3 ms·
The argument is bad for privacy, since the business solution to that problem is the same for other IP antitrust: mandating non-discriminatory licensing to anyon
by alisonkisk 5y ago
The argument is bad for privacy, since the business solution to that problem is the same for other IP antitrust: mandating non-discriminatory licensing to anyone who wants access to the data.
- dalbasal 5y agoI can see where you're coming from, but I think common carrier type action is pretty unlikely here. Besides controversy, it's too technically hairy to legislate. There's also no reason. "Surveillance advertising" isn't a necessary service. The reason I like the angle of this letter is that it isn't stand-alone. It's providing another perspective to the pile. Data centric advertising is monopoly & centralisation prone. They're extracting a lot of value out of the digital economy and this chokes out a lot of potential economic activity. It doesn't negate or replace privacy, data security, general creepiness or other rationales. What they're literally calling for is a ban. How this affects politicians, if it does, is providing them an additional persona of affected groups. Businesses .