4 ms·

“In general we have a concern if companies merge because of data,” Vestager told a news briefing at Web Summit. I'm no fan of Google buying up Fitbit but how a

“In general we have a concern if companies merge because of data,” Vestager told a news briefing at Web Summit. I'm no fan of Google buying up Fitbit but how are you going to prove that an acquisition/merger is due to data? You're going to have to codify these regulations and big companies with lots of lawyers are going to find slippery language to get by unless you have something as clear and firm as "every data subject in Fitbit's database must opt-in to Google having access to it."

dannyw 7y ago
The latter sounds great
ljm 7y ago
The problem with Fitbit isn’t entirely the data either, because when you get the request to consent again you essentially have an ultimatum: accept the new terms and your fitness tracking bracelet will keep working. Decline, and it won’t. I would hope that interfaces to Apple health, etc. that work through Bluetooth will continue to work, but they still require the mobile app to facilitate it, and as far as google is concerned it’s now living on borrowed time. Two years from now and it’ll be in the graveyard along with everything else. What do you do about that except give in and let Google acquire even more aspects of your life to resell it, or abandon the tech and produce more waste?
- glennpratt 7y ago
  > I would hope that interfaces to Apple health Google Fit integrates with Apple Health so I'm not sure there's an incentive to break anything here.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Which drives a point which all of us should really want anyway. You simply shouldn't be allowed to sell physical objects forcibly linked to network services. i.e. vendors need to publish APIs and unlock procedures in order to participate in the market.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    I feel like allowing vertical integration was our biggest flaw in antitrust law. It allows lock in ecosystems. Hardware, software, and services should not be allowed to be sold by the same company.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      What about purism and system76? Some integration is great, especially when one part of that integration can’t usually be profitable in its own
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        I was irritated to learn Purism was launching services, and I think it's both a distraction and a conflict of interest.
colechristensen 7y ago
How about consumers own their data on a platform and license to posses it must be sold at a user-majority approved price with opt-in mechanics.
- deadmutex 7y ago
  I am trying to understand... don't you own your data today? E.g. IIUC, you can delete your fitbit data [1]. Is the concern that the user doesn't get an explicit $ amount if they opt-in to transfer their data to a new service? Is there any possibility that the acquirers will end up servicing the user in a better way? or do you think that these organizations will chose the most user-hostile path by providing worse service, etc? [1] https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1285 https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1285
arkadiyt 7y ago
Before Facebook bought WhatsApp in 2014, the FTC issued them an order [1] which said in relevant part: "WhatsApp has made a number of promises about the limited nature of the data it collects, maintains, and shares with third parties -promises that exceed the protections currently promised to Facebook users. We want to make clear that, regardless of the acquisition, WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers. Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act" Then in 2016 WhatsApp went ahead and shared all that data with Facebook [2]. Nothing happened to either party, the FTC did nothing. So I think your question of "how do we codify what it means for a company to acquire someone for their data" might be too optimistic - we could codify it, not allow companies to share data when merging, and they can still do it anyway. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/297701/140410facebookwhatappltr.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements... [2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000627/Looking-ahead-for-WhatsApp https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000627/Looking-ahead-for-WhatsAp...

dannyw 7y ago

The latter sounds great

ljm 7y ago

The problem with Fitbit isn’t entirely the data either, because when you get the request to consent again you essentially have an ultimatum: accept the new terms and your fitness tracking bracelet will keep working. Decline, and it won’t. I would hope that interfaces to Apple health, etc. that work through Bluetooth will continue to work, but they still require the mobile app to facilitate it, and as far as google is concerned it’s now living on borrowed time. Two years from now and it’ll be in the graveyard along with everything else. What do you do about that except give in and let Google acquire even more aspects of your life to resell it, or abandon the tech and produce more waste?

glennpratt 7y ago
> I would hope that interfaces to Apple health Google Fit integrates with Apple Health so I'm not sure there's an incentive to break anything here.
colechristensen 7y ago
Which drives a point which all of us should really want anyway. You simply shouldn't be allowed to sell physical objects forcibly linked to network services. i.e. vendors need to publish APIs and unlock procedures in order to participate in the market.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  I feel like allowing vertical integration was our biggest flaw in antitrust law. It allows lock in ecosystems. Hardware, software, and services should not be allowed to be sold by the same company.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    What about purism and system76? Some integration is great, especially when one part of that integration can’t usually be profitable in its own
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      I was irritated to learn Purism was launching services, and I think it's both a distraction and a conflict of interest.

colechristensen 7y ago

How about consumers own their data on a platform and license to posses it must be sold at a user-majority approved price with opt-in mechanics.

deadmutex 7y ago
I am trying to understand... don't you own your data today? E.g. IIUC, you can delete your fitbit data [1]. Is the concern that the user doesn't get an explicit $ amount if they opt-in to transfer their data to a new service? Is there any possibility that the acquirers will end up servicing the user in a better way? or do you think that these organizations will chose the most user-hostile path by providing worse service, etc? [1] https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1285 https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/1285

arkadiyt 7y ago

Before Facebook bought WhatsApp in 2014, the FTC issued them an order [1] which said in relevant part: "WhatsApp has made a number of promises about the limited nature of the data it collects, maintains, and shares with third parties -promises that exceed the protections currently promised to Facebook users. We want to make clear that, regardless of the acquisition, WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers. Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act" Then in 2016 WhatsApp went ahead and shared all that data with Facebook [2]. Nothing happened to either party, the FTC did nothing. So I think your question of "how do we codify what it means for a company to acquire someone for their data" might be too optimistic - we could codify it, not allow companies to share data when merging, and they can still do it anyway. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/297701/140410facebookwhatappltr.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements... [2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000627/Looking-ahead-for-WhatsApp https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000627/Looking-ahead-for-WhatsAp...