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

California governor proposes data dividend

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#11

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nkrisc wrote: post #9

Good idea, bad implementation. This will legitimize and validate the data collection and nothing else will change. Will there be even less incentive for companies to secure the data they're collecting because we'd already have been paid for it? What should be targeted is how this data is: collected, secured, and used. Throwing a few dollars our way each year solves nothing.

> This will legitimize and validate the data collection

Such data collection practices are core to the business models of some of the most valuable companies on the planet. "Google does it" provides far more social proof for diluting one's users' privacy than "a California digital privacy law acknowledges it exists."

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#12

Post by wastedhours »

ckastner wrote: post #10

> “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data,” Newsom said from the State Capitol in Sacramento. This is such an odd sentence to read, post-GDPR, because it sounds as if consumers have no idea what their data is being used for, and/or have no control over how it's processed, and just have to subject themselves to it. The GDPR literally starts off by recognizing…

> post-GDPR

As pervasive as the GDPR is, a Californian in California isn't subject to it, and outside of people interested in tech, would make an assumption they probably know little about it?

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#14

Post by cobookman »

velcrovan wrote: post #3

Four years ago I wrote about requiring companies to pass along x% of targeted ad revenue sales to the users: https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-change I still think this is a good strategy for the purpose of snuffing out the incentives for surveillance business models.

We do get x% of targeted ad rev. just isn't passed as USD, and instead paid by giving a free product.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#15

Post by gnode »

I think morally it's the wrong direction, much like paying a dividend to victims of a polluting chemical factory to offset their deleterious health effects.

That said, putting a price on data may be what it takes to make companies take privacy and security seriously, simply because it might make it easier to argue standing in a lawsuit where data is leaked or mishandled. Similarly, putting a price on life seems insensitive, but wrongful death lawsuits motivate safety concerns.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#16

Post by ckastner »

wastedhours wrote: post #12
ckastner wrote: post #10

> “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data,” Newsom said from the State Capitol in Sacramento. This is such an odd sentence to read, post-GDPR, because it sounds as if consumers have no idea what their data is being used for, and/or have no control over how it's processed, and just have to subject themselves to it. The GDPR literally starts off by recognizing…

> post-GDPR As pervasive as the GDPR is, a Californian in California isn't subject to it, and outside of people interested in tech, would make an assumption they probably know little about it?

I think you misunderstood my point, which was that we're clearly seeing a massive global trend towards privacy and rights thereto. The GDPR is a manifestation of this trend, and has further sensitized consumers.

Cambridge Analytics happened at a time when neither processors nor consumers were yet very sensitive to the topic of privacy. This has changed dramatically, and the GDPR is not the cause thereof, but a consequence thereof.

Of course the GDPR is not binding in California, but it should be at least thought-provoking in California.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#17

Post by JustSomeNobody »

cobookman wrote: post #14
velcrovan wrote: post #3

Four years ago I wrote about requiring companies to pass along x% of targeted ad revenue sales to the users: https://thelocalyarn.com/article/judicious-change I still think this is a good strategy for the purpose of snuffing out the incentives for surveillance business models.

We do get x% of targeted ad rev. just isn't passed as USD, and instead paid by giving a free product.

Exactly. Your data is a currency. You spend it at FaceBook. You spend it at Google.

What I think should happen is, there should be some protections regarding our data. I should be able to say, ok, FaceBook, I wish to no longer use your services so you need to stop billing me (collecting my data).

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#18

Post by yumraj »

I agree with a lot of posts below. However, my absolutely biggest worry is that it will allow these companies to get even more personally identifying information about the user than they probably have today since they will have to compensate them monetarily.

For example, they will/may start asking for address, phone number, real DoB and SSN for tax reporting purposes since this would be an income. If I have multiple gmail/FB/... accounts I may have to drop some or provide the same information for those, basically removing any doubt that I'm the owner of those and so and so forth.

Moreover, since this won't be limited to Google & FB, almost any service which collects data, which would be everyone, would potentially have to ask you for this information before they let you create an account. It may lead to the complete loss of anonymity on the Internet.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#19

Post by gabbygab »

This isn't a new idea and though it is interesting and has good intentions, it doesn't solve the problem. As others have pointed out, this will encourage more data collection and less privacy. The exact opposite of what we want. Also, the users are already paid with free service.

The problem is that people value the free service more than their data. And companies value the data more than they value the service.

The tech and hacker community might value our data and privacy more than the service, but that's clearly not the case with most people.

Imagine if there was a company FaceTome that provides the exact same service FaceBook does. But FaceTome charged you a dollar for month and collect no data while FaceBook charges you nothing but collects your data. I guarantee you that most people would use FaceBook and FaceTome will go out of business as most people simply don't care about their data or privacy.

Re: California governor proposes data dividend

#20

Post by ilovecaching »

Honestly this is just political blame shifting, virtue signaling, and more empty promises of handouts in the face of California's disastrous finances. California takes more taxes than practically any other state to fund failed infrastructure projects, all the while allowing sky high rents in the SF, LA, and SD areas because the government is locked down by rich landlords protecting their investments. Not to mention the price hikes on toll roads, county sales taxes, and general cost of living while homelessness is still rampant. Our greatest achievement is still an underwater tunnel built in the 70s. I want to see Gavin do something to change California first.

Users are already getting value for their data - the product showing the ads. People have a choice in whether they want to use gmail and get a free best-in-class email client, backend storage, and worldwide access to their email. The trade is that they're participating in an ad platform that is required to build this infrastructure that is on a never before seen in the history of humanity scale. Of course Americans and Europeans think it's totally fine to charge a five to ten bucks a month for a service like that, even when it would mean forcing the growing lower classes, second and third world countries, and the tech illiterate to use unsafe and frankly dangerous alternatives. Ads are a communal investment that allows us to provide services to people who can't afford those services.

Post reply on HN