5 ms·

It's great that Apple does this, but I think this should be mandated by law that tracking should be opt-in and for adult users only. I think people who decide t

It's great that Apple does this, but I think this should be mandated by law that tracking should be opt-in and for adult users only. I think people who decide to be tracked should also be compensated for their data.

minikites 6y ago
That sounds like government interfering with the free market, which is completely unacceptable under any circumstance for ~50% of the population.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Well, apart from the adult-only part, it sounds like the EU.
- simion314 6y ago
  But why does 50% are mostly fine with "only medical data is super special"? Your private data could be abused in a similar way. Also why not a law for full transparency? You can have all your freedom you want just be transparent about all the tracking and information selling or sharing that is happening. Can't you convince the free loving americans that a simpler GDPR that only requires full transparency is "very capitalistic"?
  - niij 6y ago
    What Apple is doing here is the free market solution to invasive tracking. The GDPR was the government's solution to that. I'd much prefer the Apple solution which allows for a company to be _rewarded_ for taking a voluntary stance (a positive one!) on tracking, instead of coercing every business to follow a government mandated rule on something as relatively minor as advertising.
    - simion314 6y ago
      What Apple is doing is limited. A law will force everyone (not limited to websites or mobile apps) to disclose if they track you, what data they track and who they share it with. What Apple is doing is also a recent thing, so before this fancy privacy labels the market had no solution. Let me know all the downsides to a transparency law and for each downside specify who is affected by the transparency.
- dd36 6y ago
  Or did the government interfere with the market by not protecting privacy to begin with?
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Worse, they interfered with citizen's right to a pursuit of happiness.
    - dd36 6y ago
      The joy of Monopoly.
- bavell 6y ago
  Nah, everyone would get behind this if we actually had politicians brave enough to lead the charge. No one wants Faceflixzon to dig their hooks into your kid's life.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Tech company regulation is popular with politicians on both sides of the aisle (with different motivations from each side), so there has to be more to it than this. I think at least some of it is because the politicians are afraid of their constituents (my parent 50% comment) and donors (affects both sides of the aisle).
- yabones 6y ago
  The government absolutely has the authority to mandate safety measures. Corporations don't have the right to violate users' privacy and security, I see this as completely fair.
- batch12 6y ago
  Something stating you own your data and can choose who to sell or not sell it to sounds pretty free market to me.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Free market!= Freedom to invade peoples privacy without regulation
  - chrisan 6y ago
    Also, a free market = freedom to protect my privacy
- hluska 6y ago
  Taking control of my own data and only giving it/selling it when I choose is perfectly free market.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    Exactly - currently if you want to use Facebook (because your whole family and friends are on it) you have to give up your personal data and there is no other way for you to pay for the service. There should also be an option to pay with other means than personal data.
- theonemind 6y ago
  That'd be a pretty rare position even amongst the most conservative economists, since markets are generally acknowledged to have 1. failure modes, like monopoly, and 2. externalities, which the economic actor should get forced to internalize.
  - minikites 6y ago
    It's how the US government operates, so it can't be that rare. Looking at the past 40 years, the answer to those "failure modes" is nearly always "less regulation". Economic actors are almost never forced to be responsible for their externalities. It's un-American to regulate any market: "Government is not the solution to any problem. Government is the problem."
- lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
  Government requiring car manufacturers fit seatbelts and airbags is intrusion in the free market. And a good one that saves hundreds of thousands of lives.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Well if consumers didn't want to die they would have upgraded to our premium safety module for only a $9.99/mo maintenance fee and $1200 installation (was $1700).
    - lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
      The children should have had the good karma to be born to more responsible parents.
- smhenderson 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being down voted. As far as I can see you're not advocating one way or another. And you're not wrong, with apologies for being so US-centric, that about half this country would agree with you that the parent idea is "interfering with the free market". I happen to disagree with those people but that doesn't mean you're incorrect to point them out.

minikites 6y ago

That sounds like government interfering with the free market, which is completely unacceptable under any circumstance for ~50% of the population.

fogihujy 6y ago
Well, apart from the adult-only part, it sounds like the EU.
simion314 6y ago
But why does 50% are mostly fine with "only medical data is super special"? Your private data could be abused in a similar way. Also why not a law for full transparency? You can have all your freedom you want just be transparent about all the tracking and information selling or sharing that is happening. Can't you convince the free loving americans that a simpler GDPR that only requires full transparency is "very capitalistic"?
- niij 6y ago
  What Apple is doing here is the free market solution to invasive tracking. The GDPR was the government's solution to that. I'd much prefer the Apple solution which allows for a company to be _rewarded_ for taking a voluntary stance (a positive one!) on tracking, instead of coercing every business to follow a government mandated rule on something as relatively minor as advertising.
  - simion314 6y ago
    What Apple is doing is limited. A law will force everyone (not limited to websites or mobile apps) to disclose if they track you, what data they track and who they share it with. What Apple is doing is also a recent thing, so before this fancy privacy labels the market had no solution. Let me know all the downsides to a transparency law and for each downside specify who is affected by the transparency.
dd36 6y ago
Or did the government interfere with the market by not protecting privacy to begin with?
- dylan604 6y ago
  Worse, they interfered with citizen's right to a pursuit of happiness.
  - dd36 6y ago
    The joy of Monopoly.
bavell 6y ago
Nah, everyone would get behind this if we actually had politicians brave enough to lead the charge. No one wants Faceflixzon to dig their hooks into your kid's life.
- minikites 6y ago
  Tech company regulation is popular with politicians on both sides of the aisle (with different motivations from each side), so there has to be more to it than this. I think at least some of it is because the politicians are afraid of their constituents (my parent 50% comment) and donors (affects both sides of the aisle).
yabones 6y ago
The government absolutely has the authority to mandate safety measures. Corporations don't have the right to violate users' privacy and security, I see this as completely fair.
batch12 6y ago
Something stating you own your data and can choose who to sell or not sell it to sounds pretty free market to me.
breakfastduck 6y ago
Free market!= Freedom to invade peoples privacy without regulation
- chrisan 6y ago
  Also, a free market = freedom to protect my privacy
hluska 6y ago
Taking control of my own data and only giving it/selling it when I choose is perfectly free market.
- varispeed 6y ago
  Exactly - currently if you want to use Facebook (because your whole family and friends are on it) you have to give up your personal data and there is no other way for you to pay for the service. There should also be an option to pay with other means than personal data.
theonemind 6y ago
That'd be a pretty rare position even amongst the most conservative economists, since markets are generally acknowledged to have 1. failure modes, like monopoly, and 2. externalities, which the economic actor should get forced to internalize.
- minikites 6y ago
  It's how the US government operates, so it can't be that rare. Looking at the past 40 years, the answer to those "failure modes" is nearly always "less regulation". Economic actors are almost never forced to be responsible for their externalities. It's un-American to regulate any market: "Government is not the solution to any problem. Government is the problem."
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
Government requiring car manufacturers fit seatbelts and airbags is intrusion in the free market. And a good one that saves hundreds of thousands of lives.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Well if consumers didn't want to die they would have upgraded to our premium safety module for only a $9.99/mo maintenance fee and $1200 installation (was $1700).
  - lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
    The children should have had the good karma to be born to more responsible parents.
smhenderson 6y ago
I'm not sure why you're being down voted. As far as I can see you're not advocating one way or another. And you're not wrong, with apologies for being so US-centric, that about half this country would agree with you that the parent idea is "interfering with the free market". I happen to disagree with those people but that doesn't mean you're incorrect to point them out.