271–280 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you successfully gotten Google or Facebook or your doctor to purge your records in Switzerland?
Are you suggesting some corporations have become more powerful than our lawfully elected governments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the cost of disclosure was a dollar a user there's pretty much no way we'd see them voluntarily tell us they were hacked. We'd have to wait until the information got out some other way.
Not a perfect solution, but sure. "You're the weakest link - goodbye!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the black market as a standard, your identity-related information isn't worth enough to be taxable.[0][1][2] The more common data you give away is worth even less. Your "gift" is akin to giving away a few grains of sand to a glassmaker who provides a free grain counting service. Now let's say you dumped a lot sand that we could value at $10K. Any smart sand-counting glassmaker will claim his once "free" sand co…
Value is derived from user data when its used to target ads. Black market data is never used for that purpose, so its value is much lower. (A company would never take the risk of using black market data)
It's kind of like arguing a bank would never create fake accounts because the risk of doing so is too large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. User information here means information denoting a user not information from a user.
That's dangerous schematic games along the same lines of "Metadata is harmless and can't identify anybody". Emails can sometimes contain very detailed and very denoting user information. Trying to differentiate between users "personal information" and users "personal content" is imho a rather dangerous thing to do because who decides where to draw the lines between the two? As a user, I expect my data, regardless of…
That's a complete strawman argument that has nothing to do with what I wrote. The distinction is correct and factual in this exact situation. You are attempting to redefine terms for apparently no reason other than to argue.
Whether emails contain detailed information or not is irrelevant to the term "user information" in this context, meaning information about a user. The discussion is about whether an email service requires personal information to operate.
> As a user, I expect my data, regardless of which data, to stay private unless I explicitly intent to publish it to the public or somebody else. I most certainly do not expect some employees reading through my private emails for their lunch-break entertainment.
In the real-world, you either need to change your expectations or encrypt your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like data in general, user data is essentially worthless until aggregated en masse and refined into insights. But when you consider how much data companies are hoarding, it doesn't take much of an assessed value to create a nontrivial taxable asset. Also, it doesn't matter that there's an exchange happening. Sales tax and income tax are assessed on fair exchanges of goods, services, and currency.
Sales tax isn't paid on trades. When you trade in a car for $2k off a $10k car, you only pay taxes on the difference: $8k. And if you grow oranges on your property that you never sell, you never pay taxes on those oranges.
If you accept a trade-in on the sale of a vehicle, the allowance for the trade-in cannot be excluded from the amount on which tax is based.
For example, if you sell a car for $20,000 and accept a trade-in valued at $4,000 as partial payment, tax is based on the $20,000 selling price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sales tax isn't paid on trades. When you trade in a car for $2k off a $10k car, you only pay taxes on the difference: $8k. And if you grow oranges on your property that you never sell, you never pay taxes on those oranges.
Not in California. If you accept a trade-in on the sale of a vehicle, the allowance for the trade-in cannot be excluded from the amount on which tax is based. For example, if you sell a car for $20,000 and accept a trade-in valued at $4,000 as partial payment, tax is based on the $20,000 selling price. Source: http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub34.pdf
3 billion - we live in an age where half the population of the earth can exist on a service, and everyone is vulnerable. Yes, a good chunk of these are probably duplicates for business / spam / anon accounts, but this is where the world is trending. How long is it until facebook or google have a massive breach?
EDIT: Or maybe not "no one is "vulnerable", but just that everyone's information is assumed compromised and our current societal infrastructure accounts for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like data in general, user data is essentially worthless until aggregated en masse and refined into insights. But when you consider how much data companies are hoarding, it doesn't take much of an assessed value to create a nontrivial taxable asset. Also, it doesn't matter that there's an exchange happening. Sales tax and income tax are assessed on fair exchanges of goods, services, and currency.
Sales tax isn't paid on trades. When you trade in a car for $2k off a $10k car, you only pay taxes on the difference: $8k. And if you grow oranges on your property that you never sell, you never pay taxes on those oranges.
Still though, the example is a good one. You're trading your data for a service. There isn't anything to tax.