4 ms·

> users don't care and are happy to click past a banner / trade their privacy for free things. Are we discounting the possibility that users make a rational ch

> users don't care and are happy to click past a banner / trade their privacy for free things. Are we discounting the possibility that users make a rational choice that we happen not to like?

duxup 6y ago
Yes, they could be making a rational choice that we don't agree with.
- buboard 6y ago
  Then maybe we shouldn't be making laws to force things "we happen to like" to everyone
  - duxup 6y ago
    I don't think GDPR forces you to choose not to share information. You simply get a a mechanism to make that choice. IMO it is a flawed and wonky mechanism. Still I'd prefer a the option, later if nobody cares then maybe remove the choice.
    - buboard 6y ago
      It forbids the exchange of information for providing service. There is no choice
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's one of the few ways to negotiate back against contracts of adhesion. Giving that choice would theoretically be nice, but the status quo makes it not really a free choice, and the downside is bigger than the upside.
luckylion 6y ago
Tough question. For some things, I'd say that informed consent is hard to give - if you consent, you're not informed. I don't believe that the average user is making informed choices. The choices may be rational as long as the users don't understand the consequences. It's perfectly rational to trade in your life savings for a fancy meal if you don't understand what "life savings" means.
- duxup 6y ago
  I wonder how much information can be provided, much of the "giving your data" is really about the side effects and possible consequences.... But you can only tell people so much. Just saying "hey you're giving google your location" (just a generic example here) ... honestly if that's all I know ... so what? But really the larger issues are other implications. That's a hard thing to explain.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Exactly, and I think we're usually way off intuitively. For example when considering how many facts of what nature I'd need to individually identify you. SSN? Ok, done, everybody knows that. But how far do I get with birth date, height and city? What if I add one chronic health issue, no matter how small? Chronic sinusitis, born on August 8th, lives in $city and is 186cm? In most cases, I probably don't even need all four. But most people intuitively don't think about it in combination, they figure "oh so you know I live in $city, big deal, so do a million other people", "oh so you know my birthday, well a million other people in the country have that birthday".
- buboard 6y ago
  this seems incredibly patronizing. perhaps we shouldn't even let people shop for themselves, instead do their shopping for them

> users don't care and are happy to click past a banner / trade their privacy for free things. Are we discounting the possibility that users make a rational choice that we happen not to like?

duxup 6y ago

Yes, they could be making a rational choice that we don't agree with.

buboard 6y ago
Then maybe we shouldn't be making laws to force things "we happen to like" to everyone
- duxup 6y ago
  I don't think GDPR forces you to choose not to share information. You simply get a a mechanism to make that choice. IMO it is a flawed and wonky mechanism. Still I'd prefer a the option, later if nobody cares then maybe remove the choice.
  - buboard 6y ago
    It forbids the exchange of information for providing service. There is no choice
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  It's one of the few ways to negotiate back against contracts of adhesion. Giving that choice would theoretically be nice, but the status quo makes it not really a free choice, and the downside is bigger than the upside.

luckylion 6y ago

Tough question. For some things, I'd say that informed consent is hard to give - if you consent, you're not informed. I don't believe that the average user is making informed choices. The choices may be rational as long as the users don't understand the consequences. It's perfectly rational to trade in your life savings for a fancy meal if you don't understand what "life savings" means.

duxup 6y ago
I wonder how much information can be provided, much of the "giving your data" is really about the side effects and possible consequences.... But you can only tell people so much. Just saying "hey you're giving google your location" (just a generic example here) ... honestly if that's all I know ... so what? But really the larger issues are other implications. That's a hard thing to explain.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Exactly, and I think we're usually way off intuitively. For example when considering how many facts of what nature I'd need to individually identify you. SSN? Ok, done, everybody knows that. But how far do I get with birth date, height and city? What if I add one chronic health issue, no matter how small? Chronic sinusitis, born on August 8th, lives in $city and is 186cm? In most cases, I probably don't even need all four. But most people intuitively don't think about it in combination, they figure "oh so you know I live in $city, big deal, so do a million other people", "oh so you know my birthday, well a million other people in the country have that birthday".
buboard 6y ago
this seems incredibly patronizing. perhaps we shouldn't even let people shop for themselves, instead do their shopping for them