4 ms·

This is just a bunch of falsehoods > You wouldn’t place a price tag on your freedom to speak. We shouldn’t place one on our privacy, either. You do place a p

This is just a bunch of falsehoods > You wouldn’t place a price tag on your freedom to speak. We shouldn’t place one on our privacy, either. You do place a price tag on a lot of your freedoms, that's what your employers pay you for. And it's not like people are going to be forced to give their data, or even forced to give all of their data, it's entirely voluntary. We either put a price tag on all user-generated content (including private data) or we abolish all intellectual property laws and copyrights. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest double standards. > should not be incentivized to pour more data into a system that already exploits them and uses data to discriminate against them. The system is already sucking all their data. There's nothing else. If anything this will force companies to compete and pay them more than $0. > Facebook is a massive, global company with billions of users, but each user only offers Facebook a modest amount in revenue. Plenty of websites would be kept alive if they could earn $28 / year from each one of their users (hell, i 'd be rich), and in fact it shows why such a scheme would be beneficial for the web and the world as a whole. Privacy and attention are currently being grabbed , stolen and sold in marketplaces nowadays . It's just so wrong to try to convince people to keep doing so. This isn't 2003, and the price of "free services" is no longer high enough to justify giving our data for free (by law). I don't even understand what's the motive behind this post, and why Hailey felt the need to support such abuses

varispeed 6y ago
> or even forced to give all of their data, it's entirely voluntary. Sure you can avoid using Google and other spying companies products, but you kind of then getting yourself excluded from the society that see no problem with that. If you don't want to give your data you essentially need to stop using internet or put a lot of effort to learn how to avoid your data to be taken away from you. I agree that it should be straight up illegal to collect data that there is no essential business need for. Company should be allowed to take personal data to process an order, but it should be illegal to run any kind of analytics that involves personal data and even "anonymised" data should not be allowed to be sold or used for advertising or to manipulate customers into sales.
- teraku 6y ago
  Welcome to the EU. Although there is still lots of stuff going on that is 'technically' illegal
  - varispeed 6y ago
    Unfortunately that regulation does not work well in practice. For example, I sent a request to Instagram for them to explain what they did with my personal data under GDPR. They sent me back a canned response and when I complained that the response does not answer my questions, they sent another canned response and from there they just completely ignore my emails. Now I understand the next step is to make a complaint to appropriate government body, but I fear if I do that my accounts will be deleted. That would be okay, but a lot of my family uses websites owned by Facebook and it means I would have difficulty contacting them. I think I shouldn't be penalised for wanting to exercise my rights. edit: The fact that Instagram can ignore GDPR requests essentially means the law is dead.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > but it should be illegal to run any kind of analytics that involves personal data and even This is never going to be fully possible. Companies will just move to analyzing people's posts and communications to extract their preferences (and, predictably, they 'll stop offering encrypted messaging for this reason). Let's just admit that as long as advertising and manipulation are necessary evils, business is going to keep making money from that data
specialist 6y ago
Agreed. TLDR: Bookkeeping is hard, so only reasonable option is the honor system. Good grief. EFF, ACLU, others frustrate me to no end. I just cannot grok their viewpoints. Establishment centrists trying to defend an imaginary world that never existed? I was an election integrity activist. I had also implemented electronic medical record exchanges. So I know a few things about patient and voter privacy. My discussions with policy people have never been fruitful. We have no privacy. That's not the interesting part. The interesting part: What is privacy? What are the technically feasible options? What are the laws and practices to uphold those feasible privacy solutions? In my experience, the privacy advocates are completely out of touch with the technical reality. (I'll skim read the datadividends.org link below shorty, to see if they're more savvy.) -- Putting a price on our data has two consequences. It establishes our personal property rights over our own data. It's my data. It creates a liability for the holders of data. Paving the way for tort. Language that accountants and lawyers and investors and even congress critters understand. Putting a price on my data is not about the money. Well, maybe a little. Any one making a buck off my data owes me my cut. Pay me. -- Property rights for personal data still don't answer those three interesting questions. That's a separate discussion.

varispeed 6y ago

> or even forced to give all of their data, it's entirely voluntary. Sure you can avoid using Google and other spying companies products, but you kind of then getting yourself excluded from the society that see no problem with that. If you don't want to give your data you essentially need to stop using internet or put a lot of effort to learn how to avoid your data to be taken away from you. I agree that it should be straight up illegal to collect data that there is no essential business need for. Company should be allowed to take personal data to process an order, but it should be illegal to run any kind of analytics that involves personal data and even "anonymised" data should not be allowed to be sold or used for advertising or to manipulate customers into sales.

teraku 6y ago
Welcome to the EU. Although there is still lots of stuff going on that is 'technically' illegal
- varispeed 6y ago
  Unfortunately that regulation does not work well in practice. For example, I sent a request to Instagram for them to explain what they did with my personal data under GDPR. They sent me back a canned response and when I complained that the response does not answer my questions, they sent another canned response and from there they just completely ignore my emails. Now I understand the next step is to make a complaint to appropriate government body, but I fear if I do that my accounts will be deleted. That would be okay, but a lot of my family uses websites owned by Facebook and it means I would have difficulty contacting them. I think I shouldn't be penalised for wanting to exercise my rights. edit: The fact that Instagram can ignore GDPR requests essentially means the law is dead.
cblconfederate 6y ago
> but it should be illegal to run any kind of analytics that involves personal data and even This is never going to be fully possible. Companies will just move to analyzing people's posts and communications to extract their preferences (and, predictably, they 'll stop offering encrypted messaging for this reason). Let's just admit that as long as advertising and manipulation are necessary evils, business is going to keep making money from that data

specialist 6y ago

Agreed. TLDR: Bookkeeping is hard, so only reasonable option is the honor system. Good grief. EFF, ACLU, others frustrate me to no end. I just cannot grok their viewpoints. Establishment centrists trying to defend an imaginary world that never existed? I was an election integrity activist. I had also implemented electronic medical record exchanges. So I know a few things about patient and voter privacy. My discussions with policy people have never been fruitful. We have no privacy. That's not the interesting part. The interesting part: What is privacy? What are the technically feasible options? What are the laws and practices to uphold those feasible privacy solutions? In my experience, the privacy advocates are completely out of touch with the technical reality. (I'll skim read the datadividends.org link below shorty, to see if they're more savvy.) -- Putting a price on our data has two consequences. It establishes our personal property rights over our own data. It's my data. It creates a liability for the holders of data. Paving the way for tort. Language that accountants and lawyers and investors and even congress critters understand. Putting a price on my data is not about the money. Well, maybe a little. Any one making a buck off my data owes me my cut. Pay me. -- Property rights for personal data still don't answer those three interesting questions. That's a separate discussion.