3 ms·

Given the actual informed and uncoerced choice, people say no to this kind of collection and especially its sale or use for any purpose other than the explicit

Given the actual informed and uncoerced choice, people say no to this kind of collection and especially its sale or use for any purpose other than the explicit service they thought they were allowing it for (navigation, setting the time, etc etc). This is true for basically all information collected. I'm glad to see there is some minor protection language being included but it needs to have real teeth and get to the point. If you collect data from me under false pretenses or using coercive methods (you can't use the thing you just paid a lot of money for if you say no) you will not only be fined but criminally prosecuted.

amatecha 3mo ago
Completely agreed. Even for people who are like "I have nothing to hide", the only people who think this way are simply unaware of just how much harm can come to them without the protection of privacy (and laws that ensure this)... or they just have no self-preservation instinct, I guess?
- Affric 3mo ago
  So, aside from nothing to hide domestic/family violence and stalking, the fact that they can and will build an inference about you to attempt to influence your choices is fundamentally menacing to every person. Corporate stalking has become so normalised (and provides so many livings) that we are through the other side. Half a millennium ago they tried to control us by restricting our access to information to control what we think, now they bombard us with it to control what we think.
- xor_589 3mo ago
  The "I have nothing to hide people" are the reason our privacy rights have eroded.
- dotancohen 3mo ago
  > or they just have no self-preservation instinct I actually feel this way very often when talking to some younger people online. I wonder if they really competely lack this skill, or their desire for upvotes online leads to them expressing compassionate, but stupid and dangerous, conclusions.
  - Forgeties79 3mo ago
    They didn’t grow up before all this was completely normal. And before we throw too many stones at them, we should all maybe consider how many of us in this thread contribute to the “attention economy” in one form or another, most of which drives everyone into the corral to have their data collected. It’s easy to point fingers at young people and treat them as ignorant/not caring about what matters, but they were born into and grew up in the world we built and continue to build.
s1artibartfast 3mo ago
What's the limit of coercion? Can someone provide a product that loudly says "we will sell your geolocation data" on checkout? Is it coercion if you simply want the product?
- Retric 3mo ago
  Yes. Paying the money the data is worth isn’t coercive, linking some other transaction to selling your location data is. This includes having a discount larger than what your location data is worth. IE: I’ll sell you this car for 50k, o you want it without location tracking that will be 150k.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    If thats the standard, then I suggest people find a less polarizing word with a clearer definition. Putting the semantics aside, Who decides what it is worth and to whom? Why wouldn't a company sell a car without geodata for what it is worth? Maybe it is worth 150k to them because that is what some people will pay the maximum return price point for that package?
    - jmward01 3mo ago
      There is a valid debate but the example I gave clearly coerced the consumer. They had paid for something with the expectation of use and then were hit with a requirement to give consent after the transaction. We shouldn't let some grey area prevent us from stopping the ongoing harm. One side has clearly been abusing the other. If a law goes just a little to far in favor of the consumer I think we can all agree that is better than letting the consumer be completely abused without protections. You don't let an attacker keep punching their victim because we gotta get the laws perfect to act to stop them. Act and reduce the harm and then adjust to get the balance right.
    - Retric 3mo ago
      One of the major things courts do is price stuff, ie how much is a lost leg worth. The question isn’t what’s the value of not being tracked, the question is what’s tracking data itself is worth. Here what the company actually makes selling the data puts an actual price on what that data is worth. If you can make 50$/year selling the data and want to pay someone 40$ to be tracked that’s a reasonable transaction, if you want to charge them 1,000$/year not to be tracked than it’s no longer about what the data itself is worth.
andai 3mo ago
If I was rich, wouldn't I just pay the fines though? I hear about megacops fined billions of dollars every year for doing this shit they don't give a fuck Edit: Okay my brain processed the information now, criminal prosecution sounds like slightly more deterrence. (Nobody would do an illegal thing, after all ;)
- dsl 3mo ago
  Criminal prosecution isn't even an issue because it does not extend to the executives. PG&E somehow keeps paying fines to resolve murder charges. https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-history-of-the-largest-utility-monopoly-in-the-u-s/ https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...
  - toss1 3mo ago
    Hence, the alleged action of Luigi Mangione. If the law of the government doesn't catch up, eventually the law of the jungle will. But maybe not in their lifetimes. As President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
    - 8note 3mo ago
      it remains hard to imagine a jury that would convict, fully knowing he actually killed the mass murderer. reasonable doubt might almost work againt mangione
      - toss1 3mo ago
        Yup. All it will take is one juror who understands Jury Nullification [0,1], and they've got at best a hung jury mistrial... [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

amatecha 3mo ago

Completely agreed. Even for people who are like "I have nothing to hide", the only people who think this way are simply unaware of just how much harm can come to them without the protection of privacy (and laws that ensure this)... or they just have no self-preservation instinct, I guess?

