5 ms·

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 w

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.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        No, because it presupposes that people understand what they might be implicitly allowing by not reading them. Without first knowing whether or not people understand the extent of surveillance that is possible and the possible consequences we can not know what it means that people ignore the privacy agreements. It's possible people genuinely don't care. It's also possible they don't understand the implications, and/or that they trust these companies more than they ought to.
  - 100100010001 7y ago
    If it is a fact then show me the proof. Just because people use a service doesn’t mean they have read the terms and conditions. Therefore, your anecdote is just that.
    - duckMuppet 7y ago
      Using the service is generally an acceptance and agreement to the terms of service. A similar analogy is that I may not want to read my credit card bill, that doesn't eliminate the responsibility I have to pay it. Or, I may not want to read my visa card notice they send informing of a change in the APR or other conditions for service. however, my continued use of the card is the standard way one accepts new or changed TOS. Maintaining ignorance doesn't excuse the actions.
      - afiori 7y ago
        Your argument implies that Google is acting in the limits of the current law. Not really relevant to a change in the law.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  No one's performed a proper survey AFAIK, but the GDPR opt-out rate is very very low, which provides weak evidence. This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    > GDPR opt-out rate is very very low, Then again GDPR requires opt-in, but most sites ignore that and many make the opt out extremely time consuming.
  - 100100010001 7y ago
    Your proof is that you “personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out”? That’s anecdotal evidence at best (aka not proof).
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      This is a confusing interpretation of what I said: > This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out. Most people I know would interpret that as "I know I'm not the only one because". After all, I specifically say "not evidence of numbers" and I also specifically say "existence proof". I find your response baffling.
  - afiori 7y ago
    At best this proves that this law is harmless.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      I don't think the law is harmful. I'm considering the absence of opt-outs and the general prevalence of opt-ins evidence of people not being eager to opt-out.
dao- 7y ago
> Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data Okay, cool, don't opt out then. I on the other hand would prefer to see ads based on the content I'm viewing for which no other data from me needs to be passed around.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Yeah, and those parts of CCPA I support. I also support the data deletion stuff. Everyone should be able to revoke consent at any time. What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". I think you should be able to say what you're willing to accept and get appropriate service. In fact, ideally, the User Agent would advertise our privileges. Like a DNT option and websites would respond with a paywall or something instead and be expected (by law) to respect the DNT. Then, on first load, browsers could say, "Do you wish to allow tracking?" and warn about the added paywall cost vs. the tracking cost.
  - dao- 7y ago
    > What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Well, then, I suppose that's where our disagreement lies. I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people so long as harm is not being done (hence I'm pro-CCPA in the ways it protects people from being harmed and disagree with it where does not actively protect from harm) and you have a different bar.
      - dao- 7y ago
        > I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.

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.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      No, because it presupposes that people understand what they might be implicitly allowing by not reading them. Without first knowing whether or not people understand the extent of surveillance that is possible and the possible consequences we can not know what it means that people ignore the privacy agreements. It's possible people genuinely don't care. It's also possible they don't understand the implications, and/or that they trust these companies more than they ought to.
- 100100010001 7y ago
  If it is a fact then show me the proof. Just because people use a service doesn’t mean they have read the terms and conditions. Therefore, your anecdote is just that.
  - duckMuppet 7y ago
    Using the service is generally an acceptance and agreement to the terms of service. A similar analogy is that I may not want to read my credit card bill, that doesn't eliminate the responsibility I have to pay it. Or, I may not want to read my visa card notice they send informing of a change in the APR or other conditions for service. however, my continued use of the card is the standard way one accepts new or changed TOS. Maintaining ignorance doesn't excuse the actions.
    - afiori 7y ago
      Your argument implies that Google is acting in the limits of the current law. Not really relevant to a change in the law.
scarejunba 7y ago
No one's performed a proper survey AFAIK, but the GDPR opt-out rate is very very low, which provides weak evidence. This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  > GDPR opt-out rate is very very low, Then again GDPR requires opt-in, but most sites ignore that and many make the opt out extremely time consuming.
- 100100010001 7y ago
  Your proof is that you “personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out”? That’s anecdotal evidence at best (aka not proof).
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    This is a confusing interpretation of what I said: > This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out. Most people I know would interpret that as "I know I'm not the only one because". After all, I specifically say "not evidence of numbers" and I also specifically say "existence proof". I find your response baffling.
- afiori 7y ago
  At best this proves that this law is harmless.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    I don't think the law is harmful. I'm considering the absence of opt-outs and the general prevalence of opt-ins evidence of people not being eager to opt-out.

dao- 7y ago

> Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data Okay, cool, don't opt out then. I on the other hand would prefer to see ads based on the content I'm viewing for which no other data from me needs to be passed around.

scarejunba 7y ago
Yeah, and those parts of CCPA I support. I also support the data deletion stuff. Everyone should be able to revoke consent at any time. What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". I think you should be able to say what you're willing to accept and get appropriate service. In fact, ideally, the User Agent would advertise our privileges. Like a DNT option and websites would respond with a paywall or something instead and be expected (by law) to respect the DNT. Then, on first load, browsers could say, "Do you wish to allow tracking?" and warn about the added paywall cost vs. the tracking cost.
- dao- 7y ago
  > What I object to is the "you must continue to provide service after opt-out". Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Well, then, I suppose that's where our disagreement lies. I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people so long as harm is not being done (hence I'm pro-CCPA in the ways it protects people from being harmed and disagree with it where does not actively protect from harm) and you have a different bar.
    - dao- 7y ago
      > I would prefer to minimize regulation controlling people That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.