Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An argument that companies should pay users for their data

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

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

#111

Post by PeterisP »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #4

Seems like an is ought question that is long settled: look at the credit reporting agencies. We may be doing impressive new things and figuring out how to learn a lot more about people, but who owns data on a person is a dead and buried question.

The fact that credit reporting agencies currently are obviously abusing data that they're not able to safeguard doesn't mean that the question is dead and buried, quite the opposite - it means that the role of credit reporting agencies will have to change as their abilities will eventually get legally restricted and they won't be able to continue in this manner.

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

#112

Post by sharemywin »

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.

I just said it wasn't free and we pay extra with a markup. if we just paid for it and had choices we would pay a lot less that's all I'm saying. or some kind of buying club.

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

#113

Post by will_brown »

montrose wrote: post #2

There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means. It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed…

The funny thing is based on the way you described belong...it really made me realize the collection of data really seems to be eerily similar to this definition:

>Obtaining information with reference to the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation, or character of any society, person of groups of persons.

Guess what that is? It’s, in part, the statutory (legal) definition of private investigator, which is prohibited by law without a license.

So sure under the law we don’t necessarily own that data about ourselves, but the collection of the data is highly regulated for a reason. Obviously tech companies obtain user consent to collect data (at least some of the time), but if PI’s can be regulated in their activities so can a tech company or digital product, and it’s not to difficult to see regulations that say a tech company can’t collect user data and turn around and sell it to third parties.

I am curious though, how exactly would such a legal framework be a disaster in your opinion?

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

#114

Post by PeterisP »

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.

At least the European legal perspective is that yes, there actually is such a concept as "your data" that is inherently yours and you have certain rights pertaining to that data no matter what - allowing your interests and rights to that data override what others can do with that data even if they have it and obtained it legally. Legal possession of private data doesn't imply unrestricted right to use that data for all purposes.

For example, even if it was originally gathered with your permission, that permission can be revoked; EU GDPR will clarify the exact process of how that can be done.

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

#115

Post by afpx »

ftlio wrote: post #99
afpx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Because I find your emphatic endorsement hard to understand. To be fair, I do use some of these services, too (carefully). But, that’s only because often I can’t find quality alternatives. For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none. Since gather…

> For instance, I would pay for a high-quality service like Mint (I don’t use it) that kept my data private, but there is none. Have you looked at ynab.com? I find their overall philosophy on budgeting to be more effective, the app is high quality, and it's solely about your budget, not about offering you credit cards. It's one of the few products I recommend to anyone, and it's relatively expensive ($85 for the year…

I have tried it, but I didn’t think it was as useful for me personally. That is, I don’t need a budget. Instead, I need a high-usability, interactive visualization of all of my accounts (12+) with relatively accurate categorizations and alerts. But, I’d like to pay less than $49 / month.

I would try to start a service like this myself, but I don’t think the market is large enough to make it usable.

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

#116

Post by ancap »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #102
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.

"Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data"." Yes it does. "Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy" That it is. " 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." And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?

>Yes it does.

While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced.

>And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?

You didn't need to because they never stored "your data".

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

#117

Post by rhizome »

taneq wrote: post #7
montrose wrote: post #2

There's a whole genre of articles based on conflating two senses of "your," belonging to you, and about you. If I observe that you have blue eyes, that's a fact about you, but it doesn't belong to you, at least not without redefining what "belong" means. It would be helpful if, instead of deliberately conflating these two senses of "your," articles on this subject went in the other direction and explicitly discussed…

And here you're conflating "public facts about you" with "facts that only your cell phone / mattress / underpants / web browser know about you." "Facts about you" falls into at least two categories: "Facts which you want and reasonably expect to remain private", and "facts which you display to the world and have no expectation of privacy about."

Which is fine as far as semantics go, but in the context of this thread the first category doesn't exist unless you're under 13 and in the US, or subject to the GDPR, or a few other nooks and crannies of international laws.

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

#118

Post by tinymollusk »

tsumnia wrote: post #62

I've had this discussion with people before. It both sounds good and not depending on the viewpoint. The good is already spoken about in the article - I generate data that a company is in turn using to make money. The analogy I have used before is imagine if I owned land and ate apples on that land. If the apple seeds I spit out grew, I'd have apple trees. It would be bothersome to me if the state came in and sold al…

I think your analogy would be more apt if you were spitting seeds onto public property, and the state took the trees. Or even further: you spit seeds (your data) onto Google's property while they gave you a free tram ride to the other side.

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

#119

Post by ancap »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #93
ancap wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First, do you or anyone you know directly or indirectly profit from these types of services? Of course. No one would be using them if they weren't better off from using them.

The idea that people are perfectly rational actors with perfect information has long since been debunked.

Sure people are rational, even though you as an external actor may not agree with their motives. Even a schizophrenic is rational given what they have to work with.

I'm not sure what perfect information has to do with anything. It's impossible that perfect information could ever exist.

Post reply on HN