the point, no?
        JohnFen 7y ago
        No. Not reading it is not equivalent to "not giving a damn". First, having to read a long block of legalese on every visit to a website (which would be necessary because those privacy polices can change without notice at any time) is unsupportable. If people actually did that, it would render the web completely unusable. The average normal person can't be blamed for saying "screw that", nor can their attitude about privacy really be inferred from it. Second, even for those of us who are more concerned than the average person about these issues, reading privacy policies is a pointless waste of time. Once you have a lawyer interpret them for you, it turns out that the vast majority of them say the same thing -- they are reserving the right to do anything they want with my data. That means that I can safely predict what privacy policies say, so there's no need to read them.
d1zzy 7y ago
> "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? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell their organs for that?
- rpastuszak 7y ago
  I think you’re missing the point. At least I know where my data is. Have you ever read a GDPR popup partner list? Do the people you mention understand how gmail business model works?
  - buboard 7y ago
    "Have you ever read a BGP table"? Arguing that there are too many people in ad exchanges is a very weak argument. This is the internet, which enables global scale exchanges of all kinds of things. GDPR is a law designed for the 1800s
  - afiori 7y ago
    The partner list is not there for informing users, it is there for accountability in case the decide to silently add new partners.
- 100100010001 7y ago
  This is your opinion, unless you actually did a survey of violating a citizens privacy by big tech. Have you?
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Presumably you have? Do share!
    - 100100010001 7y ago
dao- 7y ago
> 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". No need to come up with something new, we had content based ads long before Google and Facebook took over.

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?

newfangle 7y ago

>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? Is this a real question?

scarejunba 7y ago

Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data. Lots of us feel that the data thing should be allowed. That's all.

100100010001 7y ago
Is this anecdotal or do you have empirical evidence?
- sgregnt 7y ago
  No this is one of the most verified facts. The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this: if you use the service you agree to this. Majority of people use Gmail, Facebook, etc. So this is not anecdotal. On the other hand the desire to "protect" privacy at the expense of free services is based on anecdotal data at best.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > The privacy agreements of gmail, facebook and what not, serve like a poll for this I don't think they do, given that most people don't read them, and a large percentage of them are written so it's very hard to tell what they are really saying unless you're a lawyer.
    - vsl 7y ago
      That nobody gives a damn and doesn’t even read it kinda proves the point, no?
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        No. Not reading it is not equivalent to "not giving a damn". First, having to read a long block of legalese on every visit to a website (which would be necessary because those privacy polices can change without notice at any time) is unsupportable. If people actually did that, it would render the web completely unusable. The average normal person can't be blamed for saying "screw that", nor can their attitude about privacy really be inferred from it. Second, even for those of us who are more concerned than the average person about these issues, reading privacy policies is a pointless waste of time. Once you have a lawyer interpret them for you, it turns out that the vast majority of them say the same thing -- they are reserving the right to do anything they want with my data. That means that I can safely predict what privacy policies say, so there's no need to read them.

d1zzy 7y ago

> "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? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell their organs for that?

rpastuszak 7y ago
I think you’re missing the point. At least I know where my data is. Have you ever read a GDPR popup partner list? Do the people you mention understand how gmail business model works?
- buboard 7y ago
  "Have you ever read a BGP table"? Arguing that there are too many people in ad exchanges is a very weak argument. This is the internet, which enables global scale exchanges of all kinds of things. GDPR is a law designed for the 1800s
- afiori 7y ago
  The partner list is not there for informing users, it is there for accountability in case the decide to silently add new partners.
100100010001 7y ago
This is your opinion, unless you actually did a survey of violating a citizens privacy by big tech. Have you?
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Presumably you have? Do share!
  - 100100010001 7y ago

dao- 7y ago

> 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". No need to come up with something new, we had content based ads long before Google and Facebook took over.