3 ms·

No, the problem is that they don't really have an alternative. To give none of your information to banks, email providers, ISPs, cell service providers, etc. is

No, the problem is that they don't really have an alternative. To give none of your information to banks, email providers, ISPs, cell service providers, etc. is to remove yourself from society.

JohnFen 3y ago
> the problem is that they don't really have an alternative. In situations where there isn't an alternative, consent is impossible.
- 20after4 3y ago
  Companies, courts, and for the most part the congress, obviously don't seem to care. (In the USA, at least. Europe sort of seems to care but even then I'm not sure the solutions have been adequate / appropriate)
20after4 3y ago
This is the key right here. There should be a clear way to withhold consent because implicit agreement isn't good enough for the kind of data collection and aggregation that is happening.
lumb63 3y ago
I’m not sure of your personal skills, abilities, and background, so this is more of a general call to action: Why not create an alternative? I’ve often heard people talk of a lack of alternatives to certain services, so they use them begrudgingly, or boycott them at large personal cost. But it doesn’t have to be this way. There is nothing that I’m aware of that says banks or digital service providers need to collect any more information than is necessary to provide the service they offer. It seems to me that, at least in a this niche community there is a desire for privacy-respecting products and services. A company that oriented itself around meeting that demand would be, I suspect, very lucrative.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >There is nothing that I’m aware of that says banks or digital service providers need to collect any more information than is necessary to provide the service they offer And what about all the information that is necessary to provide the service they offer, like the real-time location of everyone's cell phone and who calls who when and for how long or all the DNS requests? Sure, a company doesn't have to retain this information and market it for resale, but providing these sorts of services necessarily entails access to a lot of information that most people would consider private, but which the third party doctrine says isn't.

No, the problem is that they don't really have an alternative. To give none of your information to banks, email providers, ISPs, cell service providers, etc. is to remove yourself from society.

JohnFen 3y ago

> the problem is that they don't really have an alternative. In situations where there isn't an alternative, consent is impossible.

20after4 3y ago
Companies, courts, and for the most part the congress, obviously don't seem to care. (In the USA, at least. Europe sort of seems to care but even then I'm not sure the solutions have been adequate / appropriate)

20after4 3y ago

This is the key right here. There should be a clear way to withhold consent because implicit agreement isn't good enough for the kind of data collection and aggregation that is happening.

lumb63 3y ago

I’m not sure of your personal skills, abilities, and background, so this is more of a general call to action: Why not create an alternative? I’ve often heard people talk of a lack of alternatives to certain services, so they use them begrudgingly, or boycott them at large personal cost. But it doesn’t have to be this way. There is nothing that I’m aware of that says banks or digital service providers need to collect any more information than is necessary to provide the service they offer. It seems to me that, at least in a this niche community there is a desire for privacy-respecting products and services. A company that oriented itself around meeting that demand would be, I suspect, very lucrative.

thfuran 3y ago
>There is nothing that I’m aware of that says banks or digital service providers need to collect any more information than is necessary to provide the service they offer And what about all the information that is necessary to provide the service they offer, like the real-time location of everyone's cell phone and who calls who when and for how long or all the DNS requests? Sure, a company doesn't have to retain this information and market it for resale, but providing these sorts of services necessarily entails access to a lot of information that most people would consider private, but which the third party doctrine says isn't.