Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the downvotes? The point is legitimate. Not everyone would be able to afford to pay for something like this.
Not everyone can afford a BMW. Is that fair?
Privacy is (or at least should be) a right. BMWs aren't.
Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
41–50 of 133 posts
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but if/when word got out that this was occurring, an arbitrage opportunity would be available. Unless it were only a very marginal amount cheaper that would not cover the cost of arbitrage.
I got news for you, this already happens all the time, without nominally different pricing, just pricing for different SKUs. The arbitrage is realized by producers.
Yeah. And the rich don’t mind, because status signaling is a a thing.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#43Have never understood EFF's objection to 'pay for privacy' (covered in the middle of this article). Being able to pay for privacy is better than not being able to. It creates the beginning of accountability for cos and optionality for users.
How can that kind of inequality look like justice to anyone other than someone very economically privileged ?
[deleted]
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#44Don't we already put a price on freedom of speech? Isn't that what an non-disclosure agreement is?
No.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#45I was thinking about a related idea recently - how much is my grocery information privacy worth for me? Summed up, I'm currently saving just over 11% on all the groceries + ~7% on fuel cost by sharing that information with 5 companies. (car insurance, CC, shop card, honey, airline) I'm not attached to this, I'd rather the programs like this get destroyed. But also by stacking the offers, I believe I'm getting more va…
> But also by stacking the offers, I believe I'm getting more value here than they do.
Your data is valuable not just for the immediate value that its used for (e.g. grocery stores predicting how much they need to restock of product X aggregating over consumer choices of all users). Its also useful as a data point in larger statistical analysis of an "audience" (i.e. a group of people with certain attributes) to marketing organizations. Every datum that they get makes their models somewhat more accurate.
Most of these analysis are still pretty primitive today (AFAIK, maybe someone from the NSA or G00G can say otherwise). But these tools are getting better every year, and so is the value of your data.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#46> In truth, the data dividend scheme hurts consumers, benefits companies, and frames privacy as a commodity rather than a right. Privacy should be a right but it isn’t. At this moment privacy is very much a commodity or else we wouldn’t need articles like these.
I'm less concerned with privacy as an individual right (though I do support that), than privacy as a collective right: the balance of power between governments and citizens, and between corporations and consumers.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#47Have never understood EFF's objection to 'pay for privacy' (covered in the middle of this article). Being able to pay for privacy is better than not being able to. It creates the beginning of accountability for cos and optionality for users.
Should something like privacy be up for sale to begin with? We as consumers never really got the choice to decide. The internet age quickly arrived and our privacy became a commodity to be glossed over in private policies.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#48> It’s also why we advocate strongly for laws that make privacy the default I always wonder: didn't this use to be the case? In the 80s, could we even imagine a telco listening in on our conversations? When did things go sideways?
Well, I don't want to blame it all on 9/11, but it certainly didn't help.
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#49[deleted]
Re: Why Getting Paid for Your Data Is a Bad Deal
#50> It’s also why we advocate strongly for laws that make privacy the default I always wonder: didn't this use to be the case? In the 80s, could we even imagine a telco listening in on our conversations? When did things go sideways?
Earlier than that it was normal, operators could listen to anything. My grandparents had a shared line with a few dozen houses so only one person could use it at a time, and you could join the call with anyone.
Your grandparents had the expectation that other people would listen at any time, so they would self censor as needed.
Your grandparents also received a direct benefit in the form of a more affordable land line. Presumably, if they were wealthy enough to pay for a dedicated line, they had they choice to go one way or another.