4 ms·

Because behavioral psychology tests reveal that the public is both super-paranoid about being spied on and will sell their PII to anyone who asks in exchange fo

Because behavioral psychology tests reveal that the public is both super-paranoid about being spied on and will sell their PII to anyone who asks in exchange for a $5 discount at a store. It's hard to craft good law when the mismatch between public stated desire and public behavior is so wide.

johndhi 4y ago
Well put. We were given Facebook for free on the basis that they can advertise to us. We voted for behavioral advertising with our feet. Yet, we consume documentaries about how evil zuck is and love to hate him. But shouldn't we take both into account or just think about it hard once and then be done with it? We're wasting a lot of time and energy.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  History suggests that trying to fit a "once and for all" solution atop a populace in disagreement results in disaster.
dybber 4y ago
It shouldn't be by law, it should just be part of web standards that you can set your cookies preferences once and for all and all websites should respect that setting. I guess browser vendors and whoever else sits in these W3 consortiums like their cookies too much.
- johndhi 4y ago
  Agreed, though the issue is that the very same technology can be used for perfectly acceptable and desired use cases (online shopping cart) or distasteful ones (behavioral advertising). So it's hard to set a strict standard.
- rolph 4y ago
  always poison your cookies when your done with them.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  This was attempted with the "Do Not Track" header, but that initiative collapsed (lack of vendor support, lack of clarity in the spec regarding what it meant to not "track" someone, and ultimately it got yanked from Safari because it was yet another bit that malicious site operators could use for browser fingerprinting purposes). The "Global Privacy Control" header is apparently the second attempt to cook this goose.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    The fundamental flaw to the DNT was the lack of any sort of penalty for non-compliance. There was no penalty for individual advertisers from either the government or from industry bodies. There was also no penalty to the advertising industry as a whole in the form of more stringent privacy laws.
- cush 4y ago
  Absolutely should have been built into the browser
- Xelbair 4y ago
  If only there was such thing, maybe call it 'do not track', and put it in the header of request. Oh wait - it was a thing, and was used as just another data point for tracking.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> that the public is both super-paranoid about being spied on and will sell their PII to anyone who asks in exchange for a $5 discount You raise an interesting point about this apparent disconnect. > Because behavioural psychology tests reveal What do you know abot these "psychology tests"? Isn't the reality that both things you assert are really inferences based on anecdotal tales on forums like this one? Do you know of any large-scale cross cultural, long term studies that show who will part with sensitive private data for small compensation? How are these studies controlled for situation, perceived reward, time pressure, trust levels? What do we really know about widespread beliefs regarding the misuse of data? What are people's threat models? How do they assess harm? I'm not disputing the truth of what you say - both ring true. I think we instinctively know all rational people are strongly anti-surveillance. For complex social reasons we humans dislike creeps and snoops and treat them as social outcasts. But we also know that many people will sell their grandmother for a slight convenience or advantage. Do these two facets really clash, and if so why? > It's hard to craft good law when the mismatch between public stated desire and public behaviour is so wide. Is is though? Aren't both positions reconcilable if people make no causal link between the two? What if people just don't have the capacity to make that connection? Could good laws still protect them in the way that laws about asbestos protect people from harms related to chemistry and disease they cannot possibly understand?
- gretch 4y ago
  > Could good laws still protect them in the way that laws about asbestos protect people from harms related to chemistry and disease they cannot possibly understand? They may not understand the chemical mechanisms, but the end effect is super easy to understand: “hey if you breath this in you get cancer”; “hey if you eat this, you die” Compared to the threat of something like cookies… “hey if you let these companies spy on you then…?”
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > hey if you let these companies spy on you then.... Then you'll suffer multiple digital, and eventually physical harms; - You'll lose money on bandwidth that's robbed from you - you'll lose access to goods and services on the basis of calculated prejudice - you risk identity theft, impersonation, having loans taken out in your name... - you'll be exposed to manipulation, targeted disinformation - you'll experience increased targeted attacks like phishing - friends, relatives, spouse and others close to you will also be targeted - your time will be wasted dealing with more spam and nuisance - you will lose CPU, memory and battery life as the concrete resources of your devices are given over to the advertising burden - you will eventually suffer tangible harms, loss of employment, impacted credit score, loss of medical access... Sure, it needs more words to explain. Not quite so punchy and succinct as the real deal. But digital cancer caused by these companies' products can well be explained to the average "consumer" if they just stuck an ugly picture on the carton of a destitute homeless guy and the message "Surveillance capitalism can ruin your life".
hackernewds 4y ago
Additionally there's also a mismatch between what is good for the public versus what the public will end up choosing (due to ignorance or carelessness). This is illustrated in your first example. Good laws will protect the public from themselves, even at the cost of supposed freedoms (think schedule A drugs, production, revenge porn, tobacco).
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Should I think alcohol and marijuana also?
chickenimprint 4y ago
My carrier literally bugs me about giving away more and more personal info for 5 bucks every 2 months. They must have heard of the same research. They also ask for consent to receive "advice" and term it "our gift to you". I wonder how many people must fall for it.
Matumio 4y ago
> It's hard to craft good law when the mismatch between public stated desire and public behavior is so wide. Some people would also sell their right to vote for $5 if that was legal. It's not hard to make such a law. You simply could make it illegal e.g. to offer money for PII during a purchase that doesn't strictly require it. Or to not respect the automatically transmitted cookie choice. Those who oppose such laws are the lobbyists of the big companies, not "the people".
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The last time a state tried to outlaw "selling your right to vote," the consequence is they banned people providing food and water to folks standing in too-long lines at the polls. This was not good law. Badly-thought-out law has unintended consequences (or even maliciously-crafted intentional consequences at the cost to the public). https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3709676-is-it-illegal-to-hand-out-water-or-food-outside-your-polling-place/ https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3709676-is-i...

