6 ms·
Have never understood EFF's objection to 'pay for privacy' (covered in the middle of this article). Being able to pay for privacy is better than not being able
by awinter-py 6y ago
Have never understood EFF's objection to 'pay for privacy' (covered in the middle of this article). Being able to pay for privacy is better than not being able to. It creates the beginning of accountability for cos and optionality for users.
- backtoyoujim 6y agoHow can that kind of inequality look like justice to anyone other than someone very economically privileged ?
- bradbot 6y agoWhy the downvotes? The point is legitimate. Not everyone would be able to afford to pay for something like this.
- google234123 6y agoNot everyone can afford a BMW. Is that fair?
- renewiltord 6y agoAnd what, pray tell, do you expect a service provider to do when this happens? Privacy advocates screamed themselves shrill like this and what happened is that the NYT went paywall. Then they screamed themselves shrill that the poor don't have access to good news. Well...what did you think would happen?
- google234123 6y agoThe alternative is that they dont have access to these services.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- awinter-py 6y agolook your objection is valid but: privacy as a legal right is complex and ill-defined -- if you look just at CCPA or GDPR, these are big laws with large compliance costs with the risk of benefiting incumbents like FB/G if your goal is to develop a robust case law for privacy in the united states, pay for privacy accomplishes that because if I pay a dollar for 'private mode', and the vendor breaks our contract, I can absolutely sue. we also don't know which privacy features users want. hard to write laws without market research, and you can't do market research if there's no market for a good. another issue is that if privacy laws 'demonetize free tiers', you're effectively paying for privacy anyway. 'pay for privacy' vs 'privacy as right' may be a false choice. I'm not saying market privacy is fair on the face of it, but it may be more effective than the alternatives.
- AshWolfy 6y agoIt doesnt solve the issue and wouldnt actually be much money anyways
- tolbish 6y agoShould something like privacy be up for sale to begin with? We as consumers never really got the choice to decide. The internet age quickly arrived and our privacy became a commodity to be glossed over in private policies.
- ragebol 6y agoBecause privacy is a right. And being bribed into giving it up is not a solution.
- cblconfederate 6y agohappiness and safety are rights too. Some people get paid extra to give up some of their safety or happiness and we consider it the right thing to do. It's not all black and white
- ivanche 6y agoHm, show me one constitution which declares "happiness" as right?
- cblconfederate 6y agothe american i think
- rtkaratekid 6y agoThat’s actually in our Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. I don’t recall the constitution including it as well (although most Americans consider it a given because it was in the DOI). Originally Jefferson wrote, “the pursuit of land,” but that was changed at one of the conventions before it was ratified by representatives of the colonies at the time.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoDoes the right to bear arms mean that someone should give you a gun for free? Whether it's a right has nothing to do with whether you have to pay for it.
- ragebol 6y agoA right in itself costs nothing, to exercise a right is something else. If you've always had (some level of) privacy and that is (suddenly) taken away. With gun, you don't have one by default and getting one costs something. With privacy you (should) have it by default and now it would cost something to keep it. I wonder if people would accept to have to give up a gun they already had and then get paid to not have one anymore, while they have a right to have a gun.