3 ms·

Speculation: they might be questioning the implication that a paid surveillance program pushes data privacy/ownership values forward. Paying folks to be surveil

by reb 4y ago

Speculation: they might be questioning the implication that a paid surveillance program pushes data privacy/ownership values forward. Paying folks to be surveilled might be better than surveilling them without consent or reward, but it does incentivize the normalization of surveillance. And, depending on your economic beliefs, one could make the case it weaponizes the threat of poverty to drive that normalization.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Thanks for the constructive and insightful comment. I think there is some value to that perspective. My main disagreement is that in the US at least, I feel that corporate surveillance is already normalized. Given that, I think this is an incremental step away from non-consensual surveillance, or at least surveillance where the transactional aspect isn't obvious. Most people are already tracked by their phone apps, google, ect. It is normalized.
- reb 4y ago
  That's fair. I think, despite the normalization, there is still a general feeling the surveillance is non-consensual, and that basic skepticism might actually be more valuable than a meager payout for now-consensual surveillance. At $2/month, the exchange doesn't really do anything but pay to normalize the idea of a consumer market for selling your personal data. And as other comments on the post have pointed out, this is just the starting point. If people will consent to x for $2, consenting to y for $4 or $10 or $50 dollars is officially on the bargaining table. Deeper and deeper behavioral data will only become more desirable as the AI arms race heats up, so I'm confident we can expect surveillance demands to grow in the coming years. The outcomes for personal data markets are self-evident. I'm not about to agitate for laws against programs like these, but I don't think they're a good thing for society and they seem quite contrary to anything privacy advocates stand in favor of.
  - zephyros 4y ago
    > And, depending on your economic beliefs, one could make the case it weaponizes the threat of poverty to drive that normalization. As another commenter point out, this eerily reminds me of human organs trafficking. "People own their body, so shouldn't they be allowed to sell their organ?". We don't allow such things because this directly impacts people with low-income. Now admittedly one's organ is not comparable to one's information, but my stance on this is that privacy should be human rights, non negotiable.

by reb 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Thanks for the constructive and insightful comment. I think there is some value to that perspective. My main disagreement is that in the US at least, I feel that corporate surveillance is already normalized. Given that, I think this is an incremental step away from non-consensual surveillance, or at least surveillance where the transactional aspect isn't obvious. Most people are already tracked by their phone apps, google, ect. It is normalized.

reb 4y ago
That's fair. I think, despite the normalization, there is still a general feeling the surveillance is non-consensual, and that basic skepticism might actually be more valuable than a meager payout for now-consensual surveillance. At $2/month, the exchange doesn't really do anything but pay to normalize the idea of a consumer market for selling your personal data. And as other comments on the post have pointed out, this is just the starting point. If people will consent to x for $2, consenting to y for $4 or $10 or $50 dollars is officially on the bargaining table. Deeper and deeper behavioral data will only become more desirable as the AI arms race heats up, so I'm confident we can expect surveillance demands to grow in the coming years. The outcomes for personal data markets are self-evident. I'm not about to agitate for laws against programs like these, but I don't think they're a good thing for society and they seem quite contrary to anything privacy advocates stand in favor of.
- zephyros 4y ago
  > And, depending on your economic beliefs, one could make the case it weaponizes the threat of poverty to drive that normalization. As another commenter point out, this eerily reminds me of human organs trafficking. "People own their body, so shouldn't they be allowed to sell their organ?". We don't allow such things because this directly impacts people with low-income. Now admittedly one's organ is not comparable to one's information, but my stance on this is that privacy should be human rights, non negotiable.