21–30 of 67 posts
I'm pretty sure I have seen other apps do similar things. The data they are feeding them does seem to be mostly public data. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this, or how outraged / surprised I should be.
If Geofeedia was only using public data, easily available to anyone else, then Twitter and Facebook wouldn't have been able to cut off their access.
If the data is public, why is it a problem? If they're sending private info to cops, that's different, but a reasonable person expects all public info to be visible to the last person you want to see it. Theyre just feeding the customers the same data users can see in a more condensed form aren't they?
Also most people aren't aware that this level of access is even possible, much less that it's being sold to the highest bidder. Which in my opinion, is a problem.
[deleted]
I find it strange that it would be perfectly OK to sell this data to a commercial entity, but it's not OK to sell it to the government.
It does say a lot about how little people trust the police these days, though.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/cia-claims-it-can-predic...
This is a very messy, multi-layered issue. First of all, a large part of a social network's utility is derived from sharing data about oneself. This data is public, for the benefit of other participants of the social network. Some of those participants may have agendas that are contrary to one's own: stalkers, adversaries, data aggregators -- it's impossible to know all of them ahead of time, and a granularity of per…
Companies feel the need to sell our data because they are offered tons of money for it by other companies such as Geofeedia. I agree that the blame does not rest on Geofeedia alone, but they aren't innocent either. I don't know a good solution to this issue other than making it illegal to buy or sell information about users of public corporations' products.
This is a really complicated question, and probably results from a combination of:
1.) Consumers not having disposable income at all, because real wages for a large slice of the population have been stagnant or falling for a generation and necessities like housing, education, and health care keep going up.
2.) Consumers having certain expectations of what they can get "for free", and not wanting to pay money for things that competitors will offer for free.
3.) Consumers having a poor understanding of the long-term consequences of putting data out there, and what it can be used for.
4.) Network effects where even if a small minority of consumers are aware of the above and would rather pay for products, they can't because a majority of the market would rather pay with information rather than money.
If you just ban the sale of information outright, you will either end up with work-arounds (eg. Google doesn't sell information, but it sells better ad-targeting and behavior manipulation based on that information), or consumers will lose access to services that they depend upon for much of their daily life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies feel the need to sell our data because they are offered tons of money for it by other companies such as Geofeedia. I agree that the blame does not rest on Geofeedia alone, but they aren't innocent either. I don't know a good solution to this issue other than making it illegal to buy or sell information about users of public corporations' products.
The bigger issue is "why is it that companies can make more money selling personal data about consumers than selling products to consumers?" If companies had a viable business model that involved ordinary consumers paying money for services rendered, then their responsibility would be to the people paying them money, i.e. the consumer. This is a really complicated question, and probably results from a combination of:…
I may not have a problem with Google collecting information about me and using it to target ads. I do have a problem with Google turning around and selling that information to just anyone. I think there is a distinction there that makes a difference. I may trust Google and choose to trust them with my information, but I don't necessarily trust their partners.
I'm pretty sure I have seen other apps do similar things. The data they are feeding them does seem to be mostly public data. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this, or how outraged / surprised I should be.
Just because the data is public doesn't mean it can be easily accessed or aggregated en-masse for real time survellience. If Geofeedia was only using public data, easily available to anyone else, then Twitter and Facebook wouldn't have been able to cut off their access.
Twitter sells access to their data. They can cancel that account, but the data is still public. Without the access contract it is inconvenient and against the terms of service to access in bulk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies feel the need to sell our data because they are offered tons of money for it by other companies such as Geofeedia. I agree that the blame does not rest on Geofeedia alone, but they aren't innocent either. I don't know a good solution to this issue other than making it illegal to buy or sell information about users of public corporations' products.
The bigger issue is "why is it that companies can make more money selling personal data about consumers than selling products to consumers?" If companies had a viable business model that involved ordinary consumers paying money for services rendered, then their responsibility would be to the people paying them money, i.e. the consumer. This is a really complicated question, and probably results from a combination of:…
Because advertising doesn't fulfill demand, it generates demand. It generates demand by preying on people when they are weak, when they are distracted, about what they are insecure, about what they are not knowledgeable.