I love it! The big tech SJW Comifornian citizens finally are getting a taste of the effects of their burdensome heavy handed California legislature. Good riddens. They pushed their data analytics tech to the edge and it finally blew up with legislation.
Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
381–390 of 553 posts
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…
> "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell the…
This is a strawman, you can still monetize without detailed user information, even still with ads.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…
Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data and don't think it's as damaging as cutting off our arms. It is true that there are things we are not allowed to freely exchange: kidneys, livers, most parts of our body. It is true that there are things we are allowed to relatively freely exchange: money, possessions, plasma, blood, and currently data. Lots of us feel that the data thing should be a…
> Because there's a large number of us who want to pay with that data
Okay, cool, don't opt out then. I on the other hand would prefer to see ads based on the content I'm viewing for which no other data from me needs to be passed around.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its intended to fuck over Facebook. If you're charging for a service you can simply offer a discount for allowing data collection after bumping prices for everyone by the same amount, Facebook however isn't charging. Facebook can't offer a discount on free, and they can't just force only users who opt-out to go pay (because that falls afoul of the first quote you put). Basically this puts Facebook in a real tight sit…
Opt-out for GDPR is under 1%. Most people don't care at the moment, sadly. However, a mass movement to opt-out would absolutely affect them. This lays the groundwork for that, and thats what they should be afraid of.
Is opt out given equal weighting or hidden 3 pages deep into "Learn more" > "manage preferences" while opt in is just an "ok" (or worse "X") away. the one site I know that gave that yes/no choice was Wikia, and they've converted to the dark patterns approach now too so presumably they saw their opt out rate as too high and were emboldened by others getting away with it
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#385this is a result of data analytics pushing the bleeding edge and passing what is decent and allowing their tech to enter the invasive and creepy realm.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…
> "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell the…
> Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so
How is this an argument against the law? It doesn't make it illegal to share data but requires that users can opt out. If said large majority is fine with surveillance, I guess Silicon Valley can relax.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…
> The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? > The only reason those services are being provided at all is to get that data. That's effectively a requirement that people provide services for free. We…
> Well, no — they could charge money for them. But even this is a false dilemma; surely we can come up with at least one business model other than "charge directly for our service" and "surveil our users".
No need to come up with something new, we had content based ads long before Google and Facebook took over.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Something" doesn't mean "anything". You can't offer your services in exchange for e.g. my body parts. Why are we willing to ban that but not our data? Because if you were to run a survey over the general population the large majority is fine not having to pay for gmail, google search, maps and other "free" services while some data may be collected doing so while a much smaller percentage thinks it's OK to sell the…
This is your opinion, unless you actually did a survey of violating a citizens privacy by big tech. Have you?
Presumably you have? Do share!
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you approve of a law which forbade advertising of any sort? No. People are entitled to speech. > Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free? No. Making money is Virtuous and Good. Acquiring money by theft, deceit, etc is not. > Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free? No. Charity is fine. In the cases peop…
> > Would you approve of a law forbidding the use of cameras in public places? > This one is difficult. At any earlier time, no. I suspect the best solution here is laws around how the data from public cameras is stored and processed. Cameras that store a temporary loop of data, delete it after a day or two, and don't upload that data to the cloud are one thing. Cameras that upload every image to the cloud for perman…
Surveillance cameras could really use a PCI-type compliance regime. Data must be stored encrypted at rest, intranets must be segregated from the broader web, etc. It isn't perfect but it's better than nothing.
Re: Silicon Valley is terrified of California’s privacy law
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Consumers can opt out of their data being sold, and businesses can’t retaliate by changing the price or level of service. This is something I object to. It's just fundamentally stupid and doesn't make sense. The entire premise of free exchange is that I give you my services in exchange for something of value of yours. Making it illegal to withhold services if you don't give up your data is crazy. The only reason…
You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do (or reenable data sharing). That way it feels more tra…
>You just have to change the onboarding process to include a fee, and offer an incentive/rebate of the subscription price to match the cost to basically make it free. That way if they decide to change their mind and not give their data, you're still in the clear by removing the incentive and either charge their payment method or disable their service until they do.
What's the practical difference between these two scenarios?
1) I offer a free service if you let me collect your data, but charge you $3/mo if you refuse to let me collect it.
2) I offer a $3/mo service, but give you $3/mo back if you let me collect your data.
Option #1 is explicitly illegal under the new California law. If option #2 is legal, then what is the law supposed to ban?