3 ms·
Sure they happen, but this should trigger class action lawsuits. "We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company
by aeternum 3y ago
Sure they happen, but this should trigger class action lawsuits.
"We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company is sold. Companies should be required to say "We don't sell your data unless acquired" or "We don't sell your data now but might in the future".
Allowing consumers to make an informed choice is critical for properly functioning free markets, let's enforce this.
- rpbiwer2 3y agoAgreed, "we will not sell your data" is a straight up lie if you eventually end up selling the data.
- JohnFen 3y agoSure, I agree. But in the meantime, it's on us to protect ourselves as best we can.
- noizejoy 3y agoIsn’t this one of those moral hazards? i.e. Encouraging everyone to protect themselves inadvertently slows down the fixing of the root problem?
- JohnFen 3y agoI don't see how the two things are remotely mutually exclusive. I think to tell people they should remain at risk while a larger solution is developed sounds extremely unwise and a bit unfair.
- noizejoy 3y agoAgreed: Conceptually not mutually exclusive, but in practice, it would seem that problems only get fixed when they get pretty bad (squeaky wheels syndrome). I’m personally very torn on this subject. In smaller circles where I have relationships, it’s easy: publish and recommend the workaround protection. But in humanity at large I’d really like the underlying problem to get fixed rather sooner than later?
- JohnFen 3y agoI hear what you're saying. Personally, I don't feel that I have any right to tell others that they need to put themselves at risk in order to make the conditions right for accelerated change. But I do agree that simply engaging in self-protection without also doing what you can to actually change the situation is ethically dubious.
- kokanee 3y agoPlaying devil's advocate, maybe they would argue that "we" refers to the organization that operates the service, and that in the event that the ownership of the organization changes, the statement could still be true - "we" did not sell your data, but during the acquisition "we" were sold.
- JohnFen 3y agoI'm sure that's exactly the argument they would make. But I think it flies in the face of logic by implying that the data a company has is not part of the sale, the value of that data is not priced into the sale price of the company, and the purchasing company does not take ownership of that data. It isn't rare for one company to buy another entirely so they can get the customer data.