johndhi 4y ago

Well put. We were given Facebook for free on the basis that they can advertise to us. We voted for behavioral advertising with our feet. Yet, we consume documentaries about how evil zuck is and love to hate him. But shouldn't we take both into account or just think about it hard once and then be done with it? We're wasting a lot of time and energy.

shadowgovt 4y ago
History suggests that trying to fit a "once and for all" solution atop a populace in disagreement results in disaster.

dybber 4y ago

It shouldn't be by law, it should just be part of web standards that you can set your cookies preferences once and for all and all websites should respect that setting. I guess browser vendors and whoever else sits in these W3 consortiums like their cookies too much.

johndhi 4y ago
Agreed, though the issue is that the very same technology can be used for perfectly acceptable and desired use cases (online shopping cart) or distasteful ones (behavioral advertising). So it's hard to set a strict standard.
rolph 4y ago
always poison your cookies when your done with them.
shadowgovt 4y ago
This was attempted with the "Do Not Track" header, but that initiative collapsed (lack of vendor support, lack of clarity in the spec regarding what it meant to not "track" someone, and ultimately it got yanked from Safari because it was yet another bit that malicious site operators could use for browser fingerprinting purposes). The "Global Privacy Control" header is apparently the second attempt to cook this goose.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The fundamental flaw to the DNT was the lack of any sort of penalty for non-compliance. There was no penalty for individual advertisers from either the government or from industry bodies. There was also no penalty to the advertising industry as a whole in the form of more stringent privacy laws.
cush 4y ago
Absolutely should have been built into the browser
Xelbair 4y ago
If only there was such thing, maybe call it 'do not track', and put it in the header of request. Oh wait - it was a thing, and was used as just another data point for tracking.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> that the public is both super-paranoid about being spied on and will sell their PII to anyone who asks in exchange for a $5 discount You raise an interesting point about this apparent disconnect. > Because behavioural psychology tests reveal What do you know abot these "psychology tests"? Isn't the reality that both things you assert are really inferences based on anecdotal tales on forums like this one? Do you know of any large-scale cross cultural, long term studies that show who will part with sensitive private data for small compensation? How are these studies controlled for situation, perceived reward, time pressure, trust levels? What do we really know about widespread beliefs regarding the misuse of data? What are people's threat models? How do they assess harm? I'm not disputing the truth of what you say - both ring true. I think we instinctively know all rational people are strongly anti-surveillance. For complex social reasons we humans dislike creeps and snoops and treat them as social outcasts. But we also know that many people will sell their grandmother for a slight convenience or advantage. Do these two facets really clash, and if so why? > It's hard to craft good law when the mismatch between public stated desire and public behaviour is so wide. Is is though? Aren't both positions reconcilable if people make no causal link between the two? What if people just don't have the capacity to make that connection? Could good laws still protect them in the way that laws about asbestos protect people from harms related to chemistry and disease they cannot possibly understand?

gretch 4y ago
> Could good laws still protect them in the way that laws about asbestos protect people from harms related to chemistry and disease they cannot possibly understand? They may not understand the chemical mechanisms, but the end effect is super easy to understand: “hey if you breath this in you get cancer”; “hey if you eat this, you die” Compared to the threat of something like cookies… “hey if you let these companies spy on you then…?”
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > hey if you let these companies spy on you then.... Then you'll suffer multiple digital, and eventually physical harms; - You'll lose money on bandwidth that's robbed from you - you'll lose access to goods and services on the basis of calculated prejudice - you risk identity theft, impersonation, having loans taken out in your name... - you'll be exposed to manipulation, targeted disinformation - you'll experience increased targeted attacks like phishing - friends, relatives, spouse and others close to you will also be targeted - your time will be wasted dealing with more spam and nuisance - you will lose CPU, memory and battery life as the concrete resources of your devices are given over to the advertising burden - you will eventually suffer tangible harms, loss of employment, impacted credit score, loss of medical access... Sure, it needs more words to explain. Not quite so punchy and succinct as the real deal. But digital cancer caused by these companies' products can well be explained to the average "consumer" if they just stuck an ugly picture on the carton of a destitute homeless guy and the message "Surveillance capitalism can ruin your life".

hackernewds 4y ago

Additionally there's also a mismatch between what is good for the public versus what the public will end up choosing (due to ignorance or carelessness). This is illustrated in your first example. Good laws will protect the public from themselves, even at the cost of supposed freedoms (think schedule A drugs, production, revenge porn, tobacco).

shadowgovt 4y ago
Should I think alcohol and marijuana also?

chickenimprint 4y ago

My carrier literally bugs me about giving away more and more personal info for 5 bucks every 2 months. They must have heard of the same research. They also ask for consent to receive "advice" and term it "our gift to you". I wonder how many people must fall for it.

Matumio 4y ago

> It's hard to craft good law when the mismatch between public stated desire and public behavior is so wide. Some people would also sell their right to vote for $5 if that was legal. It's not hard to make such a law. You simply could make it illegal e.g. to offer money for PII during a purchase that doesn't strictly require it. Or to not respect the automatically transmitted cookie choice. Those who oppose such laws are the lobbyists of the big companies, not "the people".

shadowgovt 4y ago
The last time a state tried to outlaw "selling your right to vote," the consequence is they banned people providing food and water to folks standing in too-long lines at the polls. This was not good law. Badly-thought-out law has unintended consequences (or even maliciously-crafted intentional consequences at the cost to the public). https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3709676-is-it-illegal-to-hand-out-water-or-food-outside-your-polling-place/ https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3709676-is-i...