41–50 of 148 posts
So, instead you buy a "custom computer", and the data is completely free! Its like how FLOCK gets around pesky data laws. The devices coat a lot, but the software dashboard access is "Completely free*"
Is that what Flock does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems you missed that part that DOES hurt us: > Exchanging private and personal user data without consent and without users being aware of it
This information allows other companies to make more informed decisions. Other companies making better decisions doesn't "hurt us".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Exchanging private and personal user data without consent and without users being aware of it, for their profits.
It’s important to understand that in the USA, data is owned by the collector (eg. The app or SaaS who generated it), not the person who is described by it. Until this legal regime changes, we will constantly be playing whack-a-mole with laws like this.
If it's more similar to the California law, which just calls all uses of data "selling data" and just ends up muddying the waters without actually imposing any regulations of value on the bad actors in the industry, then that would be a shame.
There is value to actually keeping the meaning of words clear and consistent. I have no issues with Google using its first-party Google Maps data to serve me better recommendations. I have massive issues with AT&T selling aggregated geolocation data that makes it easy to identify individuals to third parties. I hope this is a clear path towards banning the latter without touching the former.
NYTimes article a few years ago on how car insurance companies were using such data. Tracking sudden stoos, driving at night, driving faster than 80 mph, etc.
What is the rationale for going to the trouble of such a law but only banning sale, rather than all sharing?
Third party commercial entities like cell providers are collecting and sharing it out of necessity but I’m guessing not selling it?
But that opens an interesting loop hole it seems where you could open a share agreement and then through other mechanisms recover the fee you’d otherwise charge for.
Provider A wants to sell data to provider B and provider B wants to buy from provider A but they legally can’t. So instead provider A just tucks the cost in some other unrelated contract with provider B with a wink wink, handshake, nod, their “relationship” then just makes them want to share the data at “no charge.” Both know the fees are tucked in other agreements, although only provider A knows the itemized cost, provider B just wonders if the cost of the other package + their friendship handshake sharing of geolocation data is worth that total cost.
To be fair, until money comes into play people tend to be less nefarious about their uses of information and intentions. Not always, but on average.
Given the actual informed and uncoerced choice, people say no to this kind of collection and especially its sale or use for any purpose other than the explicit service they thought they were allowing it for (navigation, setting the time, etc etc). This is true for basically all information collected. I'm glad to see there is some minor protection language being included but it needs to have real teeth and get to the…
NYTimes article a few years ago on how car insurance companies were using such data. Tracking sudden stoos, driving at night, driving faster than 80 mph, etc.
Aren't those collected consensually (and pretty explicitly) as part of insurance programs?