3 ms·

Not a fan of Google in any ways, but isn't it their data? They can do whatever they want (unless they expose users' privacy etc) with it, and they are using it

Not a fan of Google in any ways, but isn't it their data? They can do whatever they want (unless they expose users' privacy etc) with it, and they are using it for competitive advantage, which is the most natural thing to do.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
If you act on behalf of others, you are not entitled to make sure it benefits you above your customers. Maybe this doesn't exist in law, but it sure as hell exists in ethics. And the data belongs to the person who generated it (so the people and sites involved), not Google (again ethically, potentially not legally).
- URSpider94 6y ago
  You’d be surprised. This isn’t even a hard and fast requirement in fields like life insurance and retirement planning. In fact, the Obama administration tried to put strict rules in place, then the Trump administration halted them, then watered them down substantially, and the Biden administration only recently allowed the watered-down rules to go into effect. Basically, unless someone specifically tells you they are acting as a “fiduciary”, or in very narrow circumstances like an attorney or Realtor (but not an investment advisor), they have no obligation to put your interests above their own. The most common case, still legal, is advising clients to put money into mutual funds that carry a sales commission that is not disclosed to the buyer, even though those funds are rarely the best choice. https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Pages/DOL-allows-investment-advice-rule-to-take-effect.aspx https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Pa...
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Again, as I keep having to point out in this thread, I'm talking about ethics, not law. The fact that this would be illegal under EU law makes no difference to the ethical point I'm making here.
    - URSpider94 6y ago
      The ground rules that we’ve decided on (at least here in America) is that agents should be presumed to be acting in their own best interest, unless you have specific assurance that they aren’t. You might decide it’s unethical, but if it’s literally standard operating procedure for industries like retirement planning and insurance sales, then either your definition of ethics is too narrow, or everyone is operating unethically.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

If you act on behalf of others, you are not entitled to make sure it benefits you above your customers. Maybe this doesn't exist in law, but it sure as hell exists in ethics. And the data belongs to the person who generated it (so the people and sites involved), not Google (again ethically, potentially not legally).

URSpider94 6y ago
You’d be surprised. This isn’t even a hard and fast requirement in fields like life insurance and retirement planning. In fact, the Obama administration tried to put strict rules in place, then the Trump administration halted them, then watered them down substantially, and the Biden administration only recently allowed the watered-down rules to go into effect. Basically, unless someone specifically tells you they are acting as a “fiduciary”, or in very narrow circumstances like an attorney or Realtor (but not an investment advisor), they have no obligation to put your interests above their own. The most common case, still legal, is advising clients to put money into mutual funds that carry a sales commission that is not disclosed to the buyer, even though those funds are rarely the best choice. https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Pages/DOL-allows-investment-advice-rule-to-take-effect.aspx https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/benefits/Pa...
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Again, as I keep having to point out in this thread, I'm talking about ethics, not law. The fact that this would be illegal under EU law makes no difference to the ethical point I'm making here.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    The ground rules that we’ve decided on (at least here in America) is that agents should be presumed to be acting in their own best interest, unless you have specific assurance that they aren’t. You might decide it’s unethical, but if it’s literally standard operating procedure for industries like retirement planning and insurance sales, then either your definition of ethics is too narrow, or everyone is operating unethically.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]