101–110 of 133 posts
Don't we already put a price on freedom of speech? Isn't that what an non-disclosure agreement is?
I don't understand where this massive misconception about freedom of speech is coming from; probably the phrase itself.
I refuse to give my mobile number at grocery stores though they tempt me with offers/discounts :)
Anyway, there's one supermarket here with a loyalty card program (instead of an 'anonymous' discount / deal-of-the-week scheme), you get the card for free and it Just Works, and they ask you to register but it's not mandatory.
Doesn't matter that much to them; while they do not have your details to e-mail you offers and the like, they still have a user profile, a unique number where they log all the purchases to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because privacy is a right. And being bribed into giving it up is not a solution.
Does the right to bear arms mean that someone should give you a gun for free? Whether it's a right has nothing to do with whether you have to pay for it.
I wonder if people would accept to have to give up a gun they already had and then get paid to not have one anymore, while they have a right to have a gun.
TLDR: companies will likely shaft you as the market value for your individual dataset isn't that much, companies derive value by aggregating data over a large number of consumers.
By why is our data valued or priced at the individual level rather than the profit it generates the company in aggregate?
Actually it probably isn't, given the data hoarding likes of internet companies, but it's the line they will push.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, show me one constitution which declares "happiness" as right?
the american i think
I 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…
I don’t really see how you think you’re winning when constrasting how those deals are driven, and ignore deflation of your buying power to prop up the wealth of the gerontocracy monopolizing it
Glad you got a couple bucks off groceries last month. Your count every nickle and dime ways sure are inspired
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for providing an actual, tangible downside to this. I've never really seen one before. So many articles like this end up with people coming up with scenarios like "But what if there's a dictator and he wants to round up everyone who bought a 12-pack of Charmin' last week?" It would be interesting to see the arms race that could arise, though. If individualized prices became enough of a thing, there would pr…
>there would probably be personal shoppers who would buy things for you at a lower price with their "poor person" data profile and pocket a percentage of the difference See...there's always someone that can come up with an even more awful scenario. I'd never even thought of such a thing...but that really doesn't sound too far fetched. I guess it would create a new little economy, but i dunno, these things always remi…
Adam Smith only mentions markets in terms of free labor market
A new little economy, a niche for someone to work on something.
Later he warned against such granular role. Writing such deep division of labor would make humans as dumb a creature of possible. He also suggested protection of equality of condition to avoid monopolizing behavior would be required to control aristocracy
But that part of the story is omitted for “find a widget you like making and stick to it forever.” Easier to keep people in their box if they just stick to being some normalized role.
Of course this made perfect sense to aristocrats whose normalized role was handed to them by deity or unethical law protecting fruits of violent conquest, but whatever, got my iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you like....or should have according to them. Already i've read things about hotel websites and stuff altering prices based on which device you're using to browse their site. In a world where your personal shopping information is bought and sold and things become in…
> Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you like....or should have according to them. If anything, prices would rise for richer people, and decline for poorer people. Is that bad?
This is just a bunch of falsehoods > You wouldn’t place a price tag on your freedom to speak. We shouldn’t place one on our privacy, either. You do place a price tag on a lot of your freedoms, that's what your employers pay you for. And it's not like people are going to be forced to give their data, or even forced to give all of their data, it's entirely voluntary. We either put a price tag on all user-generated cont…
TLDR: Bookkeeping is hard, so only reasonable option is the honor system.
Good grief.
EFF, ACLU, others frustrate me to no end. I just cannot grok their viewpoints. Establishment centrists trying to defend an imaginary world that never existed?
I was an election integrity activist. I had also implemented electronic medical record exchanges. So I know a few things about patient and voter privacy. My discussions with policy people have never been fruitful.
We have no privacy. That's not the interesting part.
The interesting part:
What is privacy?
What are the technically feasible options?
What are the laws and practices to uphold those feasible privacy solutions?
In my experience, the privacy advocates are completely out of touch with the technical reality. (I'll skim read the datadividends.org link below shorty, to see if they're more savvy.)
--
Putting a price on our data has two consequences.
It establishes our personal property rights over our own data. It's my data.
It creates a liability for the holders of data. Paving the way for tort. Language that accountants and lawyers and investors and even congress critters understand.
Putting a price on my data is not about the money. Well, maybe a little. Any one making a buck off my data owes me my cut. Pay me.
--
Property rights for personal data still don't answer those three interesting questions. That's a separate discussion.
Very nice article! Last year I was part of a working group on a data dividend proposal for the state of California, which you can read about at https://www.datadividends.org/ . Our conclusions led us much closer to the spirit of this EFF article than the term "data dividends" might suggest. We recommended against any kind of personalized payments. We considered a small universal basic income funded by a "data tax", b…
I whole heartedly support repeated radical cashectomies targeting the windfall profits of the data pirates.
However...
The structure of Canada's carbon dividend serves to disincentivize an undesired behavior. It's a no brainer win/win policy.
I cannot see how California's data dividend does the same for our privacy. That (negative) feedback loop is missing.
It's an interesting strategy. But I think it needs more work.