Affric 3mo ago
So, aside from nothing to hide domestic/family violence and stalking, the fact that they can and will build an inference about you to attempt to influence your choices is fundamentally menacing to every person. Corporate stalking has become so normalised (and provides so many livings) that we are through the other side. Half a millennium ago they tried to control us by restricting our access to information to control what we think, now they bombard us with it to control what we think.
xor_589 3mo ago
The "I have nothing to hide people" are the reason our privacy rights have eroded.
dotancohen 3mo ago
> or they just have no self-preservation instinct I actually feel this way very often when talking to some younger people online. I wonder if they really competely lack this skill, or their desire for upvotes online leads to them expressing compassionate, but stupid and dangerous, conclusions.
- Forgeties79 3mo ago
  They didn’t grow up before all this was completely normal. And before we throw too many stones at them, we should all maybe consider how many of us in this thread contribute to the “attention economy” in one form or another, most of which drives everyone into the corral to have their data collected. It’s easy to point fingers at young people and treat them as ignorant/not caring about what matters, but they were born into and grew up in the world we built and continue to build.

s1artibartfast 3mo ago

What's the limit of coercion? Can someone provide a product that loudly says "we will sell your geolocation data" on checkout? Is it coercion if you simply want the product?

Retric 3mo ago
Yes. Paying the money the data is worth isn’t coercive, linking some other transaction to selling your location data is. This includes having a discount larger than what your location data is worth. IE: I’ll sell you this car for 50k, o you want it without location tracking that will be 150k.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  If thats the standard, then I suggest people find a less polarizing word with a clearer definition. Putting the semantics aside, Who decides what it is worth and to whom? Why wouldn't a company sell a car without geodata for what it is worth? Maybe it is worth 150k to them because that is what some people will pay the maximum return price point for that package?
  - jmward01 3mo ago
    There is a valid debate but the example I gave clearly coerced the consumer. They had paid for something with the expectation of use and then were hit with a requirement to give consent after the transaction. We shouldn't let some grey area prevent us from stopping the ongoing harm. One side has clearly been abusing the other. If a law goes just a little to far in favor of the consumer I think we can all agree that is better than letting the consumer be completely abused without protections. You don't let an attacker keep punching their victim because we gotta get the laws perfect to act to stop them. Act and reduce the harm and then adjust to get the balance right.
  - Retric 3mo ago
    One of the major things courts do is price stuff, ie how much is a lost leg worth. The question isn’t what’s the value of not being tracked, the question is what’s tracking data itself is worth. Here what the company actually makes selling the data puts an actual price on what that data is worth. If you can make 50$/year selling the data and want to pay someone 40$ to be tracked that’s a reasonable transaction, if you want to charge them 1,000$/year not to be tracked than it’s no longer about what the data itself is worth.

andai 3mo ago

If I was rich, wouldn't I just pay the fines though? I hear about megacops fined billions of dollars every year for doing this shit they don't give a fuck Edit: Okay my brain processed the information now, criminal prosecution sounds like slightly more deterrence. (Nobody would do an illegal thing, after all ;)

dsl 3mo ago
Criminal prosecution isn't even an issue because it does not extend to the executives. PG&E somehow keeps paying fines to resolve murder charges. https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-history-of-the-largest-utility-monopoly-in-the-u-s/ https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...
- toss1 3mo ago
  Hence, the alleged action of Luigi Mangione. If the law of the government doesn't catch up, eventually the law of the jungle will. But maybe not in their lifetimes. As President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
  - 8note 3mo ago
    it remains hard to imagine a jury that would convict, fully knowing he actually killed the mass murderer. reasonable doubt might almost work againt mangione
    - toss1 3mo ago
      Yup. All it will take is one juror who understands Jury Nullification [0,1], and they've got at best a hung jury mistrial... [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification