3 ms·

I don't understand how this meme of "Corporations sell your data" came about. Google has perhaps the world's largest trove of information about people, but do

by sargun 6y ago

I don't understand how this meme of "Corporations sell your data" came about. Google has perhaps the world's largest trove of information about people, but do you see it ever leave their iron grip? No. Same with Facebook. In fact, with Google, you can pay them money (GSuite) to get enhanced privacy, and a legal relationship which ensures your data is protected. Add laws that prevent your information from getting leaked / hacked. If these companies have an organization-ending law when data gets leaked, they'll finally have proper incentives to secure your data adequately. Until then all of these laws seem like a waste of time. On the other hand, in order to prevent intentional transfer, I believe that if we ban the transfer of raw information (not aggregated) between organizations this point is somewhat moot -- of course, we would have to have something like antitrust law enforced and prevent Google from acquiring an insurance company or such. I trust Google with my data, as a large leak would likely hurt their reputation significantly, and result in them losing their edge (For a little while at least). I do not trust the US Federal Government to secure my data, or use it in a good way. Treat the US Federal Government like any of these organizations -- if the FBI wants to get your logs, they should be held to the same legal framework as Google "selling" data to any other corporation.

dan-robertson 6y ago
I think this is a fair point. ish. It is true that google/fb don’t sell your data so much as the ad-tracking derived from it. Though they do buy your data from other sources which incentives other firms to collect and sell your data. While you may (rightfully) trust Google’s security practices, I wonder if you would trust the practices of all the other parties who collect or buy your data. I think it’s also worth looking at the framing of debates on privacy: large firms like google want it to mean that your data is kept as a secret between you and google and you can control who (else) may access it; the other side of the debate want it to mean that you need not live in a world that seems to know so much about things you have done but not made publicly available. I think I disagree with you somewhat about the distinction between google collecting data and some state like the USA collecting data. The civil service must follow strict rules about such data collection (which private companies need and indeed do not follow), and it is full of scrupulous public servants who want to act responsibly and morally, and who have laws to protect their abilities to do so. The argument that state data collection is worse because of the potential use it would have in enabling tyranny is reasonable. But I think one must concede that firms such as google are able to inflict a lot of tyranny upon people (indeed they currently do this though only to few people and it seems mostly for arbitrary or overlooked reasons).
waholleyiv 6y ago
In another light, Google and Facebook have a duopoly over customer relationships. Imagine for a moment you are a bodega owner. You know the names and faces of frequent customers, their usual order, and have personal rapport. Now imagine you are a digital publisher. Readers come to your site from Google and Facebook, and often read your content directly on these platforms. You know very little about your readers and pay Facebook and Google to target ads to your readers; you leave it up to G/F to decide who / how to target.

by sargun 6y ago

dan-robertson 6y ago

I think this is a fair point. ish. It is true that google/fb don’t sell your data so much as the ad-tracking derived from it. Though they do buy your data from other sources which incentives other firms to collect and sell your data. While you may (rightfully) trust Google’s security practices, I wonder if you would trust the practices of all the other parties who collect or buy your data. I think it’s also worth looking at the framing of debates on privacy: large firms like google want it to mean that your data is kept as a secret between you and google and you can control who (else) may access it; the other side of the debate want it to mean that you need not live in a world that seems to know so much about things you have done but not made publicly available. I think I disagree with you somewhat about the distinction between google collecting data and some state like the USA collecting data. The civil service must follow strict rules about such data collection (which private companies need and indeed do not follow), and it is full of scrupulous public servants who want to act responsibly and morally, and who have laws to protect their abilities to do so. The argument that state data collection is worse because of the potential use it would have in enabling tyranny is reasonable. But I think one must concede that firms such as google are able to inflict a lot of tyranny upon people (indeed they currently do this though only to few people and it seems mostly for arbitrary or overlooked reasons).

waholleyiv 6y ago

In another light, Google and Facebook have a duopoly over customer relationships. Imagine for a moment you are a bodega owner. You know the names and faces of frequent customers, their usual order, and have personal rapport. Now imagine you are a digital publisher. Readers come to your site from Google and Facebook, and often read your content directly on these platforms. You know very little about your readers and pay Facebook and Google to target ads to your readers; you leave it up to G/F to decide who / how to target.