4 ms·

Pragmatic Solution: Implement a federal tax on data use.

by draugadrotten 7y ago

dgoldstein0 7y ago
How would this work? E.g. how do you audit whether such a tax is properly paid? What precisely would be taxed?
- draugadrotten 7y ago
  Constructive question and answering this properly might take a few years and a couple of thousand pages. Tax legislation isn't done by forum posts. However, in generic terms. Financial transactions are audited by enforcing the use of a ledger, with rules for how all transactions must be entered into the ledger. Auditing data transactions could be implemented in a similar fashion, by demanding that all data usage is entered into a ledger, and that evidence is produced that the rules are followed. It could be similar to what EU is doing this with GDPR. GDPR can be audited and it is purely related to what is being done with data. Modelling a "data usage" legislation on this type of existing data legislation could be possible. Precisely what would be taxed is perhaps not the core of my message. However, taxes have side effects: companies wants to minimize taxes. If society would like to minimize the use of personal data, a tax on personal data use would have such an effect. Unprofitable use of personal data would decrease.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  The key is to make data a liability not an asset. So it is too expensive to store any data that is not directly essential. Maybe a ratio of number of users in your database to the turnover of the company? A flat fee of $100/year perhaps for every permanent record you keep, a company could still sell products perfectly well without requiring users to actually register.
- harimau777 7y ago
  The current discourse in America seems to be that corporations are justified in anything they do as long as it stays within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law. Therefore, even if they are not possible to audit, I can see value in laws that establish how the system is intended to work.
bottled_poe 7y ago
How about a ban on establishing a database of individually identifiable user profiles? Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only. A technically possible way to achieve this is using a system like Keybase which could transfer profile data ownership to the individual.
- draugadrotten 7y ago
  > How about a ban ... A ban costs politicans money to enforce. A tax gives politicans more money when enforced. Draw your own conclusions.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Politicians don’t spend any of their own money more than any other taxpayer. However, the more money politicians can influence to be spent, the more influence they have. For example, the ban on marijuana has yielded tremendous returns for politicians and their associates in the police equipment and prison businesses.
- pjc50 7y ago
  You've banned gmail.
  - anilakar 7y ago
    If Gmail was an unsustainable business because obeying the law is too expensive, it'd deserve to die. Edit: My point is that existing businesses must not be exempt from new legislation, nor compensated under investor protection. Conversely, whether something should be allowed or not must not be based on the number of succesful businesses in that sector.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      And my point was that yours is far more restrictive than GDPR - if you interpret "profile" literally, you've also banned all online banking, possibly banking in its entirety! The GDPR allows you to collect profile information for the purposes of performing a service etc.
PedroBatista 7y ago
So they can pay and be allowed to break the law?
- Chris2048 7y ago
  There would be oversight where there is not currently b/c of the motivation of taxes. No one suggested paying taxes on illegal activity would make it legal - but it would create a papertrail.
classified 7y ago
Big companies don't pay taxes anyway, and they represent the greatest risks.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  The question isn't whether they pay taxes, It's whether they ought to pay and get away with not doing do (due to lack of oversight), or if they are allowed not to pay.
  - classified 7y ago
    They ought to pay taxes now already and they don't and they get away with it.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      The taxman doesn't follow up?

Pragmatic Solution: Implement a federal tax on data use.

dgoldstein0 7y ago

How would this work? E.g. how do you audit whether such a tax is properly paid? What precisely would be taxed?

draugadrotten 7y ago
Constructive question and answering this properly might take a few years and a couple of thousand pages. Tax legislation isn't done by forum posts. However, in generic terms. Financial transactions are audited by enforcing the use of a ledger, with rules for how all transactions must be entered into the ledger. Auditing data transactions could be implemented in a similar fashion, by demanding that all data usage is entered into a ledger, and that evidence is produced that the rules are followed. It could be similar to what EU is doing this with GDPR. GDPR can be audited and it is purely related to what is being done with data. Modelling a "data usage" legislation on this type of existing data legislation could be possible. Precisely what would be taxed is perhaps not the core of my message. However, taxes have side effects: companies wants to minimize taxes. If society would like to minimize the use of personal data, a tax on personal data use would have such an effect. Unprofitable use of personal data would decrease.
goatinaboat 7y ago
The key is to make data a liability not an asset. So it is too expensive to store any data that is not directly essential. Maybe a ratio of number of users in your database to the turnover of the company? A flat fee of $100/year perhaps for every permanent record you keep, a company could still sell products perfectly well without requiring users to actually register.
harimau777 7y ago
The current discourse in America seems to be that corporations are justified in anything they do as long as it stays within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law. Therefore, even if they are not possible to audit, I can see value in laws that establish how the system is intended to work.

bottled_poe 7y ago

How about a ban on establishing a database of individually identifiable user profiles? Restrict data storage to anonymised statistical usage only. A technically possible way to achieve this is using a system like Keybase which could transfer profile data ownership to the individual.

draugadrotten 7y ago
> How about a ban ... A ban costs politicans money to enforce. A tax gives politicans more money when enforced. Draw your own conclusions.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Politicians don’t spend any of their own money more than any other taxpayer. However, the more money politicians can influence to be spent, the more influence they have. For example, the ban on marijuana has yielded tremendous returns for politicians and their associates in the police equipment and prison businesses.
pjc50 7y ago
You've banned gmail.
- anilakar 7y ago
  If Gmail was an unsustainable business because obeying the law is too expensive, it'd deserve to die. Edit: My point is that existing businesses must not be exempt from new legislation, nor compensated under investor protection. Conversely, whether something should be allowed or not must not be based on the number of succesful businesses in that sector.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    And my point was that yours is far more restrictive than GDPR - if you interpret "profile" literally, you've also banned all online banking, possibly banking in its entirety! The GDPR allows you to collect profile information for the purposes of performing a service etc.

PedroBatista 7y ago

So they can pay and be allowed to break the law?

Chris2048 7y ago
There would be oversight where there is not currently b/c of the motivation of taxes. No one suggested paying taxes on illegal activity would make it legal - but it would create a papertrail.

classified 7y ago

Big companies don't pay taxes anyway, and they represent the greatest risks.

Chris2048 7y ago
The question isn't whether they pay taxes, It's whether they ought to pay and get away with not doing do (due to lack of oversight), or if they are allowed not to pay.
- classified 7y ago
  They ought to pay taxes now already and they don't and they get away with it.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    The taxman doesn't follow up?