4 ms·

> Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. According to who, you? > It’s spyware. How is it spying when the people are fr

> Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise. According to who, you? > It’s spyware. How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? > If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad. Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data? > We must correct the insanity and digital economic imbalance that spyware businesses have created. Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information.

the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
How does anyone have a choice in this?
Rygian 5y ago
> How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? The ruling has proved that no, people are not freely giving away their data. One of the infringing issues is that the system "Fails to properly request consent."
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  When consent is enforced by a system that can't be bypassed via dark patterns such as Apple's App Tracking Transparency, the actual opt-in rate is around 4%, suggesting that when given a proper choice users don't actually want to give away their data.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > around 4% Which, coincidentally, happens to be Lizardman’s Constant. https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
parkingrift 5y ago
>According to who, you? Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware. >How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? It’s not “freely given away” when you need a team of attorneys to understand what you’ve agreed to and you have no audit rights. Point me to the public FB page where they clearly and easily define all points of data they collect. > Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information. Quite absurd to take this position after big tech companies ruined the internet economy with their spyware model. Is it your position that these companies were just responding to consumer demand to unknowingly give up their data in exchange for free services? >Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? The only reason we have this spyware economy is because tech companies thought it easier to grow their enterprise off spyware than selling a legitimate product at a price.
- Permit 5y ago
  > Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware. I’ve seen this phenomenon before but never so explicitly. When you can’t convince someone that something is bad, you re-define it as something they do consider bad. Some examples I’ve seen: - Some speech is so hateful and racist that its opponents wish to define it as “violence”. - Facebook offers advertisers the ability to target the demographics their ads reach. Some have tried to term this as “selling your data”. In this case, it’s clear the average person doesn’t hold data collection in such low esteem as yourself, so you must redefine it as “spyware” in order to convince them. This subtle shift is in interesting to me, but it leaves me unconvinced. Words are not violence. Facebook does not sell data. Data collection is not the same as spyware.
  - Shoue 5y ago
    "Free speech" is not a good example in my opinion when we already have so many exceptions to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... I'll reconsider not defending free speech from getting a "hate speech" exception when so called "free speech" proponents start talking about getting rid of the copyright exception instead of just wanting to say racist stuff. It makes complete sense to want to expand the scope of terms that are associated with laws if you don't believe the law is accurate enough. Language evolves through social changes, and so do laws.
9dev 5y ago
> Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data? If a business model depends on spying on users, it's not sustainable, and moreover, it's illegal in the EU. People are not giving their data away freely if they have a) no way of understanding the consequences of clicking a single button, b) get tricked into consenting using dark patterns, and c) their refusal to consent isn't even obeyed (TCF loads tracking scripts before users can consent). In general, one of the requirements of the GDPR is that all information on usage of provided data has to be written in simple, comprehensible terms. Please tell me how you knew the implications of giving consent on a IAB site, namely your data being shared and sold across thousands of companies. If even techies fail to understand that, how can anyone expect that of ordinary people, our parents, kids? It should be clear that with a law like the GDPR in effect, the IAB is acting unlawfully.
vurpo 5y ago
"freely giving away their data" is a misrepresentation. People are either putting up with their data being collected, or unaware that it is happening, because that is the only way many services can be accessed nowadays. I bet you couldn't find a single person off the street who would answer "yes" if asked whether they go on the internet specifically to give personal information to ad companies. Or, to put it more briefly: "How is it spying when the White House employees freely hung up our gift painting with the bug in it on their wall?"

the_mitsuhiko 5y ago

How does anyone have a choice in this?

Rygian 5y ago

> How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? The ruling has proved that no, people are not freely giving away their data. One of the infringing issues is that the system "Fails to properly request consent."

Nextgrid 5y ago
When consent is enforced by a system that can't be bypassed via dark patterns such as Apple's App Tracking Transparency, the actual opt-in rate is around 4%, suggesting that when given a proper choice users don't actually want to give away their data.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > around 4% Which, coincidentally, happens to be Lizardman’s Constant. https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

parkingrift 5y ago

>According to who, you? Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware. >How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data? It’s not “freely given away” when you need a team of attorneys to understand what you’ve agreed to and you have no audit rights. Point me to the public FB page where they clearly and easily define all points of data they collect. > Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information. Quite absurd to take this position after big tech companies ruined the internet economy with their spyware model. Is it your position that these companies were just responding to consumer demand to unknowingly give up their data in exchange for free services? >Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? The only reason we have this spyware economy is because tech companies thought it easier to grow their enterprise off spyware than selling a legitimate product at a price.

Permit 5y ago
> Spyware is illegal. So it’s just a matter of defining the data collection practices of internet companies as spyware. I’ve seen this phenomenon before but never so explicitly. When you can’t convince someone that something is bad, you re-define it as something they do consider bad. Some examples I’ve seen: - Some speech is so hateful and racist that its opponents wish to define it as “violence”. - Facebook offers advertisers the ability to target the demographics their ads reach. Some have tried to term this as “selling your data”. In this case, it’s clear the average person doesn’t hold data collection in such low esteem as yourself, so you must redefine it as “spyware” in order to convince them. This subtle shift is in interesting to me, but it leaves me unconvinced. Words are not violence. Facebook does not sell data. Data collection is not the same as spyware.
- Shoue 5y ago
  "Free speech" is not a good example in my opinion when we already have so many exceptions to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... I'll reconsider not defending free speech from getting a "hate speech" exception when so called "free speech" proponents start talking about getting rid of the copyright exception instead of just wanting to say racist stuff. It makes complete sense to want to expand the scope of terms that are associated with laws if you don't believe the law is accurate enough. Language evolves through social changes, and so do laws.

9dev 5y ago

> Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data? If a business model depends on spying on users, it's not sustainable, and moreover, it's illegal in the EU. People are not giving their data away freely if they have a) no way of understanding the consequences of clicking a single button, b) get tricked into consenting using dark patterns, and c) their refusal to consent isn't even obeyed (TCF loads tracking scripts before users can consent). In general, one of the requirements of the GDPR is that all information on usage of provided data has to be written in simple, comprehensible terms. Please tell me how you knew the implications of giving consent on a IAB site, namely your data being shared and sold across thousands of companies. If even techies fail to understand that, how can anyone expect that of ordinary people, our parents, kids? It should be clear that with a law like the GDPR in effect, the IAB is acting unlawfully.

vurpo 5y ago

"freely giving away their data" is a misrepresentation. People are either putting up with their data being collected, or unaware that it is happening, because that is the only way many services can be accessed nowadays. I bet you couldn't find a single person off the street who would answer "yes" if asked whether they go on the internet specifically to give personal information to ad companies. Or, to put it more briefly: "How is it spying when the White House employees freely hung up our gift painting with the bug in it on their wall?"