An argument that companies should pay users for their data • Hacker News Board

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#71

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #34

crispyporkbites wrote: post #19

The thing is, I don't actually have my data. Perhaps if I collected it and stored it, perhaps put it behind an accessible API and supplied Google et al with an API key to access it I might have a case for charging them for it.

It's worse than that. We currently don't even have the right to determine who has our data, or how its being exploited. The remedy, of course, is to establish intrinsic properties rights over our own data. No different than copyrights. Maybe we need a new catchphrase. I propose bodyrights . It captures the notions of self, privacy, identity, and sovereignty all in one.

PII, Personal Identifiable Information, is the phrase I know for this.

I'd like to see a requirement for all companies receiving PII to issue an account of how they use it and who it's sold to, those receiving your PII would also have an obligation to notify you, and offer access to the same audit data (how they're using it, who they got it from, who they gave/sold it to).

Legit companies would then leak information, by design, showing companies using/selling your data without notifying you.

Real fines like those anticipated in the GDPR would be needed to encourage companies to adhere to the legislation.

/ifiwereemperoroftheworld

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#72

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #69

sharemywin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as long as we as consumers and employees act as individuals and for profit companies act has collectives we will always be at a huge negotiating dis-advantage. The idea that corporations = people is foolish and obviously leading to a reality that doesn't fit the model.

The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil. "Oh, yes we harvested your data from all the sites you visited and used it to manipulate you in to buying stuff that harms your livelihood (gambling, say), but it's the _company_ that did it and so none of the controlling executives can be blamed!"

[deleted]

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#73

Post by fwdpropaganda » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:21 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #66

fwdpropaganda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance. Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in…

>part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers // Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

> Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

Not sure if your question is rhetorical or what. When you say "who else will pay "my" advertising bill". Who's "you" in this context? Are you a company, and consumer, what?

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#74

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

Similar to Betteridge's Law of Headlines:

Any time a question has a "shouldn't", the answer is usually no.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#75

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #70

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation. It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again. Man…

I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation. Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.

What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#76

Post by paulcole » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

You are being compensated for it. You get to use Facebook, Gmail, Google Search, etc. without taking out your wallet.

Want more compensation? You’re free to negotiate or take your data elsewhere to a higher bidder.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#77

Post by wybiral » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #75

wybiral wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation. Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.

What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.

I mean on an individual basis.

And I'm skeptical about your assessment that this is merely a problem with "Western Capitalism". This is a problem of any system that doesn't have proper regulations to define the rules of the game in a fair way.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#78

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #36

wpasc wrote: post #6

The media portrayal of the tech world would be more impactful if it weren't so hyperbolic, dramatized, and skewed. There are myriad valid complaints about the tech world, but Facebook paying you for you posting your photos is not one of them. Facebook is free. Google search is free. 15gb of gmail/google drive is free. You get those free, truly amazing services for nothing because the companies found ways to generate…

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And frankly I don't mind the ads, by principle, but I do mind that a few companies are able to use them to track us nearly everywhere online without allowing me to review what the…

>For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal.

"fair" is practically a weasel word. It doesn't have a universal standard. It doesn't mean anything until you explain what you consider to be fair. I once read a book on negotiations that called it "the F-word" - it was warning you to be wary of people using the word against you.

Think of this as a transaction between two parties doing business together. When business A is making a deal with business B, then A is not entitled to know how much money B will make out of it. It's perfectly fine to ask, but B not answering is very much within the rules (and is the norm). It is your job to do your own research to figure out how valuable your information is to them.

I also often see an attitude of "They make $20/year from the information I give them. So I should have the option to pay them $20/year for not tracking me." No business deal works that way. Each party sets their own requirements. If you demand that they offer paid services to stop tracking you, they get to say "No - you're welcome to use someone else's service if they give you that kind of a deal"

Finally, the way negotiations work: The focus will not be on what they make from your money, but how much you are willing to pay for the services you receive. The majority of people I know will not pay $10/mo for their email service. So the fact that Google may make $30/year from your use of Gmail is irrelevant. This is your BATNA.

>Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways.

And in how many ways are they paying you in services? Far more, I imagine.

>Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays.

We probably hang out in different crowds, but while government monitoring did make the news, the percentage of people I personally know who cared about it was less than those I know who say "I'm using a service other than the one provided by Google because they're already tracking me in so many ways".

BTW, although I use some Google services, by and large I do not. I do not actively use Gmail. It was very difficult for me to get used to the idea of letting them get to me via Android. I don't use my account on Youtube. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't use Twitter. I pay for my own email and web services. I tend to have privacy extensions on my browser. I don't use Whatsapp. My life is not at all miserable.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#79

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #77

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.

I mean on an individual basis. And I'm skeptical about your assessment that this is merely a problem with "Western Capitalism". This is a problem of any system that doesn't have proper regulations to define the rules of the game in a fair way.

I'm not restricting the domain because i know it doesn't apply elsewhere, only because I'm not familiar with the nuances of other systems.

Re: An argument that companies should pay users for their data

#80

Post by cinquemb » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #63

I find the term "your data" bothersome. Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data". Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy, but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering.

I agree with what you are saying:

"So right away, let us cast aside the technological protocols, that are usually referred to as “the internet”, that of which was built upon that make accessing or publishing information public between two or more machines…

Because talking about such things would require most internet users to cast aside social constructs they willingly suspend on a daily basis upon engaging with such technology/services (without any care to understand for oneself, one might add) and then demand collectively in retrospect to have their cries pacified while continuing to use such services (of which, most for free).

Yup, let us look past all that and believe (because that’s all we can do for ourselves) that institutions/organizations/companies/governments, that all consist of our fellow human beings in all of our qualities and flaws, can provide for the individual that which he chooses not to do for himself, to a satisfactory level in which his desires are forever coddled and placated." "The Banality of Privacy As A Service" [0]

[0] http://pictobar.tumblr.com/post/63785124046/the-banality-of-...